Re: Re[2]: OT- Dell Dimension, Celeron vs Pentium 4

["RB" <rhodes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 With everything else equal.  I'll take AMD anytime over Intell.  Always 
have.  Apples to Apples they are equal to better.  Most tests will show it. 
Will admit though that a user will amost NEVER be able to tell the 
difference, with everything else equal.
The only problem AMD has had is that some computer builders will not put 
apples to apples.  Since the AMD chip is usually cheaper, some builders will 
go with a smaller hard drive or lower RPM hard drive or other things that 
are cheaper in the AMD systems.  To make the wholes computer system cheaper 
when comparing.
And that has probably hurt AMD over the years.
Money talks, and that is the way it is.  I get my systems built the way I 
want them. so I don't have that trouble.

1. Brian Valentine at Microsoft, said that it and AMD planned the 
introduction of the 64-bit processor family right from the start of the 
project.
Valentine said that his company will offer Windows Server 2003 with built in 
support for AMD. AMD and Microsoft had been in together on the development 
of a 64-bit processor.

Microsoft liked the idea of 64-bit computing being backward compatible with 
32 bit applications, at a low cost, he claimed, and closely collaborated on 
its development.

 More positive support for AMD came from a number of leading software 
vendors, including Microsoft, Mandrakesoft, SuSE Linux, Oracle and others 
joining in the party.

2. Microsoft senior VP Bob Muglia has revealed that the software giant 
believes not only that there are differences between iAMD64 and Intel's 
EM64T but that the former is better than the latter.

3.. Athlon64 processors with support from Microsoft, and even apparently 
its thorough endorsement, will put some serious pressure on Intel to 
re-examine its desktop 64-bit strategy.  Microsoft's endorsement of an 
X86-64 version of Windows and the fact it appears to consider AMD chips are 
highly compatible with 32-bit platforms, means Intel may find itself left on 
a 64-bit island.

4.  Microsoft's SQL Server 2005 database has reached the plebs in the form 
of a beta 2 release that includes, among other things, support for AMD's 
Opteron processor but not for Intel's similar 64-bit Xeon chip.
 Microsoft highlighted the support for Opteron as one of the major new 
features in the second beta.                   "As enterprises transition 
from 32- to 64-bit computing, they need the smooth migration path to 64-bit 
computing that AMD64 provides


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Bailey" <baileyp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ivo Karindi" <ivo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:45 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: OT- Dell Dimension, Celeron vs Pentium 4


> Ivo,
>
> I will answer you because you are a courteous individual, not like Coaster
> who must work as a hypster on
> Yahoo Amd, lol. I only wanted to add balance to the conversation given my
> Mfg Eng experience and insight
> into electronic equipment and components. Trading with TS is more 
> demanding
> than anything I know of
> barring 3-D CIMS and discrete event simulation, and I didn't want to get
> traders hopes up on $400 will cover it
> all. Just the nightmare of software, drivers, and workstation components
> every year would drive me
> away from updates every year. Its a nightmare getting everything working
> like it should. And its a
> big minus 'hoping' Msft will address Amd support which they have not done 
> so
> to date. If you have an Amd
> working fine, you aren't going to improve on speed significantly from an
> update, they are fast enough;
> just going to have unneeded cost and aggravation for an 64 bit product 
> that
> doesn't YET have an operating
> system tailored to the chipset (on Msft Site I could not find anything
> related to Amd, and just assume
> Intel will be supported as history indicates). The main bottleneck is the
> bus, and putting a bigger bus on it will not get
> it done: you need the whole hardware configuration designed specifically 
> for
> it (no Coaster, they are not all the same).
> DDR is an inbreed cousin of RDRAM and SDRAM: more problems than SDRAM and 
> a
> minority of benefits of RDRAM.
> Yes Intel is screwing the pooch, with DDR and 64 bit: its cheaper, more
> profit, and upgrades every year.
> They are just following Amd, Micron, etc.. lead of getting rid of obsolete
> inventory.
>
>
> Here's your items as requested I assume (last response from me):
> 1. As mentioned above, Msft 64bit don't mention Amd and if so, direct me 
> to
> that specific link.
> 64 bit chipsets is what they design the software to. Intel has the best 
> cpu
> engineers in the world and
> Msft has 100% designed for them to date: which one do you think they will
> design it for?
> There is nothing I have seen to indicate otherwise.
>
> 2. SP 2 is a bugger for sure. One thing for sure is you will have to 
> upgrade
> video drivers, the heart of OS.
> I don't know about Pentium M or DDR in fact. There are two many variables 
> in
> PC's today to make a judgement.
> It sounds like a critical driver needs updating.
>
> 3. RDRAM I know were run at half processor speed. Maybe it was marketing 
> to
> better dispose of obsolete inventory.
> But reliability and heat dissipation have always been a critical factor
> Intel has addressed through intricate design.
> Historically, that's why businesses and people who own their own
> traditionally buy Intel. It works.
> It doesn't overheat. If enough Ram is supplied, it doesn't repeatedly 
> crash.
> Its a consistant reliable serviceable
> machine you can depend on. And that is a little more important than a 1990
> Quake test speed: especially for a trader.
>
> 4. Think again. a pair (2 EA) of Dual 2.8GHz (5.6 GHz), 4GB 40ns RDRAM, 
> Dual
> 15K Cheetah Scsi Raid O w/320 bps Adaptec controller,
> Various Matrox 32bit digital cards from 8 independent 32mb sources(450MMS,
> 450G, 550G). Until the Rambus suits are settled, nothing made
> has the 'architecture' to best it presently. Maybe 5 years give or take a
> couple, and it will come from Rambus/Intel most likely
> if their patents don't get raped.
>
> 5. See above. No, but my first 2 lasted 9 yrs (Mac SE) and 4 yrs (Compaq 
> WS
> 6000 Professional PII) years. There's no reason this couldn't
> last for 10 even if its not the best (but it is now, lol).
>
>
> Finally, I think Amd's are wonderfully efficient. And if a trader can get 
> it
> set up correctly, fantastic. They are fast.
> But there are more factors to consider in a qualtitative assessment for a
> critical purchase your livelihood depends on.
> There's enough variables with dsl, phone lines, software, hardware
> compatibility/components, drivers, data feed, etc...
> without worrying about if an operating system will ever be designed for 
> your
> machine. That's the main thing!
> Win XP Pro will fly, but everything has to be right. And 64 bit 
> performance
> will only significantly improve
> products like multiple (>2) processor servers. There are many bottlenecks 
> in
> a pc which would eclipse this factor,
> like the bus architecture is the main one.
>
> Ivo, I hope no offense is taken with you or anyone who owns Amd (like
> Jimmy). There are positive and negative benefits
> to every decision. There are no easy decisions today, especially for a
> pc/workstation buyer.
> But you may be right, wait for your first million dollars before you
> consider anything else!
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Phil
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ivo Karindi [mailto:ivo@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 12:04 PM
> > To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx; Phil Bailey
> > Subject: Re[2]: OT- Dell Dimension, Celeron vs Pentium 4
> >
> >
> > Hello Phil,
> >
> > Thursday, October 28, 2004, 4:49:27 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > PB> "Plus they are ready for windows 64 bit os which is in
> > PB> beta now."
> >
> > PB> Got an applicable link for that, other than an unspecified source
> > PB> from an Amd sponsered tech link?
> >
> > Here, all ready for download:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx
> >
> > PB> The only way that would happen is if INTC comes out with 64 bit,
> > PB> but it is not needed, and it would not be an architecture like
> > PB> Amd.
> >
> > After initially putting down AMD for their 64-bit processors and
> > telling the world that 64-bit is not needed, Intel suddenly, about a
> > year ago, came out with their own design (?) claiming that they were
> > the first bringing out this technology!!! (notice the similarity to
> > VP-talk?) However, try to go and buy a single 64-bit desktop processor
> > from Intel - they are far from being actually ready with this, and are
> > nowhere to be found!
> >
> > PB> In fact most all Amd's have some incompatibilities with WinXP
> > PB> SP2.
> >
> > I have experianced precisely none with any of our AMD cpu-s, but my
> > Pentium M laptop started experiencing occasional blue screens after
> > SP2 install.
> >
> > PB> Basically you're buying old Athlon 32 bit technology from years
> > PB> back. It is fast for its size, but the processor is gated 0%,
> > PB> where as Intc gate their processors 50% for reliabilty and heat
> > PB> reduction.
> >
> > Now can you back *this* up with a link or something?  Never heard of
> > anything like that.  Again, sounds like elections...
> >
> > PB> So if you're low on funds and need power, its hard to beat. Many
> > PB> traders like Amd. I don't like the ddr crap either, but my dual
> > PB> Xeon RDRAM loaded workstations should do well for years to come in
> > PB> performance and reliability. But personally, I'd get the best Intc
> > PB> you could get.
> >
> > If you think that your trading and software setup is set and is not
> > going to evolve over the years to come, that's just pefect. However,
> > traders who want to evolve with their trading know that more and more
> > resources are needed to evolve. Even with TS, it's possible to do more
> > with a more powerful cpu. If someone thinks that investing $8000 in
> > hardware for the next 5 years will keep them on the cutting edge,
> > he/she is totally wrong in today's environment of ever-increasing
> > speed of technological progress. Small $500-$1000/year investments on
> > upgrades are the only answer to keep you close to the cutting edge,
> > unless you absolutely don't care being there. The dual Xenons are
> > worth next to nothing in 3 years although at present this may sound
> > impressive to superficially inclined.
> >
> > PB> But look very hard so you don't have to keep buying and upgrading
> > PB> frequently.
> >
> > My thinking in this regard is precisely the opposite - it's not
> > possible to make a one-time investment in computer technology for the
> > rest of your life; the situation is *very* different from buying a
> > house. Rather than spending $5000 for a cutting-edge new system now, I
> > would spend it in $200-$500 increments over the next years, and by
> > doing so keep myself much closer to the edge in technology. But that's
> > just me and opinions obviously differ.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Ivo Karindi