Youngfag here(over 18) who didn't get into computers until late in my life.
Can we talk about major events in the history of computers and how they went down, and your thoughts at the time?
Things like the first dual core processors, which I actually do remember a little about.
AMD buying ATI, Nvidia buying 3dfx, cyrix dying, the Athlon xp, the slow decline of VIA, etc
I'd love to learn more about these things while seeing it from other perspectives.
Cheers Sup Forums
Bump
>2000 something
>Intel releases Pentium 4
>HYBERBIBELINE!!!!
>slow and hot piece of shit
>AMD releases Athlon 64, alongside AMD64
>it's faster and more efficient than P4
>Intel shits their pants
>CLOCK P4 EVEN HIGHER
>it's still a huge piece of shit
>plan Tejas and Jayhawk
>how do we processor
>P4 WITH EVEN MORE PIPELINE!
>P4 now features a 50 stage pipeline
>it's even worse than Netburst P4
>Intel realizes they can't compete
>bribe OEMs to not use AMD CPUs
>AMD can't make monies, even though they clearly have the better CPU
>AMD missmanages itself to hell on top of that
>lose their best engineers
>do nothing but shrink K8 cores and add a few buzzwords
>GUYS WE NEED NEW CPU
>let's just make 1 core and call it two
>brilliant
>Bulldozer gets released
>it's P4 all over again
>AMD has no money, so can't bribe OEMs
>die a slow and agonizing death
Yeah I get that part, I was looking more for people's thoughts on those events as they were occurring.
>Can we talk about major events in the history
Amiga 500.
Aight imma tell u appel vs pc
>68040 is much faster than a 486
>pentium is much faster than 68040
>powerpc is slightly faster than pentium
>pentium 3 is slightly faster than ppc g3
>ppc g4 is much faster than pentium4
Do u understand boy?
Pretty much the same as today.
Only that P4 was what Bulldozer is now.
Zen currently is pretty much the same hypetrain as Core2 was in the mid 2000s, so Core 2 was hailed as the saving grace for Intel.
The only really different thing is people wondering why Athlons never really took off outside of the enthusiast space, even though they were better in all regards.
Anything Commodore.
Damn yanks didn't know a good computer when they saw it.
Pentium 4s weren't hot before Prescott, so you clearly remember wrong. Willamette was kinda meh, but Northwood was amazing.
You are correct.
I was referring to Netburst P4
I wish today was like the late 80s to early 90s where cpus are much more varied... back then there was a dec alpha, 6502, sparc, z80, 68k and its successor for macs and intel's risc arch i860
Northwood was netburst, at that time the architecture had not exhausted it's potential for clocks. Northwood only did 3ghz. I think someone clocked one to like 7ghz tho. Maybe that was a Prescott.
I never knew Intel had a risc arch, all I knew was x86 and ia64.
IA64 was vliw, wasn't it?
>Tejas and Jayhawk
holy fuck
I did not know about this
50 stage pipeline
wtf were they thinking
Netburst was truly Intel's dumbest moment
Ia64 is only in itanium, it have massive performance improvement on maths and floating point ops, yet incur a significant performance penalty when running x86 instruction, which is literally every code used it, due to emulation instead of hardware based.
Intel iirc has two risc arch i860 and i960 (both are much faster than its x86 equivalent, the 486) but those are pretty much dead since intel clearly favoring its beloved x86 and spawn pentium which is even more faster than i960
People were obsessed with clock speeds, it's just marketing over practicality.
Northwood was shit.
I have a Northwood P4 system, and while it was kind of good at launch in 2002, as soon as the Athlon 64 came out (not even a year later) it was obsolete garbage.
I remember not being able to run shit half as well as my friends with AMD rigs. Morrowind was slow as balls on my system, but an A64 3200+ ran it well. And you could just forget about flight simulators, they ran like ass too.
The entire Netburst architecture should have been aborted at launch, when Intel should have noticed that PIII Tualatin was faster at lower clock speeds with lower power consumption.
Nope, they had dreams of 10GHz that never came to fruition.
>AMD once had a better line-up than Intel
>tfw Netburst was a complete disaster yet was still more successful than the old Athlon series
AMD has always had an issue with marketing, but the athlon xp was genius because of windows xp.
Intel just pulled a lot of nasty-ass shit. Bribing PC manufacturers, using misleading marketing, and then there's the infamous ICC compiler shenanigans.
Code generated by the Intel C Compiler (probably one of the most used compilers at the time) purposefully gimped the performance on non-Intel CPUs. When it would generate SSE/SSE2/SSE3 optimizations, instead of having the code use the CPUID instruction to check the feature bits for compatibility, it would just check if your CPU vendor string was "GenuineIntel". If so, it would take the optimized path. If not, it would take the unoptimized path, even if your AMD CPU supported SSE/SSE2/SSE3. Intel did get in a small amount of trouble for this, but it really just amounted to a slap on the wrist by the FTC.
I'd say almost all benchmark results from that era are suspect due to the above compiler bullshit.
LGA1156 was the last good Intel socket
It's as if cpu design was not stagnating back then.