| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/25/2006 7:59:47 AM | Exactly but yeah I still don't care If Intel is cheaper at the moment news to me..........
But I'm an AMD fan-boy and always will be period! | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/25/2006 12:32:31 PM | | Intel is price matching with amd these days so thats no longer much of an issue. I use amd not for the superior speed but for the fact that my 3800+ runs at 32 C with stock fan. where as a p4 3.0e for instance runs at 48c with liquid cooling..... That and pentium chips seem to have this overheating / speed issue. My last mobo and chip burned soooo i went amd ... uses less electricity to! | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/25/2006 2:11:30 PM | | Intel is the top dog right now, but that may change within the next year. AMD will be shipping out new chips called Fusion CPU's that combines ATI technology gpu's with AMD's technology of cpu's to create a whole njew diff type of processor. It's going to put AMD in a class of it's own until Intel comes up with something similiar. This is one of the reasons why you haven't seen a responce from AMD Since Intel debute it's Core 2 series, because it was keeping this info under wraps until now about their new product line of CPU's. | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/25/2006 9:55:14 PM |
Intel is the top dog right now, but that may change within the next year. AMD will be shipping out new chips called Fusion CPU's that combines ATI technology gpu's with AMD's technology of cpu's to create a whole njew diff type of processor. It's going to put AMD in a class of it's own until Intel comes up with something similiar. This is one of the reasons why you haven't seen a responce from AMD Since Intel debute it's Core 2 series, because it was keeping this info under wraps until now about their new product line of CPU's.
Firstly, the fushion that you speak of doesn't even have a working prototype yet, so I doubt it'll come out in the next year. Second, amd only just recently merged with ati I highly doubt they've been designing this together for a long time. Amd has hasn't responded to the core 2 duo because they haven't got much yet. They do have a new arch design that will be coming out in 2007, but they aren't ready with that yet. Amd is almost always late in countering intel's new stuff because they're a smaller company and thus is takes them more time to develope a new cpu design.
Intel is price matching with amd these days so thats no longer much of an issue. I use amd not for the superior speed but for the fact that my 3800+ runs at 32 C with stock fan. where as a p4 3.0e for instance runs at 48c with liquid cooling..... That and pentium chips seem to have this overheating / speed issue. My last mobo and chip burned soooo i went amd ... uses less electricity to!
Where the heck have you been hiding? The p4 3.0e is very very old in technology terms. Intel has released many new cpu revisions since then. Though, they did continue on the hot and power consuming thrend for as long as they released netburst (aka p4 architecture) based cpus. Their newer arch core (aka core 2 duo architecture) actually runs alot cooler than the p4 and consumes alot less power. The efficiency has even trumped amd's cpus, as the core based cpus run cooler and consume less power than amd's k8 (aka athlon64 architecture) based cpus. | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/26/2006 12:34:46 AM | AMD always, more bang for your buck even with core 2 duo. It is a simple marketing gimmick. a duo core running at 1.7 Ghz one would assume should be comparable to 3.4 Ghz ....... not so fast sparky, start ONE single large app on a 2.0 ghs amd and the 1.7 ghz core 2 duo and guess what you are away and working on the amd while the core 2 is still choking.
If you feel you really must open 1000 image files at once or 500 songs all at the same time, by all means get an intel, otherwise spend the smart money on an amd. | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/26/2006 12:54:18 AM |
AMD always, more bang for your buck even with core 2 duo. It is a simple marketing gimmick. a duo core running at 1.7 Ghz one would assume should be comparable to 3.4 Ghz ....... not so fast sparky, start ONE single large app on a 2.0 ghs amd and the 1.7 ghz core 2 duo and guess what you are away and working on the amd while the core 2 is still choking.
If you feel you really must open 1000 image files at once or 500 songs all at the same time, by all means get an intel, otherwise spend the smart money on an amd.
Have you honestly tried both systems, each with as much the same hardware as possible?
I'm pretty sure you haven't. One thing I do know for sure is that you are obviously a fanboy.
I'll tell you one thing, if you compare the core architecture to the k8 architecture, you'll find that while k8 has the upperhand in memory intensive apps due to it's ondie memory controller, core actually is more efficiently in it's over operations. This basically means that it does more work in one clock cycle than the k8. The two speeds for each architecture that you have mentioned would actually end up being about equal, due to the core architecture's slight upper hand in efficency. The core architecture currently is more bang for your buck than amd.
I'll give you an extra tidbit of information just because I'm a nice guy. Do you know what the core architecture is based on? The answer is the pentium M. Now, do you know what the pentium M is based on? The pentium III. Next, the K8 architecture. It's based on the K7 architecture. Now here's the fun part. Guess what the K7 was based on. Oh, surprise surprise, it's the pentium III!
So, the last paragraph shows you not just how big of a nerd I am, but also how K8 and core are actually very similar. The difference is that since intel was the original inventor of the pentium III architecture, they have been able to do alot better job of improving it than amd. I have absolutely no doubt that amd will come out with a new architecture of some kind to beat the core architecture, but right now intel is king of bang for your buck due to good pricing and a better architecture.
For those who need the info:
K8 = athlon64, athlon64 FX, athlon64 X2
core = core duo, core solo, core 2 duo
K7 = athlon 500MHz-1.4GHz, athlon XP
One last thing to say, opening 500 songs or 1000 images all at the same time would be more an exercise in how fast your hard drives are than how fast your cpu is.  | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/26/2006 10:07:55 AM |
One last thing to say, opening 500 songs or 1000 images all at the same time would be more an exercise in how fast your hard drives are than how fast your cpu is. that may well be yet then one has to ask why so many of the ads touting the intel chips use exactly these types of "benchmarks" that don't isolate the ability of the chip itself.
Still looking at amd chips you find a better speed on the "killer apps" vs intel, and the intel has an edge in multi threaded programs.
If you check into the amd plans on dual core technologies they clearly state they are going the opposite direction as intel. They want both working in conjuction as one single suoer fast cpu, where intel runs 2 separate slower cpu's ........ again a very simplified reason why the amd chips are faster unless you get into heavy hyper-threading. | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/26/2006 11:37:22 AM |
Firstly, the fushion that you speak of doesn't even have a working prototype yet, so I doubt it'll come out in the next year. Second, amd only just recently merged with ati I highly doubt they've been designing this together for a long time. Amd has hasn't responded to the core 2 duo because they haven't got much yet. They do have a new arch design that will be coming out in 2007, but they aren't ready with that yet. Amd is almost always late in countering intel's new stuff because they're a smaller company and thus is takes them more time to develope a new cpu design.
Well maybe you should read this before commenting on my post.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4696 | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/26/2006 3:50:06 PM |
that may well be yet then one has to ask why so many of the ads touting the intel chips use exactly these types of "benchmarks" that don't isolate the ability of the chip itself.
Still looking at amd chips you find a better speed on the "killer apps" vs intel, and the intel has an edge in multi threaded programs.
If you check into the amd plans on dual core technologies they clearly state they are going the opposite direction as intel. They want both working in conjuction as one single suoer fast cpu, where intel runs 2 separate slower cpu's ........ again a very simplified reason why the amd chips are faster unless you get into heavy hyper-threading.
I am well aware that they are going for that, but sadly none of thier current cpu designs are like that yet. Any dual core cpu, whether you buy from intel or amd is currently just 2 cpus that work seperately. It's funny that you mention it as hyper-threading, the word you're looking for is multitasking. Hyper-threading is an old technology used on the netburst based cpus (eg. P4, PD). What you're saying in your post is basically some old news. Amd used to be king of single threaded applications before the core based cpus were released. This was due to the much more efficient nature of amd's cpus compared to the P4 and PD. Intel was king of multitasking due to their hyper-threading technology, which was fairly impressive but didn't do as much as they claimed it would. Basically, the tables have turned since intel released their core based cpus. They are now the king of both single and multithreaded applications, can't be beat. That doesn't mean they'll always be king, with the next release from amd, the situation could change completely or it could stay exactly the same. We won't know until they release their new architecture.
I will tell you this though. As a hardware expert I realize that what amd is trying to do with their "reverse hyper-threading" (aka. 2 cpu cores working together on 1 task) is an engineering nightmare. I commend them for trying and if they are able to pull it off then they'll definetly be king of single threaded again. That is only if they can pull it off though.
Well maybe you should read this before commenting on my post.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4696
I apologize for the mix up, with all the new technologies being annouced these days I sometimes get the names mixed up.
Anyway, to make a comment on that properly. It's not a new type of cpu that they're making. It's simply just an ondie gpu, so to speak. All that means is that you'll be able to have cheaper low end motherboards because the video chipset will be on the cpu instead of on the motherboard. It doesn't give amd any advantage in terms of cpu performance or gpu performance. Basically, it's something that advanced pc users won't care about but server farmers and low end pc makers definetly will. It's also good for the low to mid range laptop market. I will repeat that this doesn't give amd any advantage at all in terms of cpu performance. Fushion definetly is not amd's response to intel's core architecture. They have something a fair bit better in store for intel. Let's hope they beat intel so that competition will continue fiercely. | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/26/2006 8:03:07 PM |
that may well be yet then one has to ask why so many of the ads touting the intel chips use exactly these types of "benchmarks" that don't isolate the ability of the chip itself.
Still looking at amd chips you find a better speed on the "killer apps" vs intel, and the intel has an edge in multi threaded programs.
If you check into the amd plans on dual core technologies they clearly state they are going the opposite direction as intel. They want both working in conjuction as one single suoer fast cpu, where intel runs 2 separate slower cpu's ........ again a very simplified reason why the amd chips are faster unless you get into heavy hyper-threading.
why not cehck the benchmarks yourself. Intel comes out first. Even the entry level Core2 duos can compete with the top of the line AMD's and many times beat them.
price vs performance. intel is actually better than AMD right now.
Besides.. last time i checked most poeple's taskbar there was more than 1 program running. Multi tasking is the way of hte future since most people always run more than one program at the same time. May it be a virus checker, spyware sweeper, internet explorer, burning cd's all at the same time.
tomshardware is fairly well known as being very good with their testing.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=433&model2=486&chart=174 | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/26/2006 8:33:15 PM | Intel has the Edge on all apps multi-threaded and single-threaded programs with their Core 2 Duo. Unlike AMD's X2's the Core 2 duo can run single threaded apps like a single core processor, because it will automaticly disable one Core. The AMD X2's can't both cores are running all the time.
The Core 2 duo has AMD's X2 number in all areas. Go to www.tomshardware.com one ofthe best pc review sites on the net. They even have the mother of cpu charts in their cpu section where you can select 2 cpus and select a program for their big list of benchmarks and it shows you their benchmark overall vs each other. | |
|
| |
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/26/2006 10:23:45 PM |
Intel has the Edge on all apps multi-threaded and single-threaded programs with their Core 2 Duo. Unlike AMD's X2's the Core 2 duo can run single threaded apps like a single core processor, because it will automaticly disable one Core. The AMD X2's can't both cores are running all the time.
The Core 2 duo has AMD's X2 number in all areas. Go to www.tomshardware.com one ofthe best pc review sites on the net. They even have the mother of cpu charts in their cpu section where you can select 2 cpus and select a program for their big list of benchmarks and it shows you their benchmark overall vs each other.
Let's make some corrections here. The X2 and the core 2 duo both run single threaded apps like a single core processor. Infact, there is no other way to do it, so your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The part about disabling one core is a power saving feature, it's mostly only seen in laptops. If the load is light then the motherboard turns off one of the cores in the cpu to save on power consumption and extend battery life. I believe the turion X2 (the laptop version of the athlon64 X2) also has this feature. It would be pretty stupid to not have the feature in a dual core laptop.
Also, tom's hardware used to reputable back in 2001. It's gone down hill ever since. They often throw up reviews with skewed results because they got a kickback for the good review. There are a number of vendors that do this with tom's hardware. They're a good resource for product info compilation, such as their cpu and vga charts. Other than that they're a pretty crappy site. | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/27/2006 3:21:49 AM | cnet news.com
Intel Advanced Smart Cache improves how high-speed cache memory is shared by multiple processor cores. For example, it lets one core control the whole cache when the other core is idle, and for other times, it governs how the same data can be shared by both cores, Rattner said.
I rest my case.
AMD 64 X2's of any kind don't utilze their cache. None of their Cores allow the other Core to shut down it's use of the split cache to be used as a whole cache from the other core like a single threaded processor under a single threaded app.
Yeah you are sure right about toms hardware site. Too bad it wins awards for being the top trusted site year in and year out. It sure must be that crappy. | |
|
| |
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/27/2006 1:09:49 PM | | I'm neither i'll buy what's best when i need something new same with ATI & nvidia i'll but whatever is best at the time of me wanting to buy it! Currently i'm running an AMD X2 4800+ and an nvidia 7950GX2 gonna hold out on a new cpu till quad cores come out though no point spending money on a conroe as much as i'd like to when the quads will be out next year! | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/27/2006 1:51:28 PM |
AMD 64 X2's of any kind don't utilze their cache. None of their Cores allow the other Core to shut down it's use of the split cache to be used as a whole cache from the other core like a single threaded processor under a single threaded app.
Yeah you are sure right about toms hardware site. Too bad it wins awards for being the top trusted site year in and year out. It sure must be that crappy.
You're right that they don't share their cache to each other. The thing with that is that the K8 architecture doesn't benefit much from large amounts of cache, so it doesn't even matter performance wise. If it did have some tangible performance benefits, amd would have developed the technology.
About THG, just because some clueless column writer says it's trustworthy doesn't mean it is. The little awards they put out don't even have any physical form. If you want to find out what the hardware scene is really about, go here www.xtremesystems.org . Check out the forums and ask people what they think of THG's trustworthiness. The people on there are the ones who devote their life to pushing hardware to the limit and learning everything about it. Nearly every performance record held is held by a member of that site. They also like to give out real performance numbers, often times they clash with what the big sites like THG and anandtech have in their reviews. Reason being because THG and anandtech have money to be gained by skewing their results, these guys don't. | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/27/2006 1:56:59 PM | | Another Question ... anyone have any experience with Intel Woodcrest Dual Core Chips? I'm thinking of putting 4 in a new server I'm spec'ing... but there's not much out there on them. | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/27/2006 2:01:26 PM |
Another Question ... anyone have any experience with Intel Woodcrest Dual Core Chips? I'm thinking of putting 4 in a new server I'm spec'ing... but there's not much out there on them.
What would you like to know? | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/27/2006 2:08:49 PM | I'm thinking about them for an SQL server.... worried about performance issues. It's going to be taking a LOT of hits.
Also concerned that about stability, I hate when a new chip firsts comes out and Dell hasn't throughly tested it. According to my rep that aren't even going to be availible for 4 weeks. Since this is going to be my data server I can't afford it to be down. | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/27/2006 2:14:49 PM | AMD would develop the technology? You are soo biased towards AMD that you counter it with saying something like that. Why can't you admit that Intel 1up AMD and caught AMD sleeping on their processors just like how AMD caught Intel sleeping on their processors 3 years ago. This had nothing to do with AMD and their cache and the reasons why they didn't create it because that's bull AMD could use the same technology on their 1mb x 1mb cache on each core, but they didn't because they didn't create it. Intel created out of innovation, just like AMD created the onboard memory controller out of Innovation.
Oh yeah those extreme forums are sure giving you a whole bunch of knowledge when it comes to pc's......
As for toms hardware this isn't some yehaw writer these are award winning columnist that are handing out these awards.
Thanks for playing...... | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/27/2006 2:20:57 PM | | TME1981 - was your post directed at me? I'm confused cause I'm not biased towards AMD, just wanted to know if anyone had any real life experiences with this new CPU..... | |
|
| |
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/27/2006 2:43:47 PM |
I'm thinking about them for an SQL server.... worried about performance issues. It's going to be taking a LOT of hits.
Also concerned that about stability, I hate when a new chip firsts comes out and Dell hasn't throughly tested it. According to my rep that aren't even going to be availible for 4 weeks. Since this is going to be my data server I can't afford it to be down.
While there are pretty good as it is. I'd probably stick with a dual core opteron based system if it's going to be mission critical. Mostly because the opterons are more mature and thus have the potential for more stability. Woodcrest right now is probably better left out of the servers until it matures a bit more.
If you're more worried about performance though, the woodcrest based system will definetly trump the opteron based one. The only issue is that there's that potential for instability due to it being immature.
AMD would develop the technology? You are soo biased towards AMD that you counter it with saying something like that. Why can't you admit that Intel 1up AMD and caught AMD sleeping on their processors just like how AMD caught Intel sleeping on their processors 3 years ago. This had nothing to do with AMD and their cache and the reasons why they didn't create it because that's bull AMD could use the same technology on their 1mb x 1mb cache on each core, but they didn't because they didn't create it. Intel created out of innovation, just like AMD created the onboard memory controller out of Innovation.
Oh yeah those extreme forums are sure giving you a whole bunch of knowledge when it comes to pc's......
As for toms hardware this isn't some yehaw writer these are award winning columnist that are handing out these awards.
Thanks for playing......
Wow, calling it game over when you haven't even won? That's pretty sad.
If you'll look at some of my previous posts, such as ones on the first page of this thread. You'll see that I actually favour the core 2 duo for most situations. I am no amd fanboy and no intel fanboy either, I am a hardware enthusiast and I choose whichever is the best. Though intel is not the best for the reasons you're stating such as shared cache and being able to shut down one core. Intel is better for the reasons I stated earlier in this thread. Their core 2 duo is simply more efficient. If you want to know the exact reasons, read intel's white papers on the core 2 duo design. Also, amd COULD design a similar technology to intel's cache sharing technology for their cpus, they didn't because it provides very little performance gain for the K8 (athlon64) architecture. What's funny is you don't even realize the reason why the core 2 duo's shared cache is so helpful for it. Intel created alot better things for their core architecture than shared cache. What about micro ops fushion? What about the advanced branch predictor? Did you forget all about those? Or maybe you've just never heard of them because all you do is read THG and cnet news for tech info.
It's pretty naive of you to assume that my knowledge comes from those extreme forums, in actuality it comes from every source (about 20 technology related websites) I read from as well as alot of real world experience.
If you did know what you were talking about, you'd realize that award winning writers and award winning sites often only have a slight clue as to what they're talking about. They're smart because they're in it for the money and use people such as yourself to keep their site popular and keep the money flowing in to them. Though, just because they're smart doesn't mean their information is correct.
I could call this the end of the game, but then I'd be just like you. So, instead I'm going to let you decide if you think the game is over or not.  | |
|
| AMD or Intel Whats Your choice people!
Posted: 10/27/2006 2:51:29 PM |
While there are pretty good as it is. I'd probably stick with a dual core opteron based system if it's going to be mission critical. Mostly because the opterons are more mature and thus have the potential for more stability. Woodcrest right now is probably better left out of the servers until it matures a bit more.
If you're more worried about performance though, the woodcrest based system will definetly trump the opteron based one. The only issue is that there's that potential for instability due to it being immature.
Thanks for the reply. Yes that's exactly my problem.... performance vs stability. That's why I posted the question. I wanted to know if anyone had any real life experiences with these chips. | |
|
Home
login 
