AMD vs Intel
- Thread starter cobra88
- Start date
man, I myself have posted plenty of info on this already.
Just do a search & you will see some results.
There are plenty of tests & you can see that the AMDs (even though 400-800Mhz behind in clock speeds) keep up if not surpass the Intel chips. This is called superior architecture (at least for the moment. These 2 companies go back & forth).
great place for resources on tests/benchmarks:
h``p://www.amdmb.com (it is an amd site but they do have some comparisons with intel). Too bad intel doesn't care enough about their customers to even have a site for them.
Just do a search & you will see some results.
There are plenty of tests & you can see that the AMDs (even though 400-800Mhz behind in clock speeds) keep up if not surpass the Intel chips. This is called superior architecture (at least for the moment. These 2 companies go back & forth).
great place for resources on tests/benchmarks:
h``p://www.amdmb.com (it is an amd site but they do have some comparisons with intel). Too bad intel doesn't care enough about their customers to even have a site for them.
That might be the chipset's backbone transfer bus
AMD/Nvidia up the ante with "Hypertransport" - currently 800Mb/s but capable of more.
The purpose of ultra high speed inter-chipset busses, is to reduce congestion during busmastering or onboard graphics use - the dualbus feature also helps.
Most machines in a group test that had nForce chipsets, did NOT use the onboard graphics - but had a more powerful AGP card.
Talked to someone today, who said:
Intel's run cooler, are more stable, and perform better in multitasking - Corporate users still favour Intel by a considerable margin (naturally, like they favour IBM, Compaq, and other big name, expensive INTEL builders with grade 1 support)
AMD/Nvidia up the ante with "Hypertransport" - currently 800Mb/s but capable of more.
The purpose of ultra high speed inter-chipset busses, is to reduce congestion during busmastering or onboard graphics use - the dualbus feature also helps.
Most machines in a group test that had nForce chipsets, did NOT use the onboard graphics - but had a more powerful AGP card.
Talked to someone today, who said:
Intel's run cooler, are more stable, and perform better in multitasking - Corporate users still favour Intel by a considerable margin (naturally, like they favour IBM, Compaq, and other big name, expensive INTEL builders with grade 1 support)
Last edited:
I would disagree with the people you talked to LTR, as more & more companies are switching away from Intel 'cause now they realize with the past year of new AMD models, they are just as stable as the Intel chips.
This is why most of the US government branches are getting rid of their old PCs & are all investing in AMDs now. (even baught 2 new AMD super computers this past month)
*some points: intel runs cooler by 5 degrees, not more stable, do not perfrom as well as AMD in multitasking.
** I would say intel still just has a hold on people who haven't been trying AMD chipsets ('cause all theirs prior to the Athlons weren't very good). Intel is also more compatible hardware wise. Why? 'Cause they worked closer with other hardware manufacturers & software companies in the past.
Now that AMD is working closer with these companies, they are catching up with the compatibility issues. This is why Intel is upset now with even their best buddy (Microsoft), 'cause next msn OS systems will be in favour of AMD.
Many here may think I am in favour of AMD over Intel. I am not though. Just going with the truth & performance issues right now, & they favour AMD at the moment (for the past year). I have both Intel & AMD PCs & even a mac (all latest models for work), & they all work well, just some better than others.
These companies will all continue to outperform each other from time to time. At the moment I would say AMD's architecture is better than the intel P4 (a step backwards for them really).
This is why most of the US government branches are getting rid of their old PCs & are all investing in AMDs now. (even baught 2 new AMD super computers this past month)
*some points: intel runs cooler by 5 degrees, not more stable, do not perfrom as well as AMD in multitasking.
** I would say intel still just has a hold on people who haven't been trying AMD chipsets ('cause all theirs prior to the Athlons weren't very good). Intel is also more compatible hardware wise. Why? 'Cause they worked closer with other hardware manufacturers & software companies in the past.
Now that AMD is working closer with these companies, they are catching up with the compatibility issues. This is why Intel is upset now with even their best buddy (Microsoft), 'cause next msn OS systems will be in favour of AMD.
Many here may think I am in favour of AMD over Intel. I am not though. Just going with the truth & performance issues right now, & they favour AMD at the moment (for the past year). I have both Intel & AMD PCs & even a mac (all latest models for work), & they all work well, just some better than others.
These companies will all continue to outperform each other from time to time. At the moment I would say AMD's architecture is better than the intel P4 (a step backwards for them really).
auras
1
I wonder how this thread did not generate an endless discussion. I'm "old-fashioned", and I agree with cdorders about Intel, but is very good that exists an AMD (or a VIA or SIS), offering alternate products and pressing Intel to research new technologies, and to lower his prices. The competition is good for us all.
Last edited:
dx
1
Yeah, but IBM is getting out of the HD business (all the bad GXP's have taken their toll) and are selling their technology to Hitachi.LTR12101B said:
And Compaq and HP are the same company. I'll bet we will see the Compaq name less and less until HP decides to ditch the name.
My point is...things change. I was an Intel die-hard for the longest time and have installed uncountless systems from P1-100mhz to P4-1.8Ghz. Unfortunetly, Intel seems to have fallen asleep at the wheel with the P4 (it could have been so much better) and has allowed AMD to catch up. AMD's XP processor is an amazing processor!
Yes, the Intel P4 2.4 and 2.5 with Rambus 1066 RAM is very fast, but you will pay an arm and a leg for it. An AMD 2100+ or 2200+ with DDR RAM are a little bit slower, but the price is affordable.
BTW, I have joined the dark side (or is it the light) and have purchased my first AMD Althlon XP system. Couldn't be happier!
The reason a major discussion hasn't broken out, I feel, is the fact that it is irrelevant. I mean, the truth of the matter is...
1) Intel holds the top speed on already released 32 bit processors.
2) AMD offers far more value for your dollar.
3) Most of todays CPU's aren't utilized fully 99.9% of the time.
So what is better? It depends on how you look at it. You could break it down to motherboard chipsets, etc.. and still come back scratching your head. Personally, I think since all hardware will be obsolete sooner than later.. .VALUE is the biggest factor. Who cares about that 1-5% speed improvement 2 years from now?
But the major topic shouldn't consist of released processors. Instead, who's future roadmap looks best is a better discussion?
Either manufacturer could easy release a record breaking processor overnight..but the market wouldn't exist for this expensive cpu. So were getting what we get.
1) Intel holds the top speed on already released 32 bit processors.
2) AMD offers far more value for your dollar.
3) Most of todays CPU's aren't utilized fully 99.9% of the time.
So what is better? It depends on how you look at it. You could break it down to motherboard chipsets, etc.. and still come back scratching your head. Personally, I think since all hardware will be obsolete sooner than later.. .VALUE is the biggest factor. Who cares about that 1-5% speed improvement 2 years from now?
But the major topic shouldn't consist of released processors. Instead, who's future roadmap looks best is a better discussion?
Either manufacturer could easy release a record breaking processor overnight..but the market wouldn't exist for this expensive cpu. So were getting what we get.
that's a very good point bschuler.
Most times we do not ever use what we have (though I do tend to use 90% of it a lot).
But yes, these manufacturers can produce (& I bet already have) in the 8Ghz region already with more testings done. What we see or are informed of in the public eye, are just things they have done already in the past year or 2 (if not longer).
One professor I had in Uni (kerveau *one of the pioneers of AI in robotics for north america) said we are behind technology by 10 years. If scientists & other fields braught everything out now, it would overwhelm us (too many things & advances), so normally he said, we are in a 10 year waiting list for technology.
Whether or not his statement was correct (am sure it is on some very complex issues), truth is, these companies don't benefit as much by introducing the behemoths now, 'cause nobody would bother buying their much slower processors.
Most times we do not ever use what we have (though I do tend to use 90% of it a lot).
But yes, these manufacturers can produce (& I bet already have) in the 8Ghz region already with more testings done. What we see or are informed of in the public eye, are just things they have done already in the past year or 2 (if not longer).
One professor I had in Uni (kerveau *one of the pioneers of AI in robotics for north america) said we are behind technology by 10 years. If scientists & other fields braught everything out now, it would overwhelm us (too many things & advances), so normally he said, we are in a 10 year waiting list for technology.
Whether or not his statement was correct (am sure it is on some very complex issues), truth is, these companies don't benefit as much by introducing the behemoths now, 'cause nobody would bother buying their much slower processors.
daveml
1
Like dxkim I have also joined the darkside!
After having used Intel basically since they first arrived, I have now changed to AMD.
If money was no issue I may have chosen the top Intel CPU.
Money, however, is always the issue and with AMD you get more bang for your buck.
I have to admit to being rather sceptical about this "new kid on the block" but so far I'm very happy!
After having used Intel basically since they first arrived, I have now changed to AMD.
If money was no issue I may have chosen the top Intel CPU.
Money, however, is always the issue and with AMD you get more bang for your buck.
I have to admit to being rather sceptical about this "new kid on the block" but so far I'm very happy!
go here for news (plenty of news on them & other things):
h``p://www.ultrapenguin.com/
h``p://www.ultrapenguin.com/