AMD Vs. Intel, Which is Better?
- Status
hellknight
BSD init pwns System V
AMD Rocks. Intel takes the 64 bit technology from AMD for lease. And who can forget the Mighty K8 architecture, it really beat the hell out of Intel's but until Core 2 Duos arrived. And now Barcelona will kick Core 2 Duos.
ring_wraith
=--=l33t=--=
Basically intel was always losing to AMD, then they decided to do what AMD had always been doing, but they did it quite a bit better.
I am 100% sure that AMDs quad core, being a single die-4 core chips is going to kick the core2quad's 2-die,4-core a**.
I am 100% sure that AMDs quad core, being a single die-4 core chips is going to kick the core2quad's 2-die,4-core a**.
keith_j_snyder2
Rising ApocalypsE
What the......when did they launched the octacore. Man AMD is just doing everything quietly....without telling it to anyone.
Anyways
Props for my homies!!!!!!!
This is a kick A$$ thread!
Waiting for something like this from ages but never noticed.
Love for AMD because of less power consumption.
Can't wait to see Phenom desktop series kick Intel just like Athlon did!
Anyways
Props for my homies!!!!!!!
This is a kick A$$ thread!
Waiting for something like this from ages but never noticed.
Love for AMD because of less power consumption.
Can't wait to see Phenom desktop series kick Intel just like Athlon did!
keith_j_snyder2
Rising ApocalypsE
OMG its going to be K10 or K10.5 PHENOM........old news but deep impact!
*www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=553&Itemid=1
*www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=553&Itemid=1
hellknight
BSD init pwns System V
AMD's Sandtiger, a chip that has 8-cores on a single die will be launched in the first quarter of 2009, it will be built on 45 nm architecture. And I read somewhere that AMD has also launched a tri-core chip, is it true?
shwetanshu
Cyborg Agent
^^ yup... actually is a four core chip in which one of the core has been short circuited... thats it!! wen intel slashed its ual core prices, AMD is about to bring in its 3 core proccy to take on intel....
infra_red_dude
Wire muncher!
I'm eager to see the performance difference between a 2 and a 3 core chip.
@shwtanshu
Welcome back pal. Its been ages since I saw you!!!
@shwtanshu
Welcome back pal. Its been ages since I saw you!!!
thecreativeboy
Journeyman
i own pentium-d processor.but i like the amd 64 bit processors.and i also have been excited about the amd baracelona processor.
keith_j_snyder2
Rising ApocalypsE
AMD processors runs much cooler than Intel's!
phuchungbhutia
Om Ma Ni Pä Me Hum
hows the comparision of amd barcelona and intel c2d and quad cores .....
keith_j_snyder2
Rising ApocalypsE
Heard that AMD will also be having Tri Core series named Phenom X3/ Phenom 7 series with 3X512 L2 Chache, 2 MB L3 Shared Chache code named Toliman.
6 Series will be Dual cores and 9 series will be Quad cores!
6 Series will be Dual cores and 9 series will be Quad cores!
shwetanshu
Cyborg Agent
@infra_red thnx dude... been busy with exams.... thats y nt gtting tym nowdayz.... engg sux to the core!!
devilz666
Broken In
Intel surely made AMD look like a thing of past with their Core 2 Duo chips, but the fact remains tht AMD gave major competition to Intel and hopefully tht will be the future story.
What I think is that AMD is better value for money and Core 2 Duo's by Intel ar marginally better than AMD x2, which , according to me isnt a very good thing for Intel.
AMD x2 has been arnd for 2 yrs now and C2D being a totally new product shld have done better than x2s. And for the price diff b/w both of them its perfectly clear that AMD is far more better for a budget conscious coustomer.
So im surely with AMD , for making single core an item of history and i am pretty much sure that sooner AMD will lead the Quad core market with their tactical pricing
What I think is that AMD is better value for money and Core 2 Duo's by Intel ar marginally better than AMD x2, which , according to me isnt a very good thing for Intel.
AMD x2 has been arnd for 2 yrs now and C2D being a totally new product shld have done better than x2s. And for the price diff b/w both of them its perfectly clear that AMD is far more better for a budget conscious coustomer.
So im surely with AMD , for making single core an item of history and i am pretty much sure that sooner AMD will lead the Quad core market with their tactical pricing
bikdel
Alpha Geek Banned
well id like to clear away a few doubts...
some forum members have mentioned that
AMD just copies what intel does...
this in itself is entirely wrong; AMD brought 64 bit computing to the consumer level, which intel followed by incorporrating EM64T in its Single core Processors featuring netburst architechture... most notably the Pentium 4, Celeron D, and Pentium D...
AMD featured 3dnow instructions before intel had anything comparable.. the MMX instructions werent much improvement and SSE came a little too late...
thats why AMD processors were best during the time INTEL severely lagged behind due to its much hyped but less working netburst architechture...
ATHLON XP was clearly ahead of Pentium 4 during the time... ahead in all kida benchmarks: business winstone, content winstone, 3d mark...
visit sites like Toms hardware and view the archived old section...
if i find time i'll post it here
they have shown that to actually beat an athlon clocked @ 2.6 ghz, P4 Northwood had to be extremely overclocked under N2 and made to reach 5 Ghz.. lol .. the fault? Netburst again......
actually the early 423 pin Willamette core P4 @ 1.6 ghz even lagged behind intel's own P3 @ 1.13 ghz based on the older and less complex but surprisinlgy technically superior P6 architechture...
that p4 even lost out to budget AMD duron processors
it was only when 478 pinned 1.7 ghz P4 was launched with northwood core that the P4 showed a clear lead over older P3...
and the p4 time saw the downfall of intel and rising of athlon 64...
intel surprisingly had tried to innovate into 64 bit computing earlier with its ITANIUM processors for server market but it was a MASS failure, i repeat MASS FAILURE on intels part, much because it lacked support for emulation of 32 bit apps which Intel thought could bottleneck the itanium's performance but instead came out with something even worse, and by the time intel inculcated support for 32 bit in ITANIUM, costomers had already gone for cheaper AMDs hammer(dont know the exact name) 64 bit CPUS...
server market had been lost out and fewer people had faith in intel due to its failure in producing a workable 64 bit server solution.......
think about it, the ITANIUM's architecture prevented it from being clocked to more than 1200 MHZ...lolz.. n you call that performance !!!
Unsold Itanium Processors had been dumped in around 2003, the same place where intel had dumped thousands of flawed pentium (1) chips that were actually shipped and not replaced until intel was sewed in around 1998.
AMD has no history of shipping flawed chips...
It was around the same time P4 had started being manufactured...
So intel was hit twice. at the same time...
Athlon 64 as you all may know, revolutionised PC by bringing server style resource allocation to mass public.... raising new standards..
And AFAIK Ati was acquired by AMD at the same time...
and that was the time ATIs Radeon R300 and the like had won over Nvidia's Geforce FX..
thus AMD had huge benefits...
And you may be surprised how intel survived such losses?...
well Intel never had to incur much losses in the PC market... why?
because the pentium line-up was really hyped and had been good performing until of course P4... and people had to believe that p4s were bigger-and-better kind.
And Intel had huge sums of money since Ints x86 era. Its Pentium line were sold upto a large extent and P3 was a good performer..
Actually if you get deeper into this then you'll know that the Core architecture is somewhat based on older P6 architecture... you can say that the Monster core 2 duos and quads had been derived from P3..lol
Netburst was a great fault.... in fact intel said netburst would allow it to make pentiums of the range upo 10 GHz... though they never reached 4 ghz...3.8 was max as otherwise TDP would increase to more than 130 watts which was not permissible..lolz..
anyways back to topic, ..erm what was i saying??
Intel was providing a universal platform and stable platform back in the x86 age and upto pentium 3 i'd say ...
as a matter of fact, you may argue that intel went over 32 bit before AMD, so it is the father, the supreme kind...lol...well you can argue but back then AMD had not been into PC processor technology...
Actually i'd even more praise AMD for it...
because processor manufacturing was by all means Intels league...
And jumping into some-one elses league and providing equally performing and perhaps better solutions is not easy.. Intel got time to evolve through as back then it didnt have much competition. AMD had to hurry up and get past INTEL in intel's own technology... Not easy to do
now lets come todays scenario...
AMD went dual core (the actual two processors on one die) before intel did... AFAIK
And intel solutions do perform better than AMD... as of today by a noticable margin....
but its a kind of market/industry phenomenon...
One produces a thing, the second produces better, then again the first adds up something and it goes on...
AND any innovation if it becomes a mass HIT, then it has to be followed by other competitors if they have to stay in league... hence saying that AMD is copying INTEL or intel is copyin amd will not be well justified...
Say intel made quad cores, amd cannot go different way by increasing clock speed or say FSB by 4 times.. for heavens sake, Multicore is the way to Go...
And data addressing will olaso keep on increasing, from 16 bit to 32 bit in 1982 and from 32 bit to 64 bit in 2002 maybe we have better things in near future!!!
By any means AMDs X2 is not SLOW.. please..... you wont call it simply SLOW!!! and you cant pit it against those intel warriors for comparision... both are in their own league..
AMDs new lineup will im sure provide better things than intels current lineup...
its a market equilibrium.. if not maintained one will be surely thrown out of the market...
as far as i am concerned...
im quite okay with a celeron 2.4 ghz with 256 kb cache and 1 gb ddr 400 with geforce FX 5200.. n for me this is a kickass config, though id go for a better gfx card!!
PS: Never owned AMD my whole life.. thou its just been 16 yrs... and any corrections would be welcome,
also as a proof of athlon's superiority over p4,
read this *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4
regards
bikalp
some forum members have mentioned that
AMD just copies what intel does...
this in itself is entirely wrong; AMD brought 64 bit computing to the consumer level, which intel followed by incorporrating EM64T in its Single core Processors featuring netburst architechture... most notably the Pentium 4, Celeron D, and Pentium D...
AMD featured 3dnow instructions before intel had anything comparable.. the MMX instructions werent much improvement and SSE came a little too late...
thats why AMD processors were best during the time INTEL severely lagged behind due to its much hyped but less working netburst architechture...
ATHLON XP was clearly ahead of Pentium 4 during the time... ahead in all kida benchmarks: business winstone, content winstone, 3d mark...
visit sites like Toms hardware and view the archived old section...
if i find time i'll post it here
they have shown that to actually beat an athlon clocked @ 2.6 ghz, P4 Northwood had to be extremely overclocked under N2 and made to reach 5 Ghz.. lol .. the fault? Netburst again......
actually the early 423 pin Willamette core P4 @ 1.6 ghz even lagged behind intel's own P3 @ 1.13 ghz based on the older and less complex but surprisinlgy technically superior P6 architechture...
that p4 even lost out to budget AMD duron processors
it was only when 478 pinned 1.7 ghz P4 was launched with northwood core that the P4 showed a clear lead over older P3...
and the p4 time saw the downfall of intel and rising of athlon 64...
intel surprisingly had tried to innovate into 64 bit computing earlier with its ITANIUM processors for server market but it was a MASS failure, i repeat MASS FAILURE on intels part, much because it lacked support for emulation of 32 bit apps which Intel thought could bottleneck the itanium's performance but instead came out with something even worse, and by the time intel inculcated support for 32 bit in ITANIUM, costomers had already gone for cheaper AMDs hammer(dont know the exact name) 64 bit CPUS...
server market had been lost out and fewer people had faith in intel due to its failure in producing a workable 64 bit server solution.......
think about it, the ITANIUM's architecture prevented it from being clocked to more than 1200 MHZ...lolz.. n you call that performance !!!
Unsold Itanium Processors had been dumped in around 2003, the same place where intel had dumped thousands of flawed pentium (1) chips that were actually shipped and not replaced until intel was sewed in around 1998.
AMD has no history of shipping flawed chips...
It was around the same time P4 had started being manufactured...
So intel was hit twice. at the same time...
Athlon 64 as you all may know, revolutionised PC by bringing server style resource allocation to mass public.... raising new standards..
And AFAIK Ati was acquired by AMD at the same time...
and that was the time ATIs Radeon R300 and the like had won over Nvidia's Geforce FX..
thus AMD had huge benefits...
And you may be surprised how intel survived such losses?...
well Intel never had to incur much losses in the PC market... why?
because the pentium line-up was really hyped and had been good performing until of course P4... and people had to believe that p4s were bigger-and-better kind.
And Intel had huge sums of money since Ints x86 era. Its Pentium line were sold upto a large extent and P3 was a good performer..
Actually if you get deeper into this then you'll know that the Core architecture is somewhat based on older P6 architecture... you can say that the Monster core 2 duos and quads had been derived from P3..lol
Netburst was a great fault.... in fact intel said netburst would allow it to make pentiums of the range upo 10 GHz... though they never reached 4 ghz...3.8 was max as otherwise TDP would increase to more than 130 watts which was not permissible..lolz..
anyways back to topic, ..erm what was i saying??Intel was providing a universal platform and stable platform back in the x86 age and upto pentium 3 i'd say ...
as a matter of fact, you may argue that intel went over 32 bit before AMD, so it is the father, the supreme kind...lol...well you can argue but back then AMD had not been into PC processor technology...
Actually i'd even more praise AMD for it...
because processor manufacturing was by all means Intels league...
And jumping into some-one elses league and providing equally performing and perhaps better solutions is not easy.. Intel got time to evolve through as back then it didnt have much competition. AMD had to hurry up and get past INTEL in intel's own technology... Not easy to do
now lets come todays scenario...
AMD went dual core (the actual two processors on one die) before intel did... AFAIK
And intel solutions do perform better than AMD... as of today by a noticable margin....
but its a kind of market/industry phenomenon...
One produces a thing, the second produces better, then again the first adds up something and it goes on...
AND any innovation if it becomes a mass HIT, then it has to be followed by other competitors if they have to stay in league... hence saying that AMD is copying INTEL or intel is copyin amd will not be well justified...
Say intel made quad cores, amd cannot go different way by increasing clock speed or say FSB by 4 times.. for heavens sake, Multicore is the way to Go...
And data addressing will olaso keep on increasing, from 16 bit to 32 bit in 1982 and from 32 bit to 64 bit in 2002
maybe we have better things in near future!!!By any means AMDs X2 is not SLOW.. please..... you wont call it simply SLOW!!! and you cant pit it against those intel warriors for comparision... both are in their own league..
AMDs new lineup will im sure provide better things than intels current lineup...
its a market equilibrium.. if not maintained one will be surely thrown out of the market...
as far as i am concerned...
im quite okay with a celeron 2.4 ghz with 256 kb cache and 1 gb ddr 400 with geforce FX 5200..
n for me this is a kickass config, though id go for a better gfx card!!PS: Never owned AMD my whole life.. thou its just been 16 yrs...
and any corrections would be welcome,also as a proof of athlon's superiority over p4,
read this *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4
regards
bikalp
Last edited:
- Status