AMD VS Intel

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » May 25th, 2004, 2:52 pm

Let us have a vote.
Which company would you rather buy from: AMD or Intel?
Please try to keep replies to a minimum.
I don't want a CPU war.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » May 31st, 2004, 5:00 am

Both sides have their advantages but the CEO of AMD mentioned recently that AMD would try to get out of the low price niche and compete as being a better proccesor that is equally priced.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » May 31st, 2004, 3:32 pm

I would rather buy from Intel

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 1st, 2004, 5:01 pm

No other manufactorer would be an option for you at any point in time? I have to ask why.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » June 25th, 2004, 3:15 am

i admit amd may be better then intel in desktops, but thats because they need that extra boost of 64bit power to win, when intel gets to 64bit you will see a big difference between amd and intel, with intel kicking butt

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 25th, 2004, 5:25 am

The_Man wrote:i admit amd may be better then intel in desktops, but thats because they need that extra boost of 64bit power to win, when intel gets to 64bit you will see a big difference between amd and intel, with intel kicking butt

Just to let you know, everybenchmark you are seeing comparing the Athlon 64 to the P4 is using a 32bit OS. 64bit is beta as well as drivers (in reference to windows). The "64 part" is not giving an advantage to AMD at this point time, so you statement is WAY off. Please do research before making such statements

Thank You

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 25th, 2004, 2:21 pm

AMD gets their "extra boost" from the HyperTransport and onboard north bridge technology and their superior chip design.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 25th, 2004, 5:30 pm

Intel gets their "extra boost" from their Hyperthreading technology that AMD has not recieved yet

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 25th, 2004, 6:15 pm

Hyper Threading is not a boost devise. Since Intel has so many GHz, Hyper Threading is needed to make those GHz worth what they are. It only maintains performance.

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 25th, 2004, 8:03 pm

HT being an implementation used in a single cored processor to simulate two physical CPUs to take advantage of multi-threading. Looking at how the Netburst architecture operates, one can assume it is used to keep its "pipeline" full (through the use of multiple threads) and to allow for the possibility of at least one moving thread during a branch stall. Which in turn leaves me to believe that it is more beneficial to a long stage pipeline (why we aren't seeing it implemented in upcoming Pentium M desktop processors). Since the P4 has a low IPC of only 6 instructions per clock cycle having multiple threads becomes more of a benefit (but still only marginal) because it can deal with different processes at the same time (the low IPC is a bottleneck here would be a greater impovement with higher IPC as would be even on a single threaded CPU but the P4's long pipeline and need for ramping the clock speeds prohibt high IPC). As you should be able to see, it is nothing more than a patch to an ineffcient processor.. The major benefit of HT for the P4 is allowing multi threads so that info is always flowing through its long pipeline (see it really takes a performance hit when there is a stall or missed branch prediction in the pipline and it has to make up all the "distance" again.) HT just allows multiple threads (as already stated) for a constant flow of info through the pipeline. Now, look at the Athlon, here we have high IPC and a short pipeline(the northwoods pipeline is nearly twice as long and prescott is almost 3times). The benefits of HT in the Athlon would not be that great and is why AMD is going Dual core instead, which is MUCH more beneficial than HT will ever be. A branch miss-prediction or stall isnt nearly as taxing on the shorter pipeline. I would say the cost of implementation and what small performance gain there might be (even smaller than the P4) would not be worth it. There are even some instances where HT decreases performance. Not to mention a program has to be written to take advantage of it or its not to useful

To really burst ytour bubble, Intel doesnt hold the patent to "HT" which is really just SMT (symetric multi-threading).

check here http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... =5,944,816

a link about multile threading and HT. etc. etc. have fun

http://arstechnica.com/paedia/h/hyperth ... ing-1.html

So ok, yeah, Intel is great

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » July 15th, 2004, 2:16 pm

Wouldn't a program have to be written for dual core or ht to take advatage of it?

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » July 15th, 2004, 4:44 pm

Yes it would.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » July 19th, 2004, 4:23 am

so the only advantage of dual core is the fact that it is two real streams of data hardware wise where as HT has two streams of data software wise splitting one stream of data hardware wise. If they were to make a dual core intel chip and compared it to an HT chip how would performance increase?

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » July 20th, 2004, 5:44 am

If the processor was disnged to be effcient to begin with, there wouldnt have been a need for HT, as it would make a noticeble difference on Athlons or Pentium-M's.

mhmt81 · Post by **mhmt81** » November 10th, 2004, 11:07 am

[/quote][/u][/i][/b]

dear sir,
can one provide me information about both processors(AMD,intel)
when they operate with database application such as oracle?

and what is the top 3 RAM Manufacturer?

thank you sir a lot

with my best wishes

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » November 19th, 2004, 3:10 pm

RAM Crucial, Corsair, and mushkin

as for the second question, not sure, try google

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 19th, 2004, 9:34 pm

Welcome Back Monte! Havent seen you here for a while!

crocster · Post by **crocster** » January 8th, 2005, 12:19 am

Intel, No reason why - Just prefer Intel

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » January 8th, 2005, 1:05 am

That is ok.
Most people trust the big companies.

Sumpin_Wong · Post by **Sumpin_Wong** » January 8th, 2005, 1:27 am

My vote was for AMD when this post first came out, and it still is.

I think ya get the best value for your money with AMD. Benchmark scores for the 2 are usually close, but the prices tags most likely quite different.

aliasneo · Post by **aliasneo** » January 26th, 2005, 8:34 pm

i chose amd for a few reasons... one was for the competing processors, amd has the lower price... secondly their processors are readily 64 bit as where intel has the 64 bit extentions turned off in their prescott line... another is temperatures... by far i see amd's temps are lower then intels.

thats just my way of seeing it...

habbojane · Post by **habbojane** » February 17th, 2005, 8:26 am

i like amd but i bought a intel 3.4 becuase intel has a better retail employee discount 200 bucks for that chip a intel board and win xp pro.

xandersen · Post by **xandersen** » February 20th, 2005, 5:03 pm

I would have to say AMD becuase intel chips just dont hold up to full load as well as AMD

Phobia · Post by **Phobia** » July 22nd, 2005, 12:11 pm

My choice is AMD. It runs more quickly then Intel and you could do several operation in the same time. Firast time I had Intel and now I've compared them by myself.

Nolano · Post by **Nolano** » September 30th, 2005, 4:27 pm

habbojane wrote:i like amd but i bought a intel 3.4 becuase intel has a better retail employee discount 200 bucks for that chip a intel board and win xp pro.

No shame there. I would buy that too, for $200. The poll says 80% for AMD, and 19% for intel... where's the other 1%?

muld77 · Post by **muld77** » October 7th, 2005, 11:54 am

I must admit I always had intel systems, i currently have two systems, a Intel Pentium 4 2800 (N/W,533) which is about 4 months old, a system i made from scratch and a 2.6-GHz Athlon 64 FX-55 CPU which i got for free! I must say that the AMD is a lot faster when doing pretty much everything, graphics rendering is pretty much twice as fast as i do a lot of 3d animations. For those of you wondering how I got a free AMD system btw you can check here, I don't wish to spam the message board so here is a site i found with information of how I got it http://www.alienwaregiveaway.co.nr/ mmm, dohnuts

ComputerBB

AMD VS Intel

Which company would you rather buy from?

AMD VS Intel

Compair/Contrast

what is the best AMD or intel?