ComputerBB

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.

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.

I would rather buy from Intel

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Yes it would.

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?

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.

[/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

RAM Crucial, Corsair, and mushkin

as for the second question, not sure, try google

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

Intel, No reason why - Just prefer Intel

That is ok.
Most people trust the big companies.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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%?

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