Research over AMD Vs. Intel
Out of my spare time, I did alittle research on the subject AMD Vs. Intel, read a few posts and reports, and this is what I wrote:
An age old computer questions. Which is better, AMD or Intel? Well, I did a bit of research over the internet.
Here are some facts:
-The 2400+ you see on AMD XP Processors... well, it's ****. That isn’t your MHz speed, that's a PR rating, and it means close to nothing.
-AMD are cheaper compared to Intel processors
-AMD does have a record of scams... but I doubt Intel doesn't have such record as well.
Opinions:
-Ever see a commercial for a AMD processor? There a lot less commercials for those processors than Intel, and a lot of pre built PCs have Intel. But they also have Windows. If you hate how Microsoft is monopolizing the market of OS's, then you'd just be calling your self a liar if you bought any Intel processors.
-Intel makes Celeron processors, where they cut off certain things to make it cheaper... I don't like that at all, especially after having a Cyrix processor. And I've tried a few PCs with Celeron processors. They go SLOW. It kind of broke my trust with the company.
-AMDs are rumored to be a better game CPU. It's still questionable, though.
-AMDs are also rumored to have the best performance per price ratio. Also questionable.
-I have a AMD Athlon XP 2400+ System, where as my Dad has a Intel Pentium 4 1700 MHz processor. My Dad's PC is quiet, and I mean quiet. You can barely tell it's on. That's a very good sing of a great system. My System, well, you can hear the fan. But you can't hear it over your TV or MP3's playing. But if you were to stop all the sounds in you house, you would be able to hear the fan must sharper than my Dad's PC.
-Even though it's rumored that AMD's are less stable, I have had some stability issues on my Dad's Gateway where as my EMachine has not. The specific area it had trouble in: browsing a networked PC. Not only that, it seems somewhat slower than my E Machine.
-If AMDs are so unstable, why haven't I experienced a total crash yet? I tell you, most stability problems are because of the software, mostly the OS. Windows XP and Windows 2000 crash the very least of the Windows OSes.
-My system does run somewhat warm, but a good cooling system should decrease that problem.
-I haven't seen my Dad's CPU yet, but I have seen mine. The AMD Processor I have (AMD Athlon XP 2400+) has a pretty dense and big heat sink, and not only that, has a fan on top. And I have seen a single Cyrix CPU, kind of old (333 MHz) and all it had was a huge heat sink, no CPU fan.
-This probably doesn't matter, but here's a bit of thought. Think of Intel as being the Windows of CPUs, and AMDs as the Linux of processor. Both OSes are good in certain places. Windows is popular for a reason, their OSes are pretty stable now, and work pretty well. And to some degree, so does Linux. And it's hard to tell which OS is better, Windows or Linux. But do think this, Windows and Intel won their majority compatibility with software cause they some how became popular and well know. Software companies usually expect you to use a Intel system.
Now, lets look at some reports on the 64 bit processors, AMD's Hammer, and Intel's IA-64 (here's a link to the full report)
"Although Hammer and Itanium both have nine execution units, it's hard to say that they'd both accomplish the same amount of work per cycle. For starters, Hammer's got three address-generation units (Itanium has none), which don't really contribute to forward progress. They're more of a necessary evil. Itanium has no address-generation units because it supports only one simple addressing mode. Advantage: Intel."
"Hammer has one more floating-point unit than Itanium. On the other hand, Itanium's are both equivalent and able to handle any FP operation, whereas all three of Hammer's are different. Itanium gets bonus points for symmetry but Hammer can potentially get more floating-point work done. Advantage: AMD."
"If it makes AMD fans feel any better, Itanium's register file is so big it takes two clock cycles to access a register, adding a stage to the pipeline. If it makes Intel fans feel any better, that delay's probably going to go away in McKinley and future IA-64 processors"
"Hammer also provides mixed code size compatibility the same way the '386 did, with a size-override byte. Any existing (that is, pre-Hammer) instruction can be prefixed with the one-byte REX pseudo-instruction. This byte tells the decoder that the operands in this instruction should be interpreted as 64-bit quantities. The '386 worked exactly the same way, introducing the 0x66 prefix byte, instantly turning decade-old 16-bit operations into new 32-bit operations without actually changing the instruction set or duplicating every operation."
"Hammer may have multiprocessing features that Itanium and McKinley lack, but no one doubts that Intel could add those features at any time (Itanium Xeon, anyone?). The company hardly lacks the wherewithal; it just doesn't see the market demand at present. It'll be a whole lot easier for Intel to add multiprocessing features to IA-64 chips than it would for AMD to add IA-64 compatibility to a future Hammer."
"Sexier still, Hammer includes three (count 'em!) HyperTransport links, an obvious advantage over Itanium in multiprocessing. This bus is relatively open and has bandwidth to spare. Depending on how you arrange them, up to eight Hammer processors can seamlessly communicate amongst themselves using nothing but their built-in HyperTransport links. Anybody remember the Transputer? Whereas Itanium processors have to share a system bus, each Hammer gets its own private memory, courtesy of its on-chip SDRAM controller. (The first Hammer processor, Clawhammer, may only support two processors using a single HyperTransport link)."
"Hammer is not VLIW and it doesn't expose parallelism (or anything else) to the compiler. It's just another turbocharged x86: really fast at x86 code, but really nothing radically new in architecture. New Hammer code can access all the new registers, and even treat them as a flat register file, but it can't break free of the inherent awkwardness of the x86 instruction set. The problem is not the binary encoding of x86 instructions--AMD and others have shown they can build blazing fast x86 chips with RISC-like internals even with the fundamental x86 handicap. It's the nonparallel nature of x86 code that's impossible to overcome."
"For all its features, the first Hammer will be a small guy. Clawhammer will likely have dual 64K L1 caches and a 256K L2 cache (no L3 cache). The chip should measure just 104 mm2 in a 0.13-micron CMOS process, according to AMD--just one-quarter the die size estimated for McKinley. The second Hammer processor, Sledgehammer, should also consume far less real estate than McKinley, but it will quadruple the L2 cache to 1 MB.
All things being equal, Clawhammer silicon will be far less expensive to manufacture than Itanium, even before you consider Itanium's extra L3 cache chips and its elaborate mechanical housing. For both single-processor and multiprocessor systems, AMD offers the more economical option for system makers."
"IA-64 code density should be as bad as x86 code density is good. That's a bonus for AMD and Hammer, though you don't often see server manufacturers choosing their high-end processor based on code density.
Intel threw out the baby with the bathwater, creating an entirely new microprocessor and gluing x86 compatibility onto the side for sentimental value. AMD keeps straining the same old bathwater. Odd as it seems, AMD now carries the torch for x86, extending it this way and that, while Intel heads down another path. In a sense, AMD now "owns" the x86 architecture. "
"Would Intel so cavalierly jeopardize its legacy? Not on your life. To no one's great surprise, Intel is rumored to be developing something that will give future Pentium processors--not IA-64 processors--a performance kick. In a perverse reversal of roles, Intel may actually be following AMD's lead in 64-bit x86 extensions. A "Hammer killer" technology, code-named Yamhill, may appear in chips late next year, about the time Hammer makes its debut. It's suggested that Intel's forthcoming Prescott processor will be based on Pentium 4, but with Yamhill 64-bit extensions that coincidentally mimic Hammer's. (Prescott is also rumored to be built on a 0.09 micron process and implement HyperThreading.)
Naturally, the very existence of Yamhill, if it exists at all, is a diplomatically touchy subject at Intel HQ. The company doesn't want to undermine its outward confidence in Itanium and IA-64, but neither can it afford the possibility of ceding x86 dominance to a competitor. Besides, whether they appear in future Pentium derivatives or not, Intel's 64-bit extensions could appear in future IA-64 processors instead. New IA-64 features plus competitive x86 performance--now that's a compelling product."...
