Research over AMD Vs. Intel
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Research over AMD Vs. Intel

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    51

    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."...

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    51

    research continued

    ..."It's said that "the short walk to the gallows focuses the mind tremendously" and AMD is headed up those thirteen steps. The company worked very diligently on Hammer and appears to have produced another silk purse from the sow's ear of x86 architecture. Will that be enough? It depends on what you're after.

    Both processors are totally, completely, and inarguably backward compatible with x86 binaries. Anything else would be a criminal dereliction of duty. If what you want is a faster x86 PC, it's entirely likely that Hammer-based systems will run old (or upcoming) PC applications much faster than an Itanium- or McKinley-based system. That's fine, for as long as you keep that box. But the day may come when Microsoft Windows version n+1, or Quake XVII, is released for IA-64, but not for AMD's x86-64. And then you'll have to choose sides. Microsoft has publicly announced it will port Windows XP to IA-64, but it has made no such announcement about x86-64.

    Running existing binaries on either Itanium or Hammer is a no-brainer, but what about new code? Now, for the first time, software vendors will have to decide: do they support Intel, AMD, or both? Porting major applications and operating systems to Hammer will not be trivial--but neither is supporting IA-64. Backing Intel's newest and heavily promoted next-generation architecture is a foregone conclusion for vendors that want to stay in business. Supporting AMD becomes more problematic. Will the added market share be worth the effort? Suddenly AMD finds itself in the same boat as Apple with a different, yet competitive, product that requires dedicated software support to survive.

    Grimly, AMD itself lived through this tragedy not so many years ago, and the wound was self-inflicted. AMD unceremoniously axed its entire 29000 family, one of the most popular RISC processors of the early 1990s, due to the cost of software support. The company decommissioned the second-best-selling RISC in the world because subsidizing the independent software developers was sapping all the profits from 29K chip sales. As "successful" as it was, AMD had to abandon the 29K, the only original CPU architecture it ever created.

    There is one very possible future scenario, though a long-shot hope for Hammer. Recall back in the 1980s, IBM was losing ground to PC clone makers so it took its ball and went home. It changed the game, and called it PS/2 - and look how well that worked. Instead of following IBM and switching platforms, the world went right on using PC clones. IBM never regained the dominance it once had. Maybe IA-64 is just the PS/2 of processors, a futile attempt to change the game just when it was getting good. Maybe the world really wants a faster x86 instead of a new and different family of processors. Maybe lightning will strike twice."

    Okay, long post, but I think I made a few good points....

    AMD plans to go on with X86 technology, which, to non-computer savvy people, is the technology that has been used for a LONG time.

    Where as Intel plans to go for new technology, that will give them the advantage over new software.

    So, I can conclude with this last statement, that I think is most true.

    Intel has the resources. AMD, well, doesn't. Intel has the money and researchers to do the job, AMD's new 64 bit processor will be the equivalent of a super sized, over clocked, stretched out, 32 bit processor.

    And not only that, AMD spent a lot of time on this new processor, Intel hasn't, and it already looks like Intel will turn out on top.

    So what does this mean to you, getting a normal PC? Well, look at it's new processor it's making, the advantages and disadvantages of both. That should tell you about how much quality is in their current processors.

    And that's the end of my research. Oh, and here are two processors you should NEVER get:

    Cyrix Processors
    Intel Celeron Processors

    Oh, BTW, I'm very happy with my E Machine with the AMD Athlon XP 2400+ processor. Thank you.

  3. #3
    Chat Operator Matridom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,778
    Great white north has it right, it depends on what your going to use the system for. As for the celeron CPU, some of them where fantastic, currently? they are on the way out.

    If you doubt me on the celeron... look at the celeron 300A


    BTW, E-machines are at the top of my list of "What not to buy"

    I'll build my own system thank you.
    <Ferrit> Take 1 live chicken, cut the head off, dance around doing the hokey pokey and chanting: GO AWAY BAD VIRUS, GO AWAY BAD VIRUS
    -----------------------
    Windows 7 Pro x64
    Asus P5QL Deluxe
    Intel Q6600
    nVidia 8800 GTS 320
    6 gigs of Ram
    2x60 gig OCZ Vertex SSD (raid 0)
    WD Black 750 gig
    Antec Tri power 750 Watt PSU
    Lots of fans

  4. #4
    Avatar Goes Here Radical Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fairmont, West Virginia
    Posts
    4,866
    Theres nothing wrong with the celeron, they arent made for gaming, they are made for office work and BUDGET machines. They are the same chip as the pentium 4 sans the 512k cache, they only have a 128k. Also, look at the difference between a celeron and a P4, theres quite a bit of difference
    :::Asus A8N-Sli Premium:::AMD 3500+ @ 2.4ghz:::2x80GB 8mb cache RAID0 Array:::GeForce 7800GTX OC:::2GB Corsair XMS Memory:::500 Watt Enermax Liberty PSU:::16x Lite-on DVDRW:::

    Counter Strike Source Forum and Server @ http://www.nvpclan.com -=Ninjas Vs. Pirates=-

  5. #5
    Chat Operator Matridom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,778
    OK, time for my disertion on some of your stuff. I only bothered to read YOUR comments and not quoted material (linked would have saved a lot of space BTW)

    x86 old? yes it is, but it's proven, it's survived 8 bit processors, 16 bit processors , the current 32 bit processors, and will be around for some time.

    Itanium is a new structure and new system, yes, but will only gain support very very very slowly, software needs to be made that supports it, operating systems need to support it, hardware needs to support it. It's gonna take longer then linux did to gain sway (and linux is still not in the main stream yet, but getting there)

    AMD is making the smart move, it's increasing the CPU capabilities while maintaining the backwards compatibility with existing software. It's for reason's like this that companies like Cray have switched from the intel CPU to the hammer processor for their new super computer systems.

    Now, as for the "PR" rating thing, what most people forget, or don't bother investigating, is that it is not and indication of the equivilant p4 processor, but of it's speed in comparision to a thunderbird processor.

    All the other "advantages" and "disadvantages" that you speak of are related to YOUR PARTICULAR system, and should in no way reflect the general state of things.

    remember, your "e-machine" is more valuable for salvage metals and/or a doorstop then for a computer.
    Last edited by Matridom; August 10th, 2003 at 11:58 PM.
    <Ferrit> Take 1 live chicken, cut the head off, dance around doing the hokey pokey and chanting: GO AWAY BAD VIRUS, GO AWAY BAD VIRUS
    -----------------------
    Windows 7 Pro x64
    Asus P5QL Deluxe
    Intel Q6600
    nVidia 8800 GTS 320
    6 gigs of Ram
    2x60 gig OCZ Vertex SSD (raid 0)
    WD Black 750 gig
    Antec Tri power 750 Watt PSU
    Lots of fans

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    1,491
    The PR rating is by no means worthless. Officially, AMD says it rates the processsors performance as scaling from the the Thunderbird Athlon. The 1600+ is similar performance to an nonexistant 1.6 Ghz T-bird, 2200+ a 2.2 Ghz. Unofficially, the number match up closely with a P4 similarly titled.

    I have no idea what you are refering to as scams. Its possible you are refering to the performance of the K5/K6/-2/-3 relative to their Intel counterparts. That was AMD firmly in the budget market with a slightly inferior product, I fail to see the scam angle. It is also possible you are refering to the PR rating as a scam. I explained that above.

    Your rather tenous analogy between an Intel monopoly and the Microsoft monopoly is laughable at best. Do a tiny bit of research into AMD's market share. There is no equivalent in OS arena.

    Celerons are a budget part. What do you expect? Isn't it a rather obvious conclusion that a budget part wouldn't perform as well as a high-end part?

    The price-performance ratio winner varies from price point to price point, though AMD tends to lead more often.

    The relative noise of a Gateway versus any other system is pointless. Gateway doesn't ventilate their systems well, thats why they are quiet.

    At this point I tire of responding to each point individually. Considering the sum of your experience is TWO retail machines, rather crappy ones at that, you have no real basis for any comprehensive comparision between AMD and Intel.
    Last edited by jaeger; August 11th, 2003 at 12:01 AM.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."

    The Hitchikers Guide to the Universe - Mostly Harmless - Douglas Adams

  7. #7
    Avatar Goes Here Radical Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fairmont, West Virginia
    Posts
    4,866
    Oh yeah and I have seen an AMD commercial, I may still have it saved somewhere.....
    :::Asus A8N-Sli Premium:::AMD 3500+ @ 2.4ghz:::2x80GB 8mb cache RAID0 Array:::GeForce 7800GTX OC:::2GB Corsair XMS Memory:::500 Watt Enermax Liberty PSU:::16x Lite-on DVDRW:::

    Counter Strike Source Forum and Server @ http://www.nvpclan.com -=Ninjas Vs. Pirates=-

  8. #8
    Registered User Ferrit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Vancouver Island The Real Canada
    Posts
    4,952

    2 Facts

    I see 2 facts which give me a conclusion.
    1 First you owned a Cyrix
    2 you now own a Emachine
    Those 2 facts tell the story and it dont have a happy ending
    All of the information you posted ya dragged off the net basically from some opiniated site. There are as many opinions going the other way
    Opinions are like arseholes everybody has one
    1 of the facts you clearly missed was that Cray bought 10,000 Opteron cpu's for building super computers.
    I imagine if they were a joke or didnt have good preformance they wouldnt have been considered at all
    The end result is you bought a computer that isnt built for quality in any way shape or form so you have exactly what you paid for nothing more nothing less
    Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3
    AMD FX 8350 4ghz OCTO-Core
    Windows 8.1 PRO 64
    Adata 256 gig SSD
    Kingston HyperX 1600 16 Gigs
    Sapphire R9 280 2gig
    Enermax Liberty Modular 620
    www.northernaurora.net
    http://www.northernaurora.net/page/chat.html

  9. #9
    Registered User Shalafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    56
    Jaeger, Ferrit.. *claps* I applaud thee.. (and everyone else who isnt so narrowminded)

    Its pretty obvious that this original post is a long rant by (some would call this a trolling thread??) someone who has no real experience in the computing world. Having been actively in it for over 20 years, and being someone who tries very hard to not be blinded by personal bias, while also using the appropriate tool for the job, I have concluded the following...

    Every CPU made today is good for an intended purpose. AMD, Intel, Via, Transmeta, and anyone else I left off the list makes processors for specific niches. Intel does indeed have the lion's share, but that certainly doesnt mean other companies collectively 'suck'. Thay are all TOOLS, just like hammers and drills. Would you use a drill to drive in a nail?

    I say.. Stop the whining about AMD sucks, or Intel sucks, and use what you like!! Does it really matter that someone else has an opinion or feeling that is incongruous to yours??? If it does, you seriously need to do some introspection and figure out what REALLY matters in life. Like having your health, and happiness....

    Debating the finer points of which is better for one use over the other in a constructive manner is one thing. This thread is nothing but biased bashing and is really pointless.. I am now asking myself why Im even posting, except that I get really sick of this dribble...

    Oh, one thing before I go.. Please get your facts straight before you post.

    Microsoft has publicly announced it will port Windows XP to IA-64, but it has made no such announcement about x86-64.
    WHAT?!? Read this: Windows XP for AMD 64-bit Extended systems

    Oh, and BTW - It was MICROCHANNEL that IBM tried to change the world with, not PS/2. They did have PS/2 MC machines, but the MC bus is what they invented (which was tremendously capable at the time - another debate altogether that has been beaten like the proverbial dead horse) and tried to get everyone to BUY into. Their desire for everyone to pay them ridiculous royalites was the problem.. The MC bus itself was amazingly capable for its time.

    Shal
    Common sense, isn't...

  10. #10
    Registered User TechZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Bahrain, Middle East
    Posts
    7,525
    I had a cyrix once, horrible, call it an "uneducated mistake". I was young then, now I know better

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    1,491
    Holy thread resurrection, Batman!
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."

    The Hitchikers Guide to the Universe - Mostly Harmless - Douglas Adams

  12. #12
    Registered User TechZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Bahrain, Middle East
    Posts
    7,525
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger
    Holy thread resurrection, Batman!
    LOL

  13. #13
    Registered User WebHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    8,208
    Coke is better than Pepsi.
    Hello World

  14. #14
    Registered User +Daemon+'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    RC, Ca
    Posts
    3,406
    Quote Originally Posted by WebHead
    Coke is better than Pepsi.
    I agree

  15. #15
    Registered User TechZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Bahrain, Middle East
    Posts
    7,525
    I dont like either, its Fanta Orange or nothing for me.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •