Amd vs. Intel

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2005-03-15 08:01pm

A couple more thoughts, which will hopefully give everyone else a better idea where I'm coming from. The difficulty of multithreading also depends alot on the OS and the underlying hardware; I've been focusing exclusively on the generic programming issues, which is probably skewing my responses somewhat. And I'm by no means saying that multithreading is simple, just that it isn't a near-impossible task that only the elite programs can accomplish, that it's far more common than most people believe, and that the switch to mutlicore CPUs should bare performance gains sooner rather than later (especially with the development of multicore consoles).

I've probably hijacked this thread enough...

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-03-16 12:30am

Arrow Mk84 wrote:A couple more thoughts, which will hopefully give everyone else a better idea where I'm coming from. The difficulty of multithreading also depends alot on the OS and the underlying hardware; I've been focusing exclusively on the generic programming issues, which is probably skewing my responses somewhat. And I'm by no means saying that multithreading is simple, just that it isn't a near-impossible task that only the elite programs can accomplish, that it's far more common than most people believe, and that the switch to mutlicore CPUs should bare performance gains sooner rather than later (especially with the development of multicore consoles).

I've probably hijacked this thread enough...

Well, on the duel core issue, you can join the bash Intel wagon, for having a shitty duel core strategy of throwing 2 die's together with no connection between them that dosn't pass through the FSB.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2005-03-16 12:46am

Arrow Mk84 wrote:These were VIA chipsets and I think a SiS chipset. Its been a while, so I don't remember the model numbers. But this was back in the timeframe from slot K7s to the Thunderbirds.

No wonder you had problems. VIA was utter garbage back then. Look up the 686B debacle if you don't believe me. SiS is even worse seeing as the majority of the time they're stuck on budget boards.

But, I have been considering an Nforce solution for my next computer (which I'll probably be building at year's end).

Put it to you this way, I've been running my XP2800+ on a Leadtek motherboard (K7NCR18-D Pro) which has the nforce2 ultra 400 chipset (one of the last to have the onboard soundstorm codec) and I have yet to run into any issues with it at all. The board is simply rock solid stable. This board has taken anything I've thrown at it and pretty much said "is that all you can dish out? Bring it on bitch!". Video editing is not even a task anymore. As long as you have plenty of RAM, it'll chug along just fine. What helps even more is that I'm running my two sticks of RAM in dual-channel mode, which boosts system overall performance to a definite noticable level.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2005-03-16 02:42am

Athlon 64 Dual Core rendering benchmarks...

Of course, take w/ a grain of salt, and these aren't relavent to gaming.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2005-03-16 07:30am

Ace Pace wrote: Well, on the duel core issue, you can join the bash Intel wagon, for having a shitty duel core strategy of throwing 2 die's together with no connection between them that dosn't pass through the FSB.

Wha?? Now that's just fucking stupid. I need to start paying attention to hardware news again.

Vertigo1 wrote:Look up the 686B debacle if you don't believe me.

Oh, no need to look it up - I was there for it. Bad memories there!

But I'm glad to hear that the nForce kicks ass.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-03-16 07:37am

Arrow Mk84 wrote:
Ace Pace wrote: Well, on the duel core issue, you can join the bash Intel wagon, for having a shitty duel core strategy of throwing 2 die's together with no connection between them that dosn't pass through the FSB.
Wha?? Now that's just fucking stupid. I need to start paying attention to hardware news again.

I remember reading about it in several places, but the only one I can remember now is This, now it dosn't say out an out, but reading it, it dosn't appear that Intel did any changes beyond creating a shared L3 cache.
Theres also This, 2 core's, 1 800MHZ, recipe for a bottleneck.

Finnaly, this http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... i=2252&p=3
Shows exactly what the problem is with the Intel plan:

The major issue with Intel's approach to dual core designs is that the dual cores must contest with one another for bandwidth across Intel's 64-bit NetBurst FSB. To make matters worse, the x-series line of dual core CPUs are currently only slated for use with an 800MHz FSB, instead of Intel's soon to be announced 1066MHz FSBAllready out. The reduction in bandwidth will hurt performance scalability and we continue to wonder why Intel is reluctant to transition more of their CPUs to the 1066MHz FSB, especially the dual core chips that definitely need it.

With only a 64-bit FSB running at 800MHz, a single x40 processor will only have 6.4GB/s of bandwidth to the rest of the system. Now that 6.4GB/s is fine for a single CPU, but an x40 with two cores the bandwidth requirements go up significantly.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2005-03-16 09:00am

Damn, Intel really is going to fuck up big time. After reading about the AMD solution, it almost sounds like they want the dual cores to appear as a single processor to the software - if that's the case, then current applications could benefit greatly - no need to go back and get the apps to span their threads across the cores, it would be done by the CPU interface automatically. Whether or not that's the case, I don't know.

Yeah, I think my next system will be AMD based.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-03-16 04:48pm

I seriously doubt that that AMD is going the "dual core looks like one core" route, which would be silly. The Pentium D is something of a stopgap solution, though -- we may see something far more elegant in the multicore derivative of the Pentium M core (Yonah).

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-03-17 12:48am

phongn wrote:I seriously doubt that that AMD is going the "dual core looks like one core" route, which would be silly. The Pentium D is something of a stopgap solution, though -- we may see something far more elegant in the multicore derivative of the Pentium M core (Yonah).

AMD isn't going for a Duel-core showing like one, its just giving them the ability to also talk to each other instead of having to run to the northbridge for instructions *cough* Intel *cough*

Yonah would be good, alot of Intel's 2k6 CPU's are going to be good, but their still 2K6.

tumbletom · Post by **tumbletom** » 2005-03-17 01:12am

Melchior wrote:AMD CPUs are usually cheaper, consume less power and, AFAIK, AMD never tried to implant anti-privacy shit in their products.

I thought AMD cpus consumed more power--I built one thats comparable to my Intel comp and it needed a bigger powersupply to run on....

But yeah, mostly the difference is that is so much freakn cheaper than intel stuff....

Terr Fangbite · Post by **Terr Fangbite** » 2005-03-17 06:21am

Just one more question I have:

AMD has come out with its 64 model and I hear Intel already has or will come out with theirs. Will winblows xp run on this processor? I've heard yeas and nays to it so can anyone point me to someplace that confirms or denies it?

Ypoknons · Post by **Ypoknons** » 2005-03-17 07:03am

Yes. AMD's 64-bit processors have been running Windows XP 32-bit (the normal one) ever since they came out over a year ago. Intel has 64-bit CPU's out but for the server and workstation markets, not for the consumer market.

However Windows XP right now is basically only available in 32-bit, so the 64-bit functions of the processor are unused. Not that the Athlon 64 really needs it...

Just check any Hardware site ... or ask someone on this board.

http://www.tomshardware.com

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-03-17 12:35pm

tumbletom wrote:
I thought AMD cpus consumed more power--I built one thats comparable to my Intel comp and it needed a bigger powersupply to run on....

But yeah, mostly the difference is that is so much freakn cheaper than intel stuff....

BZZT!

Intel CPU's require ALOT more power, and AMD medium and low range CPU's(3500+ and down) are based on 90nm, requiring 90W at max power.

Windows XP runs very well on 64-bit, with XP Release Candidate 2 allready out, and ANYONE with XP can freely upgrade to XP 64.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-03-17 06:13pm

Ace Pace wrote:AMD isn't going for a Duel-core showing like one, its just giving them the ability to also talk to each other instead of having to run to the northbridge for instructions *cough* Intel *cough*

Yes, the Pentium D is essentially an SMP-Prescott on a single package. Intel has to start somewhere, you know.

Yonah would be good, alot of Intel's 2k6 CPU's are going to be good, but their still 2K6.

I doubt Intel is too worried and they still rule the mobile world with the Xscale and Pentium M lines.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-03-18 12:17am

phongn wrote:
Ace Pace wrote:AMD isn't going for a Duel-core showing like one, its just giving them the ability to also talk to each other instead of having to run to the northbridge for instructions *cough* Intel *cough*
Yes, the Pentium D is essentially an SMP-Prescott on a single package. Intel has to start somewhere, you know.

*cough* so who ain't AMD starting off the same path *cough*

tumbletom · Post by **tumbletom** » 2005-03-18 12:52am

Ace Pace wrote:
tumbletom wrote:
I thought AMD cpus consumed more power--I built one thats comparable to my Intel comp and it needed a bigger powersupply to run on....

But yeah, mostly the difference is that is so much freakn cheaper than intel stuff....
BZZT!

Intel CPU's require ALOT more power, and AMD medium and low range CPU's(3500+ and down) are based on 90nm, requiring 90W at max power.

Windows XP runs very well on 64-bit, with XP Release Candidate 2 allready out, and ANYONE with XP can freely upgrade to XP 64.

Welll maybe its just me then....

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-03-18 04:08am

Welll maybe its just me then...

No, not really. A few years ago, the situation was as you described... Intel's chips were, I believe, a little better with heat than AMD's chips. In fact, it wasn't until recently that AMD had Intel beaten soundly in more than just price.

The Prescott is where things went wrong. The Northwood core was, in my opinion, an excellent architecture for the time.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-03-18 05:18am

SPOOFE wrote:
Welll maybe its just me then...
No, not really. A few years ago, the situation was as you described... Intel's chips were, I believe, a little better with heat than AMD's chips. In fact, it wasn't until recently that AMD had Intel beaten soundly in more than just price.

The Prescott is where things went wrong. The Northwood core was, in my opinion, an excellent architecture for the time.

Yep, up to September 2K3, Intel was winning, then AMD 64 arrived.

The Northwood was rapidly coming into blocks, esspecially in regards to effectiveness in increasing clock speed in an efficient way, you could OC the thing past the 4GHZ, but the benefit over 3GHZ was minor, not enough information reached it through the FSB.

Presscott was wrong, WAY wrong, no CPU should reach 70+ Celcius as a normal operating tempature.

Jade Falcon · Post by **Jade Falcon** » 2005-03-18 09:52am

AMD for me, my first AMD chip was their 350mhz KG-2 which lasted for a while. At present I'm using an AMD 2000 with a A7N8X mainboard.

Regarding VIA chipsets, I once had a mainboard with a KT-133A chipset and the bother I had with that was ridiculous.

I notice no ones asking opinions of Cyrix.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-03-18 07:13pm

Ace Pace wrote:*cough* so who ain't AMD starting off the same path *cough*

AMD64's architecture lends itself nicely to the more sophisticated multicore designs they're bringing out. Netburst does not.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2005-03-18 07:39pm

Ypoknons wrote:Yes. AMD's 64-bit processors have been running Windows XP 32-bit (the normal one) ever since they came out over a year ago. Intel has 64-bit CPU's out but for the server and workstation markets, not for the consumer market.

However Windows XP right now is basically only available in 32-bit, so the 64-bit functions of the processor are unused. Not that the Athlon 64 really needs it...

Just check any Hardware site ... or ask someone on this board.
http://www.tomshardware.com

You can dl XP64 beta from the MS site. The only problem you'd encounter with it is inferior driver support (although even that's not too bad; I've had more trouble getting drivers for all of my stuff on linux than I did for XP64).