AMD vs Intel

Headshots_Sold_Here · Post by **Headshots_Sold_Here** » 2003-04-09 02:14am

Discuss.
Personally, I like AMD better. More efficiency with the mhz, cheaper, optimized for cheaper ram, nForce2 mobo..

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-04-09 03:20am

I don't give a damn, whatever makes the computar go. But AMDs run a little hot for my tastes.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-04-09 03:21am

The basic line goes like this:

AMD = Raw speed.

Intel = Efficiency and longevity.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-04-09 03:36am

Since when have Intels been optimized for efficiency?

They've been optimizing the P4s lately for raw speed; that's why they have clock cycles around 3 GHz. The design of the Athlon XP, on the other hand, is more efficient and runs at a slower clock speed.

Both run at roughly the same temperature, but the AMD will overheat faster if you do something foolhardy like take off the heatsink&fan.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-04-09 11:32am

Crayz9000 wrote:Since when have Intels been optimized for efficiency?

Well, Banias is by all accounts a damned efficient processor.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-04-09 11:33am

AMD.

Better efficency in use of clock cycles...meaning better power overall for the same clock.

As for the heat....thats why we have heatsinks.....

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-04-09 11:37am

The computer I am on now is a AMD 1.4 thunderbird, no complaints.

The next personal computer I get will probably be an Intel chip (because I'll get the box at Dell), although an AMD would be fine.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-04-09 05:10pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:AMD.

Better efficency in use of clock cycles...meaning better power overall for the same clock.

As for the heat....thats why we have heatsinks.....

Yeah, but it starts to get out of hand when you need a seperate case just for the CPU and heatsinks.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-09 05:12pm

I like whichever is cheaper at the time. Currently running an AMD Athlon gig on my home machine. It was cheap to build and runs everything I have fine.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-04-09 05:16pm

Currently have an AMD...no problems so far.

So far the difference do not seem that great from my friend's equal Intel.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-09 05:38pm

I like AMD because they focus on efficiency, but Chipzilla played its cards beautifully with the Pentium 4. Is it a horrendously inefficient processor? Yes. Does it get shitty performance per clock cycle? Oh yeah. Is it scalable to the point where none of that matters? You'd better believe it.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-04-09 08:02pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Currently have an AMD...no problems so far.

So far the difference do not seem that great from my friend's equal Intel.

Try this for an experiment: Take a Pentium 4 running at a certain clock speed, with the standard kit. Then take an Athlon XP running at an identical clock speed (for reference, the XP 1800+ runs at 1.53 GHz standard).

Benchmark both side-by-side, and you tell me which one is better. Yes, I'm betting that the AMD will whip the Intel, even though both run at the same clock speed.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-09 08:48pm

Crayz9000 wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Currently have an AMD...no problems so far.

So far the difference do not seem that great from my friend's equal Intel.
Try this for an experiment: Take a Pentium 4 running at a certain clock speed, with the standard kit. Then take an Athlon XP running at an identical clock speed (for reference, the XP 1800+ runs at 1.53 GHz standard).

Benchmark both side-by-side, and you tell me which one is better. Yes, I'm betting that the AMD will whip the Intel, even though both run at the same clock speed.

And make sure that both are on the same bus, RAM, HD setup, et cetera ...

However, AMD is learning the same thing Apple did. Efficiency doesn't mean shit on the desktop. It's all about the price/performance ratio. AMD's chips have a higher ratio than Intel's. An Athlon XP can perform so well at a certain price. The Pentium 4 can perform as well for cheaper. Clockspeed is meaningless.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-04-09 09:07pm

Sounds like AMD subscribe to the "Enterprise-D Warp Core Design" School of thought a bit, while Intel does the "Every Warp Core Design That Came Before" philosophy. Only an AMD'll not spray you with antimatter and blow up when you fart on it!

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-04-09 09:12pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Sounds like AMD subscribe to the "Enterprise-D Warp Core Design" School of thought a bit, while Intel does the "Every Warp Core Design That Came Before" philosophy. Only an AMD'll not spray you with antimatter and blow up when you fart on it!

Intel has made serious changes to various processors; they do not merely modify designs.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-04-09 09:16pm

Which reminds me, I'm getting my P4 tomorrow, but I won't be able to use it till perhaps Monday thanks to my bloody Lit paper and a camping trip.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-04-09 09:17pm

Well i have an AMD K6 in my PC,and its been running since october 2000.

BrYaN19kc · Post by **BrYaN19kc** » 2003-04-09 09:20pm

Our university has stopped purchasing boxes with AMD processors. The computer center says that over 50% of the boxes with AMD processors couldn't even make it through the three-year rotation plan. Most of them overheated so often that they simply ended up failing.

We just rotated out our last computer lab and brought in all Dell's with P-4's.

Personally, I've never owned a box with an AMD. My server, workstation and Laptop are all Pentium. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't purchase a box with an AMD, I've just never really had that choice.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-09 09:52pm

AMD leapt ahead of Intel for a while there, while Intel was struggling with its aging P3 core. For pure number-crunching, AMD literally CRUSHED Intel. At the same clockspeed on floating-point math, I was seeing DOUBLE the performance!!

However, that has since changed. The P4's FPU sucks, but a lot of code is now optimized for the P4 and that is no longer a factor in many cases (not all; the number-crunching software I used to use runs like shit on a P4). And it is now AMD which is trying to flog an aging horse.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-04-09 10:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:AMD leapt ahead of Intel for a while there, while Intel was struggling with its aging P3 core. For pure number-crunching, AMD literally CRUSHED Intel. At the same clockspeed on floating-point math, I was seeing DOUBLE the performance!!

However, that has since changed. The P4's FPU sucks, but a lot of code is now optimized for the P4 and that is no longer a factor in many cases (not all; the number-crunching software I used to use runs like shit on a P4). And it is now AMD which is trying to flog an aging horse.

That could change again with the Athlon 64 though, we'll see.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2003-04-10 01:04am

Considering that the x86-64 is light years ahead of Intel's pathetic Itanium instruction set, which isn't even backward's compatible, AMD has a huge shot of overtaking Intel if this 64-bit computing becomes popular on PCs.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-04-10 01:17am

Durandal wrote:However, AMD is learning the same thing Apple did. Efficiency doesn't mean shit on the desktop. It's all about the price/performance ratio. AMD's chips have a higher ratio than Intel's. An Athlon XP can perform so well at a certain price. The Pentium 4 can perform as well for cheaper. Clockspeed is meaningless.

Wait a second... how the hell did Intel manage to undercut AMD? Last time I checked, it cost a lot less to get an Athlon XP than it did a Pentium 4...

OK, just got some figures.

Athlon XP 2800+ (2.25 GHz) - $290
P4 2.8 GHz - $300
P4 2.26 GHz - $160

However, when it comes to the older chips (like the 1800+) there is still a wide price margin - the 1800+ only costs around $55, while the 1.5GHz P4 costs almost as much as a newer model at $130.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-04-10 12:00pm

Lord MJ wrote:Considering that the x86-64 is light years ahead of Intel's pathetic Itanium instruction set, which isn't even backward's compatible, AMD has a huge shot of overtaking Intel if this 64-bit computing becomes popular on PCs.

I think that EPIC will win the war for the successor of IA32. There's far too much clout behind it, and Intel is willing to put the money up to improve it. They're working on efficient compilers (which EPIC demands) and throwing as much as 9MB of full-speed L2 cache onboard. Just for kicks, they add on a P5 core for IA32 compatibility (abliet slow).

x86-64 may have backwards compatibility, but I have serious reservations if it can compete with Chipzilla - who doesn't even plan to get into the 64-bit desktop market for some time. The market is relatively limited right now and probably will remain so.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-10 12:32pm

phongn wrote:x86-64 may have backwards compatibility, but I have serious reservations if it can compete with Chipzilla - who doesn't even plan to get into the 64-bit desktop market for some time. The market is relatively limited right now and probably will remain so.

You never know. Apple may kick-start the transition with the PPC 970.

</rumormongering>

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-04-10 12:40pm

Durandal wrote:
phongn wrote:x86-64 may have backwards compatibility, but I have serious reservations if it can compete with Chipzilla - who doesn't even plan to get into the 64-bit desktop market for some time. The market is relatively limited right now and probably will remain so.
You never know. Apple may kick-start the transition with the PPC 970.

</rumormongering>

Bah, good luck getting people to switch [back]. That's an even bigger change from IA32 -> IA64.