I'm going to get a new PC, should I get Intel or AMD machine? what is better for all our usual programming applications?
Printable View
I'm going to get a new PC, should I get Intel or AMD machine? what is better for all our usual programming applications?
What are your usual applicatons? If it's not heavy in 3d graphics, then either one is fine. With AMD you'll get more for your money as they are generally cheaper.
What if other program are; such as the kids games?
AMD offers superior performance at every conceivable price point. You could use the money you would save to get a more powerful PC.
More performance, less cost. Like the new 6-core AMD (Thuban) starts at $200. Lets see Intel try to match that.
Plus, AMD supports ECC on a wider range of their CPUs. Last time I checked you can only get ECC on Intel's Xeon line up. So if rock-solid(talking the five 9's, 99.999%) stability is desirable, then AMD is also a logical choice.
Many applications are compiled with Intel's compilers. These have been known to hugely favor Intel CPUs over AMD's, although there's no technical reason for doing so. The AMD CPUs are capable of running the same machine code as the Intel CPUs, but due to what is largely seen as malicious 'unfair play' the Intel compiled code detects AMD CPUs and purposefully runs slower code paths on them. I think Intel has even been sued over it(or at least threatened).
Intel will give you the best raw performance if you're willing to pay the premium but, as has been said, AMD will generally give you better value. Personally, I buy AMD every time for desktop systems if for no other reason than to support Intel's only real competition. If it weren't for AMD, Intel would still be giving us 32-bit desktop processors and saying that 64-bit isn't feasible. All big companies are the same to a greater or lesser extent but a big company with no competition is the most the same of all, if you know what I mean.
I'm going to have to disagree with "Intel giving the best raw performance". Perhaps on "Wintel" platforms(that term didn't come into existence for no reason) this has some merit. But in the grander scheme of things AMD offers serious performance that can not be dismissed. Nor can it even be fully realized on Wintel.
Such as these Blender benchmarks on Windows vs. Linux: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2978/a...-6-core-xeon/7
Don't take this as definitive. There are certain areas where Intel is better, and certain areas where AMD's true cores(versus Intel's logical cores, aka HyperThreaded) are better.
Also, AMD processors power 3 of the top 5(top 1%!) super computers in the world according to top500.org(placing 1, 3 and 4). Not exactly relevant for home PCs, but it does show that AMD is awesome. :)
When it comes down to apples to apples, that's dollars to dollars, AMD is leaving Intel behind.
If you want to compare a $1,000 Intel chip against a $150-$300 AMD chip, then surly you can see marginal(maybe 20-30% overall) performance gains. On the flip side there are AMD chips that cost $100 that outperform $400 Intel chips. And for $400 I can easily make a complete(sans monitor, printer, etc... no accessories, just a case and the innards) quad core AMD system. Also, many laptops(not netbooks, but those too) are falling into this price range.
The OP said that they're getting a new PC. Are you saying that AMD has a mainstream desktop processor that can match the top i7 for pure speed? Nothing I've ever read suggests so. Of course, that i7 costs a small fortune but the fastest is still the fastest regardless of cost. As I said myself though, AMD is generally better value.Quote:
Originally Posted by FireXtol
Comparing AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition to Intel i7 980x, the performance is marginal, but intel costs 4 times more than AMD.
So, what you're saying is that the Intel offers better performance but the AMD is better value. I wish I'd said that. Don't get me wrong, if I was building a new machine right now I'd be buying the X6 myself, but it still isn't as fast as the top i7.Quote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
Exactly what part of my post made you ask that? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
Did you miss this:
In other words: no. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by FX
Lets compare Lamborghinis to ATVs! Because obviously those two vehicles compete directly in the same market segments. :p
I brought up Opterons because of the price points. If someone was seriously considering the flagship i7, then I'm sure they'd be open to the possibilities of 4P Opterons(4x4, 16 cores) which could be had for similar cost to a top-of-the-line i7 system(and if you'll consider used Opterons then there's substantial savings to be had). Which would blow away an i7 in terms of multi-core performance. Or with the 'new' Magny-Cours that can be pushed to 48 cores! Mind boggling.
The i7 doesn't even support ECC RAM(last time I checked only Xeons do), which doesn't make sense to me. While AMD's Athlons(II), Phenoms(II), and Opterons do.
For a realistic high performance modern PC the choice is easy. The Phenom II X4 and X6 offer very high performance per dollar. The 890GX chipset offers high value while offering integrated graphics capable of 1080P, and an improved southbridge offering double the bandwidth from the previous chipset(790GX). That should be plenty to play "kids games".
The i7 X 980 offers 1/3rd the performance/price of those AMD CPUs I just mentioned.
If you can spare on performance somewhat in preference of performance/price then the Athlon II and even the Phenom(not II) quad cores offer even better value.
On the Intel front there's the Core i3(such as the 530), offering pretty much the same performance as core i5's at reduced cost. This would be the most serious contender(performance/$$) to AMD's Athlon II line-up.
Yeah, the term didn't come into existence for no reason, but it didn't come into existence for the reason you suggested. The term arose from the Motorola/Apple vs Intel/Windows competition. Apple fanatics needed a name for the competition. In more recent ads, the term PC was used, but PC just meant Personal Computer, which an Apple was. They needed a name that specifically targeted MS OSs running on Intel architecture to contrast with the Motorola architecture that Apple OS ran on. At the time, the heated competition was as much between who had the faster processor as it was between the OS. Therefore, they weren't ONLY comparing Mac to Windows, they were also comparing Motorola to Intel. Therefore, they came up with Wintel as a name for the competition. The only other name they used commonly was Windoze, but that was generally used by a certain subset of the culture, while Wintel was the 'official' name for the competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by FireXtol
Of course, Apple eventually moved to the x86 processor, as well, which removed the CPU competition, and PC has generally become a term for Windows OS in general, but not back in the day.
[QUOTE=jmcilhinney;3835409]Are you saying that AMD has a mainstream desktop processor that can match the top i7 for pure speed?That would be this part:Quote:
Originally Posted by FireXtol
If you disagree that Intel wears the performance crown then then you believe that AMD has equal or better performance. We're talking mainstream desktop processors here, i.e. Core and Phenom, not Xeon and Opteron. Everything I've read says that the top Core i7 is faster than the top Phenom. I wouldn't buy one, but facts is factsQuote:
Originally Posted by FireXtol
Actually it was broader than Apple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Windows NT once ran on Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC machines which also had their fans.
You don't get to decide what I'm talking about! There's no logic to your argument. If one was to consider a $1000 6 core i7, why would they not consider a 12 core Opteron for about the same price or less, or 2P or 4P Opteron setups also for around the same price or less? Clearly, they are going for performance unmatched by your average 'desktop processor'. Fact or not? "I really want performance, but I'm unwilling to save money by going to more reliable server processors from a different vendor." Is that really the logic you're trying to state as "facts is facts"? Yea, sure, Intel wears the performance crown if you're completely oblivious to workstation hardware. Can't even use ECC on an i7, but I'm sure you're also oblivious to the implications of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
The i7 is also faster than a Xeon is some benchmarks, and in others a Xeon is faster, and in others an Opteron wins(or in some instances, for Xeon or Opteron it's often multiple CPUs, such as 2P, 4P or more). There is no one 'ultimate' processor(or rather a better term would be system) for every single application(as a processor is worthless outside a system). Get your facts straight.
I made it very clear what I was talking about.
@Shaggy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintel I guess if you ignore the implications of the term.... It's a term used to describe the partnership between Windows and Intel specifically, one that's still going strong to this day, but Microsoft has also diversified, notably Windows XP(and NT also ran on other architectures). Such I'm sure didn't make Intel happy, but they decided to supply Apple. Regardless, Wintel has not lost significance(for whatever reasons). It isn't as limited as you claim, and your claimed origins are incorrect(incomplete at best).
What competition? Apple has never been competition. Microsoft bailed Apple out of bankruptcy(and sold the stock they bought for a huge profit!). Apple would not exist without Bill Gates. Bill and Steve are very good friends. I'm sure a huge reason for Microsoft saving Apple(apart from a fairly solid investment, and their friendship) from doom was to avoid more monopoly law suits. Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about from Apple. Apple is good for Microsoft.
That's pretty much how I recollect the events too.Quote:
Originally Posted by FireXtol
I remember a time of great computational diversity on the desktop. You not only had different CPU options, you had different approaches to video hardware and how it was coupled to the CPU, different options for internal I/O and external networks and buses, a great deal of diversity in operating systems, and a price range for every budget.
Then we had the beginnings of the Great Charade of "competition" between Microsoft and Apple, predating the desperate bailout of Apple. Basically Apple threw it's slimy arm around Microsoft's shoulder and began bludgeoning the world with the message that all other alternatives were poor choices.
Not only does Apple not compete with Microsoft, they were almost solely behind the effort to squash all real forms of competition.
All we're left with now is the hokey, jokey Linux and aging forms of BSD Unix... and even those are pretty much relegated to running on hardware designed for Microsoft Windows except for very rare and expensive exceptions. Sun and the other remaining Unix vendors are in an entirely different price range and exceedingly rare in sheer numbers.
If Microsoft is evil Apple is beyond redemption.
But you were happy to decide (and miss-interpret) what JM was talking about. What he originally posted was true, Intel chips ARE more powerful IF your willing to pay the premium. Or to put it another way, the power band that Intel offers extends further upward than AMD's. Porsche 911s perform better than Ford Fiestas - if you're willing to pay the premium to buy one. What you appear to be saying (and I only bother to put it in those terms so that I won't be deemed to be "deciding" what you're saying) is that AMD offers you alot more power at a given price point... which is also exactly what JM said.Quote:
You don't get to decide what I'm talking about!
I definitely agree with that!Quote:
If Microsoft is evil Apple is beyond redemption.
How about reliability though?
I have never had a machine with an Intel CPU die. However I've had bad experiences with two AMD-based machines. I'm not saying it wasn't the support chipset instead of the CPU that failed but at that point is there a difference?
It would take a lot to convince me to ever buy an AMD-based machine again.
@dilettante: I've had the exact opposite experience. Though, the Intels were Dells. If you talk to the guy behind the counter at PC repair shops they typically say Intel systems are their most frequently serviced machines, but that's to be expected due to its market share.
@FunkyDexter: I agreed with him immediately in post #6. By Wintel, yes, exactly! a desktop PC. The PC 'everybody you know' has, a Wintel(Windows on an 'desktop' x86). Then I talk about processors in general("grander scheme"), and compare them based on price, and not some 'irrelevant barrier' like if it's a desktop processor or not, but meaningful attributes like price, performance, and stability.
The only luxury Intel offers is paying substantially more for slower processors.
I don't buy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FireXtol
Lots of those "repair shops" are trying to peddle their own white box systems. They tend to skimp and use marginal parts (like AMD processors and corresponding motherboards) where they can trying to undercut the big OEMs. I won't claim they use poor quality video cards but I'm suspicious of their choices of hard drives as well.
For an extra fee they'll offer to throw in enough fans that the thing can nearly levitate itself, hoping to compensate for overheating parts. Sometimes this is poor case layout or an overstuffed motherboard, sometimes it's those sub-par components. A properly designed desktop system does not need hard drive fans.
And the answer is....
.. a suspicion that this should have been in the "PC Stuff" forum, since there really is no development issue under discussion?
The answer is that there is no one answer. It's really not for us to decide what you want. There's no statistical reason that I'm aware of to believe that there's any reliability difference between the two. The fact that you're even asking this question is proof to me that you're not the type of person who is going to use a server platform to build a PC. You may not even be the type of person to build your own PC, although we can only guess because you haven't told us. It's up to you to decide how much you want to spend and then look for the best you can find for that money. There is no specific reason not to buy one or the other overall. They will both do the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by AirlineSim
There are basically two kinds of repair shops. One sells Intel and AMD parts. The other sells only Intel parts. Good luck finding AMD only shops.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I'd say the major problem is poor quality motherboards, coupled with bargain bin PSUs. And CPU tied to these two disastrous components isn't standing a fair chance regardless of manufacturer.
I can't say I've ever had a CPU die on me, and that was it. Perhaps the motherboard fried, and took the CPU with it(or maybe it was the other way around), in all cases these have been Intel(Intel board, Intel CPU) powered Dells. Why Dells? In the business world they're the most popular! It's only natural to see the most used product fail the most often. Then there are the recent allegations of Dell knowingly shipping defective hardware. And, well, it's completely unsurprising.
I'd highly suggest at least one fan in the general location of the hard drives. Modern drives run fairly hot, especially high RPM drives.
I recently had a HD failure and wasn't using any fans on any of them. I figured the passive air flow would cover them. Perhaps it mattered not. But since putting a fan that blows directly on my internal HDs I've notice their temperatures drop considerably. It's so important I'll say it again: I highly suggest this. A fan is only around $5. The only thing cheaper in the case would probably be the screws used to mount it!
@AirlineSim: What is your budget, and what is your intention for the machine? That's the best way to determine what you should purchase. Furthermore, will you be assembling the machine or do you want a complete OEM, such as a Dell, Sony, etc.? If you have a brand preference, spit it out now.
I think the question is one of budget and purpose of the machine. If you're absolutely looking for the fastest processor out there, this benchmark would suggest that you need to buy the best Intel you can get your hands on.
If you're planning to build a desktop used for programming applications, my advice would be to forget about getting the fastest CPU. Just look for a good price/performance ratio and choose whatever you like, I've had good and bad experiences both with Intel and AMD processors. What you should be paying attention to is the hard disk subsystem. I've yet to encounter any programming environment where the hard disk speed wasn't the most important speed factor, especially if you're looking at large compilations. Most boards nowadays support various RAID configurations, so you could get four decently priced hard disks and set them up using RAID-10. That way you have both reliability and speed. If you can afford to spend some more $$$, get a board that supports SATA III and two Velociraptors at 10K RPM and 6GB/s transfer rate and couple them to a RAID-1 configuration.
Ok, I'm taking off the gloves. :lol:
Intel is, in no uncertain terms, a horribly despicable company. It has used its market dominance for decades to stifle competition and hurt resellers large and small. This directly affects the end-user, too! Only after being sued repeatedly has there been hope for change. Do you really want to choose the company that needed to be sued in order to force them to "play fair"(assuming they can get it right)? Reminding you of Microsoft? No doubt!
AMD's global microprocessor market share is around 12%, while Intel's is closer to 81%. This is not an accident, or a result of consumer choice, but largely due to vendor lock-in as a result of Intel's illegal(they settled, but still) business practices.
Plus a number of popular benchmarks are known to use Intel's "defective compiler"(which unfairly favor Intel). Which is why I pointed out a Win vs Linux benchmark, and the rather huge improvement from ditching Windows when considering multi-core performance. I mean, why else would Windows only be running on less than 1% of supercomputers(and where Linux dominates)? Windows is antiquated when it comes to modern high performance hardware(besides games).
In the modern age of multi-core systems Linux, as it exists now, is far better modeled to deal with multi-core workloads than Windows(with its mostly single processor history, and so immature with multi-core support). Linux(as a whole, but specifically the kernel) has often been regarded as too server-centric(which have typically run on multi-core/multiprocessor systems for decades), but as consumers adopt multi-core systems this is actually a substantial benefit.
Also, I don't see how an outdated synthetic benchmark is relevant to processors that were basically just released. A lot of Passmark's benchmarks aren't even multi-threaded!
For the sake of better choices in the future the choice today should be AMD.
Buy AMD, use the savings to buy more memory. That would make your PC more scalable to newer apps; typical use is image/movie viewing, spreadsheet, document editing, and like... hardly any CPU cycle necessary in those activities but newer apps tend to require more memory (more APIs, libraries, and features loaded to memory). Also with more memory you use disk based memory less often, this translates to better performance overall.
You can also use savings to buy better mboard and vid cards (if your typical use is more on resource intensive games).
Given typical use mentioned earlier you only need 2 cores (so hangs are not a nuisance, and relevant processes can be killed easily). Usage that require 4 cores or more is not typical; e.g. (a) software development wherein you also run VMs, databases and web servers locally instead of having another host on the network run those and limit local usage to IDE, or (b) resource intensive activities such as finalizing digitally altered scenes from movies. Imagine a PC typically used to surf the net; 4 cores is overkill and it's just driving your electricity bill up.
My experience with AMD is that the motherboard gave out first, and I needed to upgrade CPU since motherboards for old model were no longer available (it lasted that long). Meanwhile Intel CPUs of my friends were frying out despite uber-graded fans.
While it's true that 4 cores eats more power than 2 cores, often the sweet spot is at 3 cores so a dual-core doen't quite cut it. You also typically get a lot more L2 cache (often double) on a quad. That's another power eater, but another source of performance. More L2 cache becomes even more important if you run in 64-bit mode, which squanders cache.
Ahh yes the L2 cache... here's an old article, to give an idea on the pros and cons of cache architecture/sizes.
http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=4102
Also I admit I'm a bit biased... I don't like the feeling that I'm supporting (paying) for a company's excessive marketing stint... I'd rather just pay for the product itself.
Go away for a few days and the world passes you by.
The link is an article describing the evolution of the PC industry more than anything else. It doesn't speak to the origin or usage of the term "Wintel" other than to mention what it means, which it does in a slightly bizarre form when it suggests that the term didn't exist before MS released Windows. Therefore, in no way does it contradict what I stated the origin of the term to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by FireXtol
It most certainly HAS been competition. Everything else you state has to do with the collapse of Apple around the first departure of Steve Jobs and the disaster of OS7/8. The company is considerably older, and was very direct competition in the earlier years. By the time that Jobs left, MS had clearly won, and Apple was floundering, but they certainly weren't floundering in the 80's when the competition was hottest. What I am saying is that the Wintel term came from this competition, which you could see by reading the MacUser and InCider magazines from the 90's (the actual term couldn't have preceded Windows, of course, but the rivalry that caused Apple faithful to need to brand MS/Intel originated earlier).Quote:
What competition? Apple has never been competition.
Of course, what you see in those magazines is not the view of Apple. What you see is the view of the faithful, and they were well versed in self deception during that time. Apple added to the fire a bit with a few notable ad campaigns of the day, and still pumps it up with the Mac vs PC ads, but the torch was mainly carried by the consumers, not the company. The terminology used to denigrate the non-believers was largely enforced by the partisan media, and Wintel was one of those terms.
Were there other groups going after MS/Intel at the time? Linux wasn't around, PS/2 wasn't around, CP/M wasn't really around. That leaves only the Unix flavor users, and they had no coherent voice. Who was there who so needed a name to brand the competition other than the Apple faithful?
That's because the enormous beards muffled clear speech.Quote:
That leaves only the Unix flavor users, and they had no coherent voice
Shaggy, I suppose I was unclear. When I stated "Apple has never been competition" I was referring to it against Wintel. Jobs resigned in 1985. Wintel was far after that(Win 3.0), so early 1990's onward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
But if you say MS had won in 1985, I won't argue with you.
Well, Apple was never effective competition against Wintel, to be sure. The competition was there, and they really, really, believed in it. They were just ineffective. I would say that Apple competed against MS, but MS wasn't competing against Apple by that time. However, the invective levels by the Apple fanatics against Wintel, reached a peak in the early to mid-90s as far as I could tell. That invective appeared to be shaping part of the public debate over computers, and some of the terminology and perceptions appear to directly arise from that era.
After thinking it over a bit, I'm not sure where the term Wintel came from. I don't know who coined the term, but it was surely used most emphatically as an epithet by the Mac faithful who were leading the invective at the time. The reason I have begun to doubt that it came from that camp is that it isn't, in itself, particularly insulting. No other name they used, such as Windoze, was free of some kind of dig.
So what's the answer to the original question?
Funny nobody even mentioned VIA.
The answer is: This question is nearly, though not quite, as inflammatory as the VB6 vs .NET discussions for this forum. The major difference is that it hasn't flared up in a couple years. To a large extent, the difference is irrelevant. People will make their choice based on their perception of the value of the chip. If they don't value money very highly (don't laugh, it's not at all uncommon), then pure performance, or even brand affiliation, may trump the price. If money is the issue, they will be trying to maximize performance within a particular price point, for which no direct comparison is probably viable, due to differing promotional deals from different companies. Brand affiliation would play some role in that decision, as well. The final choice will be based on a triangulation from several points. Value will turn out to be subjective and based on bias, names, financial state, and increasingly incomparable benchmarking.
That does seem like a fair summary. ;)