Intel vs. AMD...

[RobDog888]

But they wouldnt want to jepordize their products/sales if it was inferior. They would get a bad rep and loose money. So Intel is viewed as the better processor by Macintosh!

Macs used to have IBM processors in them.

[Kasracer]

Ok, then why did Apple change to Intel processors and not AMD?

The same reason Dell uses Intel and hasn't sold any AMD chips: Intel has the fabrication plants to produce a massive amount of chips to supply all of its parents with.

AMD Doesn't have the facilities yet to replace Intel in offering massive amounts of chips to the likes of Dell and Apple.

Also, Intel just unveiled its new Mobile processors which use the 65 nanometre process which gives it very low power consumption and it's a dual-core chip. The funny thing is, AMD's Turion processor uses about 1/5th of the power that the Yonah does and still out performs it even though it's a single core CPU (at least from what I have seen). Plus it's 64bit.

But they wouldnt want to jepordize their products/sales if it was inferior. They would get a bad rep and loose money. So Intel is viewed as the better processor by Macintosh!

No, Intel can meet their requirements for a huge amount of chips where AMD may or may not be able to. Apple doesn't want shortages especially since they're stock is going through the roof and each quarter they are selling a record number of computers and ipods.

Macs used to have IBM processors in them.

The PowerPC chips were quite slow and power hungry compared to the new Intel which. So it's nice to see them switch. Too bad they didn't go for AMD but I see their reasons behind it.

[si_the_geek]

How many non-techies are aware of AMD? (in my experience, very few)

What percentage of Mac buyers are techies? (in my experience, quite low)


I see this as a marketing gimmick as much as anything else, they know that people will see the name Intel and think something like "well I've heard of them, it must be good... I'll buy it". Not to mention of course the 'accidental' sales it will cause when people go out to buy an Intel based PC.

[Kal_Torak]

[color=navy]I am biased towards Intel as I have been a Intel user all my life with no problems.

That makes two of us

[cid]

I have learned not to be biased in my proccessor opionons anymore. Back in the day of the original thread, where me and intel sucks slandered anyone who whispered the name of intel, But as of today... The better processor gets my $$. I figure a difference within 100$ isnt that much for performance. So as of today, my vote is definetly going to AMD.

Rumor has it, that they have quad core opterons running at about 2600$ a piece. If money is no object get one of those. My boss just is thinking about ordering dual quads with dual pci express rendering graphics cards with 16gb of memory. His total last time he checked was 14,500$... He should have it within the month.

That means i get his old one
Dual Xeons 3.4ghz with the fx quadro 4450... I think.

[Cander]

I'd like to see how the new Intels that are in the Macs released today compare to a similar AMD.

[Shaggy Hiker]

There're some good posts on this thread, with some strong arguments.

I suppose for a really top-notch computer, this will make a difference, but I find there are other considerations for more general systems. One of my computers got relegated to the exercise/storage room because the fans were too loud.

However, I now have a program that evolves a mathematical model for 3,000,000 iterations. I have this running on three different computers: An Intel 2.8GHz Pentium D, an Intel 2.8GHz Pentium III, and an old AMD 1.2 GHz Athlon (at least I think that's what's in that computer). There is no obvious difference between how long each one takes to complete, all three take about three days.

Basicaly, I don't think that most people can actually tell the difference for most applications. Use whatever you feel comfortable with, because it will be obsolete before you care.

[RobDog888]

an Intel 2.8GHz Pentium III

Dont you mean a P4?

[gigemboy]

Ok, then why did Apple change to Intel processors and not AMD?

Who knows... maybe they wanted to brand them IntApple... or AppIntel.... Or Appentium... ........ pentiapple??? you get the idea.....

***Whoops.. thought that was mentioned at the end of the thread... but there was another page... so this looks a little rediculous now... (yes I know it still looked a little rediculous to start out)... but .. ehh... I'll keep it here...

[penagate]

As for the clock speed thingy, the AMDs have a much longer pipeline length than the Intels which means more instructions per clock cycle. Intel deliberately shortened the pipeline on the Pentium 4s so that they could ramp up the clock speed, seeing as at the time most people only considered clock speed when evaluating processor performance it made Intel look as though they had made huge gains.

Another thing, I don't know if this is still true but it certainly was in the days of the Athlon XP (when I was shopping around for my setup ), there was an opinion that AMD processors were less reliable than Intels because they had a statistically far higher amount returned after purchase due to failures. This in fact had nothing to do with the chip's reliability, it was simply because P4's had a large bulky packaging so even an ape could install one without damaging it, whereas the Athlon XP had no covering over the chip itself and required a careful installation - this is where they were damaged as people were installing them themselves without proper caution. As long as the chip was handled gently and the heatsink installed correctly (no pressing on an angle, mounting in the correct way etc.) it was fine.

Nowadays I think the Athlon 64's may use a different packaging so I'm not sure if this still applies but it's worth considering if you ever hear doubts about AMD reliability. Once installed they have a comparable service life to Pentiums (in both cases far longer than it takes for them to outdate).

[RobDog888]

There is allot of good points made here But no decision yet.

[RobDog888]

Just heard that the Intel chips being in Macs are going to increase speed 3x!

[thegreatone]

Ok Rob, if you have the money, set 2 systems up side by side, one AMD one Intel.
Run a CPU intensive program, and see how smoothly each one performs, i guarantee that setup correctly the AMd will be much faster due to its onboard memory controller. Intel have gone the wrong way and taken the memory controller off the chip and this has caused lag times in their processors. Don't be fooled by the clock speeds, AMD's are the way to go, they do much more work per cycle.

[fahad k]

...or simply see any of the benchmark tests. I aint posting any new links though

[si_the_geek]

I'll post one then

Here's a recent CPU comparison (about 30 chips) from a site that has always been very reliable:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/..._core_assault/

[RobDog888]

Another great article. I heard about that site but never took the time to go there.

some applications run marginally slower on dual-core processors compared to their single-core counterparts with the same clock speed (we found a 3.3% difference with WinRAR, for example). Yet this advantage will be short lived as more applications make use of thread-optimized multiple processing cores.

Good points but why would it run slightly slower on single threaded apps?

[si_the_geek]

I'd guess as they natively support multi-threading they need to basically emulate single-threading. Not a major deal in the long term tho, as the biggest example they could find was 3.3% difference, with an app that will no doubt be replaced soon enough.

[RobDog888]

Indeed, in many respects, the respective roles of the two CPU giants have been reversed. Instead of AMD, it is now Intel that is providing copious information about its future products, while updates from AMD have become increasingly rare.

SOI means silicon on insulator and refers to insulating layers that divide each of the structural layers in order to prevent leakage currents as much as possible. Leakage is responsible for high heat dissipation and thermal problems with Intel's 90 nm Pentium D and Pentium 4 processors.

Each core comes with its own 1 MB L2 cache. A crossbar switch allow for each core access to access the other core's L2 cache, while Intel's devices must utilize the Front Side Bus for every access.

A few more blurbs that is a good deciding factor.

[RobDog888]

Ok, here's what I want for my Xmas present

[thegreatone]

Ok, here's what I want for my Xmas present

You seriously want a watercooled FX-60 ?
I take it thats a win for AMD ?

[RobDog888]

I need an intense system because I multitask like there is no tomorrow.

Currently running on my system:
Windows XP
Dual RAID Mirrors:
C drive ATA Mirror
D drive SATA Mirror
1.0 Gb DDR Dual Channel RAM

(4) VS.NET 2003 instances
(8) IE
(2) Windows Explorer
(3) VS 6
(1) PhotoShop 7
(1) Outlook
(1) Regedit
(2) MSN IM
(1) API Viewer
(1) SourceOffSite
(1) McAfee AV running background service
(1) MS AntiSpyware
(1) Intel Application Accelerator RAID

[thegreatone]

Thou art insane.

How on earth do you use so many applications ? thats worse than my sister and she pushes the limits [22 MSN IM convo's open at once with 3 IE's and Sound Forge XP, and that includes webcams, audio, music etc... AMD Athlon XP 1600+, 640Mb RAM PC2700, Win XP Home]

I can see why you would want perfromance but ouch, i now see why you NEED performance.
Ok, so i still say AMD, and with that little lot i will definitely say 3800+ X2 (if you want to OC) or the 4800+ (if you'd rather not overclock)

[RobDog888]

I dont like to OC as I dont want any issues, just stability. I find myself having to close apps and watch what I have running. I dont like to do that as some apps are like a R&D thing and I dont want to clutter my drive with junk unless I have to . I just rewrite code so I'll stay shard.

I was looking at the 3800 and am considering it. If I decide to go AMD I will have a tough time convincing my Dad to get me the AMDs instead of the Intels (its my xmas present - dual cpus and a mobo). My cousin works at Intel and that may be how I get them on a promotional sale.

[RobDog888]

Watch this - http://enterpriseevent.amd.com/amd_0...ml?cid=jupiter

[Kasracer]

Another thing, I don't know if this is still true but it certainly was in the days of the Athlon XP (when I was shopping around for my setup ), there was an opinion that AMD processors were less reliable than Intels because they had a statistically far higher amount returned after purchase due to failures. This in fact had nothing to do with the chip's reliability, it was simply because P4's had a large bulky packaging so even an ape could install one without damaging it, whereas the Athlon XP had no covering over the chip itself and required a careful installation - this is where they were damaged as people were installing them themselves without proper caution. As long as the chip was handled gently and the heatsink installed correctly (no pressing on an angle, mounting in the correct way etc.) it was fine.

Nowadays I think the Athlon 64's may use a different packaging so I'm not sure if this still applies but it's worth considering if you ever hear doubts about AMD reliability. Once installed they have a comparable service life to Pentiums (in both cases far longer than it takes for them to outdate).

I purchased a retail version of an Athlon XP 2100+ a long time ago. It has the exact same packaging as a Pentium 4 so I don't know what you're talking about. If you buy an OEM CPU, then it comes with shoddy packaging but the same goes for Intel.

There is allot of good points made here But no decision yet.

How could you not make a decision yet? It's very simple. AMD > Intel.

If you like Intel that much, then just buy one. If you want the highest performance then you get an AMD.

This isn't rocket science and there isn't a need for 100+ posts to make up your decision. It's like beating a dead horse with a stick.

Just heard that the Intel chips being in Macs are going to increase speed 3x!

Comparing some tests, it was 6X. One average it's going to be 3-4X for the new Mac Book Pros and 2X for the new iMac. The reason is because the PowerPC processor just sucked. Plain and simple.

Another great article. I heard about that site but never took the time to go there.
Good points but why would it run slightly slower on single threaded apps?

This is like the issue with HyperThreading making a CPU slower with single threaded applications.

HyperThreading run two threads in the same CPU space. It uses the left over space to run the other thread. If HyperThread is enabled, then a single threaded Application doesn't get the entire dedication of the CPU so it can go slower.

This shouldn't be a problem with dual-core though (or I haven't seen any issues like that with dual core CPUs)

A few more blurbs that is a good deciding factor.

Not really. Intel's road maps ar ekind of embarressing for the company and they change all the time. AMD still has a solid roadmap.

[-TPM-]

I think Penagate was refering to the slot 1 & 2 type intel cpu's that come in cartride style riser form.

[DaveBo]

I dont like to OC as I dont want any issues, just stability.

If you want stability, I think you'd be well advised to not run so many programs simultaneously. Running that many apps is like mixing medications, you never know what the interactions might be.

If you must - then why not run multiple PCs? Then you have more screen real estate, multiple KBs, multiple busses, HDs, paths, RAMs, etc etc etc
It would have to be faster, more stable, and still impress your friends.

A single system will always have its bottlenecks somewhere.
I think I just invented "distributed computing"!

[thegreatone]

If you want stability, I think you'd be well advised to not run so many programs simultaneously. Running that many apps is like mixing medications, you never know what the interactions might be.

If you must - then why not run multiple PCs? Then you have more screen real estate, multiple KBs, multiple busses, HDs, paths, RAMs, etc etc etc
It would have to be faster, more stable, and still impress your friends.

A single system will always have its bottlenecks somewhere.
I think I just invented "distributed computing"!

He already uses KVM switches, so in effect, he does this already...

In all honesty if you do the OC correctly then it will remain stable

[RobDog888]

My system is stable as it has been running for over 2 years so far. I go weeks without rebooting or turning it off. Here is my 3 systems and its a little hard to see but I have a Linksys KVM on my desk on the right side so they all are connected to my 18" LCD. One system is a test system and the other is my 2003 server. Then I have my main developer system that I speced out in the earlier post.

[penagate]

I think Penagate was refering to the slot 1 & 2 type intel cpu's that come in cartride style riser form.

Erm, not quite that far back

I purchased a retail version of an Athlon XP 2100+ a long time ago. It has the exact same packaging as a Pentium 4 so I don't know what you're talking about. If you buy an OEM CPU, then it comes with shoddy packaging but the same goes for Intel.

At the time I purchased my 2600+ it was common knowledge that the XP's were more fragile to install than the P4's. They do not have anything like the same packaging, the P4 has a riser over the entire chip.

P4:


Athlon XP:


You can't tell me you don't believe more clowns knocked the XP to bits than the P4 when they installed it

[Merri]

I had less hassle with technical specs this time: I bought a laptop. Not to entirely replace my desktop though. I had a laptop before, but I'm planning to sell it: it was portable and all, but it wasn't even nearly as convenient as my desktop. This new laptop I have is much more convenient, close to the desktop. And darn, this has even more processing power than my desktop!

I ended up choosing AMD based computer, I needed power versus long duration; I'm not sure, but atleast some Pentium machines seemed to have fairly long duration but they seemed to lack processing power. I don't move the laptop daily and it is almost always plugged to power outlet so it is close to a desktop replacement.

Here are the specs of the laptop for the interested people:

Processor: Mobile AMD Turion 64 3200+
Memory: 1024MB
Harddisk: 80 GB
Screen: LCD 15.4" WXGA Crystal View
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon X700 128MB
DVD-drive: multiformat burner, dual layer

Its pretty nice how far laptops have come in the past few years, these stats are very much enough for my needs. Good thing I didn't buy a laptop of this price category two years ago when I bought my first laptop as a introduction to the laptop world, it would have been very much a waste of money (the screens of that time weren't this good not to speak about graphics power and processor...).

Although, with my income, I'm not gonna buy much if any computer related stuff this year thanks to spending a bit more than I've used to into this machine...

[Kasracer]

At the time I purchased my 2600+ it was common knowledge that the XP's were more fragile to install than the P4's. They do not have anything like the same packaging, the P4 has a riser over the entire chip.

You can't tell me you don't believe more clowns knocked the XP to bits than the P4 when they installed it

Ohhhhhh I thought you meant Box packaging. lol. nm

[penagate]

Oh.. no

[Rattlerr]

I was kinda briefly read threw the conversations here..lol

1 Major Reason Intel can mass produce more Chips than AMD is that their "Waffer" is much larger than AMD's...Which in Return allows Intel to get more Chips out of a Single Waffer...

Now the only way i see a 2( Dual Core Cpu) system happening is with 2 Dual Core Xeons processors or AMD Opterons...

Now also keep in mind ,yes intel has had Heating issues but that is all about to come to an End quickly,by say Mid 2006...Intel will be releasing a New Line of Dual Cores that will include a New Set of programming lines from the Pentium M Class CPU...The Pentium M / Centrino Mobile has no heating issues..
1 the over all design their more compact and designed to work on a Lower amount of Volt's because their designed for Laptops...Also in comparison ::
P4 3.0Ghz E To Centrino Chip of equvelant speed performs more Calculations per Clock Cycle than a P4 for a Desktop...

In return the Centrino Mobile is actually more powerful than the Desktop model,In the Magazines i get " Info World" the best network mag around..Not only have i been keeping up on this Heat issue with Intel Chips ,I also have a Reseller Account with Intel so i get some additional inside Info..LOL

So it wont be long that once the New Instruction Set's from the Mobile processors are put into the New Pentium D CPU Class the Heat issues will go away..And Intel will be able to go right into the 4 Ghz Class without any problems...Dont get me wrong just stating facts ..lol I have no issue's with AMD they do make a very good chip specially if your a Gamer..

my current system

Intel P4 3.0Ghz E
Asus P4P800 SE Motherboard
2 Gig of PC3200 OCZ with Heat Spreaders
(2) Western Digital Raptors on a RAID 0
(2) 250 Gig Western Digital for Storage
Nvidia FX 6800 (AGP) No long in Production but did make them for a short while...
HeatSink " ThermalTake DIY Tower" Solid Copper Version, Using " Artic Silver Thermal Grease"
(2) Fans to get a Push / Pull over the Heat Sink (4000 RPM) Fans adjustable

[ichix_jaxx]

i'm not a guru on hardware... and i'm not aware of the benchmarks of the two... but i give idea based on my experience with our school's laboratory...

this is on the durability side of the processors... i'm not familiar with the price and its speed and all...

--- in my 3 yrs as a technician, i have never encountered a damaged Intel processor...
--- but, i have replaced 5 or more damaged AMD processors

[thegreatone]

A Technician who's not aware of speeds or prices or benchmarks or anything ?
Sounds strange to me, especially as your other thread is about what a technician would do for a living.

Still Rob, i think Dual CPU's of any description will work for you, whether its Intel Or AMD, i still believe however that AMD Opteron 146's are the way to go...

[Valleysboy1978]

I'd say, according to the poll, it's a resounding win for AMD

[Rattlerr]

The next system I build will be with Dual Core Xeon Processors on a Double Socket Motherboard,with a Minimum of 2 Gigs of Ram Per CPU Core...But yeah AMD or Intel will work good for you Rob...But from what i see the AMD X2 is also more expensive...LOL

Kinda weird AMD being more expensive this time around but if you look on Newegg.com you will see the starting price for a AMD X2 is around $500 give or take...To where the Intel Pentium D @ 2.8Ghz starts at around $280..

[RobDog888]

Yup, I saw that and feel with the durability of Intel and lower price, it may be a win for Intel. I hate hardware issues as I need my system to be reliable.

I seen that Xeon processors are more designed for server systems. Does anyone know more on this?

[Merri]

Hmm, but doesn't Intel's processors produce more heat than AMD's processors, thus wearing down the system overall quicker thanks to the "extra" heat it produces? Atleast HDs and powers don't like too much heat all that much afaik. I'm also interested to see what these hardware issues are: do they mean some kind of immarity problems with motherboard chipsets or are the processors somehow more prone to errors than Intel's? As far as I remember, there was just talk in this thread that there are no major differences between lifetime and error pronity of AMD and Intel, or something like that.