AMD and Intel Processor differences

[saugatak]

Maxabozo:

You're an American living in Germany laughing at scared Canadians in Kuwait destroying AMD based machines while figting in Iraq.

You've just spewed more BS on this thread than a herd of cows could produce in a month eating nothing but ex-lax.

Dude, AMD ownz Intel right now. Intel is scrapping their technology to go back to the drawing board so they can start to compete. P4 chips do less while producing more power. With respect to x64 and dual core, it's not even a contest.

If you really are a soldier in Iraq, I don't expect to see you back on these boards . . . you know what Darwin said, survival of the fittest, dumbest die.

[suryad]

Zxian lets not forget ATI....its Canadian based isnt it? And so is Alias the makers of Maya?

AMD really is a great proc. I just conceeded defeat so that flamewars diddnt get out of hand. Sure some benches AMD loses but there arent that many. And lets not forget the clocksped headroom that AMD still has. Sure they are incrementing only with 200 mhz increments but the performance is scaling incredibly well unlike Intel procs. And also lets not forget they oclock really well.

As saugatak pointed out that Intel is actually rethinking everything adn going back to Pentium 3 architecture and tweaking it to produce their new chips.

AMD all the way. It only makes sense....no fanboyism here.

[Crash&Burn]

Well heres an upcoming difference:

AMD Unveils Its New Virtualization Technology

Code-named Pacifica—after either the seaside California town or Chrysler's new crossover wagon—AMD took the formal wraps off of its new chip technology yesterday. The chip-based technology gives different applications their own virtual computers, to help speed up tasks.

Course Intel is following in its footsteps, or was given access to the info, since they'll be coming out with it later, and both designs suprise suprise are compatible.

[Zxian]

Zxian lets not forget ATI....its Canadian based isnt it? And so is Alias the makers of Maya?

Yup... B)

AMD really is a great proc. I just conceeded defeat so that flamewars diddnt get out of hand. Sure some benches AMD loses but there arent that many. And lets not forget the clocksped headroom that AMD still has. Sure they are incrementing only with 200 mhz increments but the performance is scaling incredibly well unlike Intel procs. And also lets not forget they oclock really well.

As saugatak pointed out that Intel is actually rethinking everything adn going back to Pentium 3 architecture and tweaking it to produce their new chips.

AMD all the way. It only makes sense....no fanboyism here.

For the common consumer, I don't think that it makes much difference for which processor you choose. Like I said before, my home computer is AMD based, and it's run just fine for about 6 months now (that's when I last upgraded the CPU).

As for the actual architecture of the CPUs, the P4s have a rediculously long pipeline, which means that they are able to reach much higher clock speeds. On the other hand, the instructions per clock on the P4 is lower than the P-M (based on PIII) or any AMD CPU. If you want actual number crunching power, you need to look at: (intructions per clock)*(clocks per second).

This is probably one of the reasons why in all the computer store flyers I've seen as of late have listed the CPU model number (e.g. Intel Pentium 4 850), and not its clock speed (P4 3.2GHz).

One thing that has been somewhat sidelined here - Laptops. Laptop sales have increased by 300% in the past 2 years. Intel (and the Centrino name) have been absolutely dominating here. AMD has been struggling to get a foot in the door, and they have a bit with Turion, but it's still not up to par. I've never seen any 15.4" widescreen Turion laptop get 5 hours on a single 6 cell battery (my laptop does - P-M 1.4GHz).

However, I should note that in none of my workplaces have I ever seen AMD computers anywhere. None of the labs at my university have AMD computers either. Everything is Intel. If you don't want to be completely one-sided, you have to think about why this might be.

[saugatak]

You can use whatever you want for low-end (I actually prefer PIII for non-gaming rigs because, it's fast enough and these chips are cool and, therefore, more reliable systems).

BUT if you want the best, Intel chips are not the way to go. If you disagree, read this:

http://www.theregister.com/2005/10/29/intel_xeon_2009/

Anybody considering building a new gaming rig or high-end database server processing tons of transactions would be well advised to go with AMD since it looks like Intel isn't even going to be able to begin to compete for a long, long time.

[RogueSpear]

I barely contain my laughter here.. a high end database server running on an AMD rig. That's kind of like George W. Bush being the president of the United States. We've seen how well that runs.

[saugatak]

Rogue, what part of the posted article don't you understand?

Intel processors aren't as good. If you want a high-end database server based on the x86 chipset, and you go with Intel, how is that high-end? 2nd rate processors in your server = NOT high end server.

[RogueSpear]

AMD may be fine for your gaming rig or a home machine, but anyone worth their salt wouldn't even consider that for a database server. It would be malpractice. I will admit that AMD has some pretty compelling technology and yes they do win benchmarks, but benchmarks do not equal reliability, stability, compatability, etc. that enterprises are most concerned with.

I'd be the first one to jump on the AMD train if they would do something about those issues. AMD focused almost exclusively on speed and to that end they have succeeded. Now they need to take a look at some of the other factors that make up a long term reliable CPU. I've been burned enough and personally witnessed enough other people suffer through disasters at the hands of system with an AMD CPU to make me think very very hard before ever trusting them again.

[saugatak]

Rogue fair enough.

Speed ain't the only factor for a high-end database server, although it's up there. With Intel being so far off the benchmarks now, maybe Dell and HP will focus on making quality AMD based database servers.

[Zxian]

Rogue, what part of the posted article don't you understand?

Intel processors aren't as good. If you want a high-end database server based on the x86 chipset, and you go with Intel, how is that high-end? 2nd rate processors in your server = NOT high end server.

Have you even read what he said earlier?

Intel processors may not be as powerful, but they're more reliable. When you're running a server, you need reliablility. Sure... with AMD it may be stinkin fast, but then it may crash.

I'll repeat what I said before. My friend works at a redundant data storage company. They currently deal with about 1.6PB (1,600 TB) of data, and will soon be expanding to work with a customer that wants 4PB by 2010. All of their servers are running on Intel CPUs. The company has never had any downtime on any of their data stores in the past 5 years. They've chosen Intel for a reason.

Another question to ask yourself... who invented the x86 architechture? Intel.

Rogue fair enough.

Speed ain't the only factor for a high-end database server, although it's up there. With Intel being so far off the benchmarks now, maybe Dell and HP will focus on making quality AMD based database servers.

Would you rather have your data available to you 100% of the time, or 90% of the time and a bit faster when it is available?

Edited October 29, 2005 by Zxian

[RogueSpear]

Hey if I could get the same rock solid reliability from a HP-Compaq ProLiant DL server with an AMD processor instead of Intel, fine by me. Just not willing to take that risk yet. I'll wait for some more reports from the field first. My days of risk taking on hardware are over.

[saugatak]

I've always felt the flakiness of AMD has to do with:

1. inferior chipsets mainly

2. Intel compiler being "optimized" (i.e., bugs specifically designed to help Intel processors).

I don't feel either of these 2 are at issue with the latest and greatest from AMD.

AMD now has top quality chipsets, equal to anything from Intel.

AMD has invented the x86 compatible 64 bit chipset. Windows XP 64 bit is optimized for the AMD chip. The compilers were designed by AMD so I'm sure they introudced their own bugs to screw up Intel's version of these chipsets.

Plus, AMD's dual core 64 bit chips kill Intel's.

So my analysis is:

1. Chips: AMD kicks Intel

2. Chipset: =

3. Compiler: edge to AMD

So if I were to make a high-end database server, and by high-end I mean using dual-core x64 bit chips, I'd go with AMD.

Now you're free to disagree, but I think you guys are relying on old data. Based on the new stuff out there and everything I've been reading (AND THEY'RE ALL SAYING THE SAME THING AT TOMS HARDWARE, ANANDTECH, EXTREMEPC, ETC.), THERE IS NO INTEL ADVANTAGE ANYMORE.

NONE.

But if you want more data before jumping on the AMD bandwagon, suit yourself.

[RogueSpear]

My analysis is:

1. You're talking out of your a** again.

[saugatak]

So you're telling me that Intel's 64 bit chips are powering high-end database servers? I'm not talking about 32 bit architecture here.

I don't think anyone's using Itanium and on the x64, Intel is playing catch-up to AMD.

Anyway, we'll see where the market goes.

It's always refreshing to see logic refuted by a blanket "You're talking out your a$$."

[Crash&Burn]

I've read this whole bloated thread, I just don't agree w/ the Intel camp.

Whose AD's do you see on Television? Intel.

Who can afford to give MFG discounts or have the power to enforce exlusivity? Intel.

Who was the first to lock hands w/ Microsoft? Intel.

Now one Intel advantage is it tends to be more compatible (earlier) w/ new Linux kernels for new Mobo chipsets, but again that's mainly manpower related.

People that don't overclock their PC's or use them in the desert don't have the "problems" that are attempted to be proved here. And the AMD will run cooler than an Intel.

And x86 was just a clone of IBM's 8088... so what? Intel was hardly the first, they were just the first clone.