Jump to content

AMD and Intel Processor differences


D8TA

Recommended Posts

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$$."

Yes I am telling you that (paragraph 1).

What logic did you present? Typical. Your opinions seem to materialize from nowhere. I actually work with this stuff everyday, not just read about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@RogueSpear

It's hard to put this delicately, so I won't even bother.

Given a choice between going with what Tom's Hardware says and some guy on the net whose avatar is a picture of someone with his head stuck up his A$$, I'll go with Tom's Hardware.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051017/index.html

Although Intel's architecture still clearly dominates the x86 server market, AMD's Opteron has represented more than just an annoyance for Intel since its introduction in April 2003. In a nutshell, Opteron offers better computing and per-Watt performance at a roughly equivalent per-device price and it scales much better when moving from one to two or even four CPUs. AMD's performance lead is equally large when compared to Intel's new dual-core Xeon devices.

Intel's new Xeon dual core processor, which runs at 2.8 GHz, is based on Intel's 90-nm process and, you guessed it, offers NetBurst, including HyperThreading support. A dual-core processor with beefed up 2x 2 MB L2 cache, its performance certainly is solid enough for the target market. However, a dual-core duel, as AMD has been trying to provoke, would be a potential nightmare for the product management staff at Intel's enterprise group.

The Lindenhurst chipset family (E7520/E7320) for Xeon processors has two major handicaps. On the one hand, both dual processor CPUs have to share one front side bus and one memory array. On the other hand, Intel's registered DDR2 memory for servers does not really offer any advantages compared to DDR1 memory. Finally, why should you thus invest in a server system that will be outdated in a few months?

A server purchase decision is usually driven by reliability, availability and serviceability issues rather than maximum performance. From this point of view, AMD still has a long way to go, because the top gun OEMs such as Dell, Fujitsu-Siemens, HP/Compaq, IBM and Toshiba are to a large degree locked in with Intel.

But the ranks are growing, as AMD used to say at different occasions, and Intel must act now in order to protect its lucrative server CPU business.

What's most annoying about you and GI Joe is your dismissal of other people's opinions, which are based on knowledge of the latest technology.

If there's one thing I've learned on these forums is that there is no one way of doing things. There are people here posting about making a hybrid Win98SE/ME ripping out IE and OE and getting 40MB system installs and thus a flying gaming rig, something I would have never thought possible.

Use google. You'll read about people putting together fantastic and stable dual core 64 bit AMD machines that slaughter Intel's offerings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given a choice between going with what Tom's Hardware says and some guy on the net whose avatar is a picture of someone with his head stuck up his A$$, I'll go with Tom's Hardware.

I usually hate participating in a thread that is turning into a fanboy war, but I just thought that was pretty funny. Carry on. :hello:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's even more annoying is people talking about things as though they're an authority when they don't even work in the field. You apparantly didn't catch my posts where I laud AMD for their technical achievements. No, that wouldn't fit your agenda. Oh and the avatar is meant to show you what you'd see if you were to poke a hole in your belly button and look in a mirror. Glad you noticed :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read this article from Anandtech.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2447&p=7

The most surprising thing that we noticed . . . . is that the Xeon benefits a lot less from 64 bit and the new 2.6 kernel than the Opteron. While the 64 bit binaries run consistently (much) faster on the Opteron, the Xeon isn't too happy with them and runs them 4 to 10% slower. Hyperthreading isn't - in our case - helping either, with 1 to 10% lower performance.

According to our research, we can assume that the 64 bit implementation of the new Xeon is simply not as powerful as the Opteron's. Intel has some catching up to do, especially when you look at the dual core Opterons. We already discussed AMD's elegant dual core architecture in detail, but in this review, we have seen very good indications that the design with the two cores connected by the SRQ does improve performance in real world applications and not only in our cache-to-cache tests.

This architecture together with AMD being six months ahead with their dual core server product gives AMD significant advantages in the server market today. The lack of mature server versions of Windows (2003) and the fact that only the latest kernels of Linux support the dual core Opteron might slow AMD a bit down, but not for long.

So TomsHardware and AnandTech are both saying, if you want to go with dual core 64 bit systems FOR HIGH END DATABASES, go with AMD.

And you're saying go with Intel.

My gosh, who would be crazy enough to take Toms Hardware and Anand Tech's advice over yours? :wacko:

Let me see . . . . that would be just about everybody. :whistle:

Edited by saugatak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

even though i have both an intel and an amd machine i thought everyone would like to read this.

It's hard to believe a company that controls more than three-quarters of perhaps the most profitable segment of the electronics industry can simultaneously look vulnerable and weak even while posting "banner" operational results. But Intel, in reshuffling its processor roadmap this week has ensured that the momentum rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. has built over the past year will continue for at least another year.

Analyst Nathan Brookwood of Insight 64 this week borrowed a phrase from former New York Mets manager Casey Stengel. As that team stumbled to a 40-120 record in 1962, Stengel asked, "Can't anybody here play this game?" Executives at Intel must be asking the same question as well.

Over the past two years, AMD has embarrassed Intel by beating the larger competitor to the punch in bringing out first 64-bit x86 processors, and then in getting its dual-core server processors to the market more than six months in advance of Intel. Many felt, however, that Intel, with its much larger ability to invest in R&D and capital expenditures, as well as its long-established ability to provide leading-edge technology, would bring its processor technology back into parity with AMD during the course of 2006. It would now appear that with the latest shifts in its roadmap that Intel may continue to walk in its smaller rival's technological shadow for at least another year, if not longer.

Intel's maintains it is scrapping its original plans for a new Xeon processor for multi-processor servers in 2006 in favor a different platform will enable it to bring a higher performance product to market faster than originally scheduled. That may prove true, but its customers must be wondering exactly what is going to happen over the next few months before that new processor is delivered. Will Intel meet its new delivery schedule, and will it actually deliver improved performance? The company is also delaying its next generation Itanium processor by about six months. That comes as the Itanium has struggled with a market perception that it is a processor in search of a home as Dell and IBM have pulled back support, and only Hewlett-Packard remains to bolster the architecture among the largest system vendors.

In the past Intel has proven virtually invincible and has demonstrated an ability to quickly over come any temporary setbacks, while AMD was simply a pesky little gnat that provided Intel with a competitor to point to whenever someone tired to cry monopoly. AMD is no longer a lapdog happily licking up any crumbs left around by Intel. AMD has steadily grown its market share over the past year, and in the third quarter controlled nearly 18% of the total x86 microprocessor market.

On Monday, InformationWeek will look at what AMD has been doing to prepare itself to move into its next stage of growth. AMD now justifiably believes it can gain as much as 30% of the market within the next two years. As early as the beginning of this year, a 30% market share by AMD would have seemed a pipe dream, but given Intel's continued struggles, and AMD's growing acceptance by enterprise customers, this could instead be a developing nightmare for Intel.

now tell me that intel are better than amd. even intel themselves have basically just admitted that amd chips are better than theirs and thats why there going back to the drawing board.

ps. there is no possible comeback from this post because if the intel is saying all this then it obviously true, and noone can say otherwise. you intel lovers will just have to face it that amd now has better chips and will continue to have better chips for atleast the next couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my personal experience I've had more problems with AMD based systems than I'm willing to put up with. I'm not actually sure if this is due to the AMD processor or the completely substandard mobo chipsets put out by ALi, SiS, and VIA.

nForce(4) is better than those 3 chipsets you mentioned. I've had motherboards that have those chipsets in them and had nothing but problems (my experiences). The newer motherboards that have nForce 4 chipsets are rock solid. At least from DFI, Abit and Asus (again, my experiences).

I started using AMD cpus when the Amd 386-40 came out. I've never touched an Intel based machine again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Furthermore, Intel has been making mainstream processors for a lot longer than AMD, thus the industry advantage.

You do realize that AMD and Intel have been around for roughly the same amount of time. Neither company in thier early stages developed anything more important than standard (of the time) semiconductor and microprocessors. The 4004 and the likes came later. Both companies were making "mainstream" processors at the same time in the early 80's.

AMD was first established on May 1, 1969.

Intel was founded on July 18, 1968

What can I say, if you buy your clothes at Wal-Mart, you have to expect them to wear out twice as fast as if you bought high quality clothes from another retailer. That is, my friends, the reality of CPU praxis and theory.
When I was 18, I worked for a clothing manufacturer. At the end of the day, all the clothes that were made had different labels stitched to them. Levi, Wrangler, Jordache and others. That company still exists today and still does business as usual. So those 80 dollar Jordache jeans are no better or worse than those 20 dollar pair of jeans at Wal*Mart.

So, your pathetic attempt to bash something just because it costs less than something else does not fly. An expensive price does not constitue quality. Get a clue.

I could go on for a while here, but that list should at least get you to think twice before bad-mouthing your nearest neighbour (not to mention the whole softwood lumber issue, which has more countries than just Canada worried). Sorry that I wasn't brought up in a country that spends most of its tax income on the military... :whistle:

I live in the states and I very much agree with you. It is pretty sad that the majority of the money goes to the military. They can't spend money on schools, kids programs, helping the homeless ect., but yet they can build new chemical warfare storage dumps.

Please dont generalize all of us by what a few of the a**holes do.

Peace out.

Edited by MrCobra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

now tell me that intel are better than amd.

Ok, Intel are better than AMD. I have read that piece you quoted before btw. My final statement (I mean it this time too): If you don't work in the field for a living and you simply get your information and base your opinions on what you read then you have no idea what you're talking about. Also I will reiterate that I do not care about benchmarks. If you're a benchmark whore, keep right on following Anandtech. Neophytes and hobbyists would get their butts handed to them on a plate if they ever had to implement server solutions in a corporate environment.

I'm going to be unsubscribing from this thread immediately. So you all can continue to diddle yourselves over your AMD CPUs. I never realized until this thread, just how many people there were here that lacked so many critical thinking and reading comprehension skills. Not too mention how many people root for a particular brand as if it's a sports team. It's really pathetic. Get a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Roguespear aka ButtFace

What logic did you present? Typical. Your opinions seem to materialize from nowhere.

I've cited articles from Tom's Hardware and AnandTech that directly support the proposition that, when it comes to dual-core x64 bit chips, AMD is the ONLY game in town.

Other people have cited Information Week and the FACT that Intel has admitted that AMD is killing them and that Intel's dual-core x64 bit solution sucks. All of these cited sources have run tests and benchmarks proving all of the above.

That is called EVIDENCE and LOGIC, not opinion that "materialize from nowhere" as you wrongly state.

You, OTOH, don't cite a **** thing, so I'd say it is YOU that is pulling opinions out of your . . . . well, normally I'd say out of your a$$ . . . . but in your case, I'll say out of your head. :thumbup

I actually work with this stuff everyday, not just read about it.

Really? How many dual core 64 bit Intel and AMD computers have you worked with? Enough to form a large enough sample to get statistically significant results? :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now tell me that intel are better than amd.

Ok, Intel are better than AMD. I have read that piece you quoted before btw. My final statement (I mean it this time too): If you don't work in the field for a living and you simply get your information and base your opinions on what you read then you have no idea what you're talking about. Also I will reiterate that I do not care about benchmarks. If you're a benchmark whore, keep right on following Anandtech. Neophytes and hobbyists would get their butts handed to them on a plate if they ever had to implement server solutions in a corporate environment.

I'm going to be unsubscribing from this thread immediately. So you all can continue to diddle yourselves over your AMD CPUs. I never realized until this thread, just how many people there were here that lacked so many critical thinking and reading comprehension skills. Not too mention how many people root for a particular brand as if it's a sports team. It's really pathetic. Get a job.

Something tells me this guy is stupid and obviously blinded by his own ignorance, when INTEL, yes thats INTEL even admit that there processors are inferior to the chips AMD have been putting out after tha lst year or so and that theyre going back to the drawing board for a few more years then thats saying something.

you can try making some lame attempt at a comeback but it will only proove just how stupid and ignorant you must be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can try making some lame attempt at a comeback but it will only proove just how stupid and ignorant you must be.

Ok, I'll bite. Can you give me a link showing the rest of us exactly where Intel says they are inferior to AMD products? Thanks!

Edited by maxamoto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maxamoto:

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

Since you obviously slept during your history classes, let me clue you in on some of the events that have taken place on our little blue planet over the course of the last century. There was this thing called WWII, which the Americans and Russians won, and some of the spoils of war happened to be military bases in Germany, which is where I'm stationed at. Since your Geography (and common sense) seems to be a bit rusty, if you look at any world map you'll notice that its far closer to Kuwait from Germany than it is from the US. Makes sense to send American troops stationed in Germany to Iraq, doesn't it? Ah, it's all coming together for you now? Glad I could clear that up. And yes, the last time I was in Kuwait for OIF the Canadians were there too, and yes, they were all crying like little girls. In fact, no less that 20 countries have soldiers in Kuwait / Iraq, so it sounds like you need to start actually paying attention to the news instead of just watching it ;)

And as far as your little comment about Darwinism goes, this will be my 3rd time in Iraq, and my 6th time in a combat zone. Looks like I win again

Edited by maxamoto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh, Maxamoto, have you been reading the links posted to? Here's another one:

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

FYI, when Intel withdraws its processors that compete with AMD and says it will release new 64 bit chips with a new design and compete with AMD year or two from now, that is an admission on Intel's part that they can't compete.

What did you expect? Intel to actually come out and say, "We suck compared to AMD."

Maxamoto, with respect to your traveling around the world and noticing all the AMD processors failing wherever you go, watching Canadians cry like babies, etc., etc. -- whatever, it's hard to believe.

P.S. I withdraw the personal attack on Max. Went a little too far there, I admit, heh. :}

Edited by saugatak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you obviously slept during your history classes, let me clue you in on some of the events that have taken place on our little blue planet over the course of the last century. There was this thing called WWII, which the Americans and Russians won, and some of the spoils of war happened to be military bases in Germany, which is where I'm stationed at.

Sorry, but no. The American's didn't want anything to do with the Second World War until Pearl Harbor. Same thing with the First World War. It wasn't until a British passenger ship carrying 17 Americans was torpedoed by the Germans that the Americans joined in. There was also this little thing called Italy, that the Canadians did most of the front line work in, except for when entering a major city. The Americans wanted the glory of the cameras, so they got it.

Did you know that Canada was actually Dutch for a day? The Dutch royal family was taken in by the Canadian Government during the second world war, and the Dutch Queen was going to have a child. For that day when the child was born, Canada was a Dutch territory, so that the princess would be born on Dutch soil. It's a pretty big deal to hand over your country to an ally for a day, just for the sake of royalty and tradition. Any votes on how easily the States would have done the same thing? In my opinion, not a chance.

Anyone from a country other than America will probably agree that American history classes teach American history, and nothing more. (If you didn't get that sentence, read it again)

Since your Geography (and common sense) seems to be a bit rusty, if you look at any world map you'll notice that its far closer to Kuwait from Germany than it is from the US. Makes sense to send American troops stationed in Germany to Iraq, doesn't it? Ah, it's all coming together for you now? Glad I could clear that up. And yes, the last time I was in Kuwait for OIF the Canadians were there too, and yes, they were all crying like little girls. In fact, no less that 20 countries have soldiers in Kuwait / Iraq, so it sounds like you need to start actually paying attention to the news instead of just watching it ;)
Which news are you talking about? CNN? The same news that told us all about Windows 97 and 99? American news doesn't give you a good perspective on the rest of the world.

My friend and I were talking about American news shows that we get (a number of our TV channels here in Vancouver, Canada come from Seattle, WA), and how it seems like they spend about 3 times as much time talking about what they're going to tell you than the story itself (As my friend put it, "When we return, see if this dog has herpes." [break] "And now, we'll tell you if this dog has herpes, but first...").

Oh... and just to get you going... British SAS could kick the crap out of Navy SEALS anyday.

Max - you can stop the anti-Canadianism now. We make better beer than you, we've got a better education system than you, and the world generally smiles at us when we tell them where we're from. Anything you say about the American's being "so great" or "better", I could give you an example of how Canada's better. The States does have the advantage of having the biggest single military in the world (which is under question with China looming on the other side of the Pacific), and the biggest piggy bank, but bigger guns and more testosterone doesn't always get you friends in the world.

Just to get back on topic - I think everyone's said their piece. Everyone who works in corporate environments has said that Intels have been more reliable than AMD. Everyone who reads on TH or Anandtech says that AMD is catching up fast. Period. I really don't see any more point to this debate. It's the same thing as people who like Ford (die hard muscle fans) vs. Toyota (reliability, easier maintenance). You're going to get endless debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...