Dual Core Decisions

[ripken204]

My argument about the integrated memory controller? You AMD guys are stuck still using DDR whilst all of Intel fan boys have moved to DDR2.

And tell me again in what way does DDR2 prove to be better than DDR???

higher bandwidth is it so far, but no one rly knows if it helps any until the AM2 socket comes out

[atomizer]

@jacarle - yeah, for the time being we AMD folks are stuck with DDR, however, if you think DDR is a bottleneck, take a peek at these quotes:

from: http://www.deskeng.com/Articles/Cover-Stor...0050513458.html

AMD64 processors do not currently support DDR2 memory, but they achieve better performance than Intel CPUs because of lower latency that results from the memory controller being integrated into the processor.

and from tomshardware:

In the AMD camp, the Athlon64's integrated memory controller is very efficient and thus postpones the need for DDR2 memory for the time being - or at least until the price of DDR and DDR2 approach parity.

many more articles on this as well.

Edited January 18, 2006 by atomizer

[jcarle]

I have a feeling the AMD / Intel debate could go on for a hell of a long while. lol.

[suryad]

It is common knowledge the main reason why AMD owns Intel in performance is because of the very low latency memoryc ontroller built into the processor itself. On-die I believe it is called. Just because DDR2 is out does not mean it is better. AMD procs love very low latency RAM for optimal performance...that is a big issue with DDR2. Hence they are taking their tiem to switch over.

[jcarle]

OCZ has been doing a hell of job dropping latencies on DDR2.

[atomizer]

@suryad - good points.

one of the problems is that people tend to buy into hype rather then researching how well a particular component is going to function with the rest of the components in their system. competition is good, but it has it's bad points as well. DDR2 just plain sounds better than DDR and attracts a certain amount of attention by itself. however once you research what's really going on, DDR2 on an Intel isn't as good as DDR on an AMD - at least not for the time being.

[suryad]

Agreed but it is nowhere near DDR1 is it? See it would be a lot easier if modern P4s were able to work with DDRs like AMDs and then perhaps my point would be illustrated. But if you go to Anandtech and check out the Yonah preview article there is a table indicating how many cpu cycles are wasted as memory is accessed and Intel's performance is not good at all with DDR2 whereas AMD smoke the Intel processors.

[jcarle]

One of the largest issues I have with AMD is cost. Performance for performance, you pay 2 to 3 times more for an AMD based performance system then an Intel one.

[Jeremy]

That's because AMD kicks Intel's a**.

[big poppa pump]

One of the largest issues I have with AMD is cost. Performance for performance, you pay 2 to 3 times more for an AMD based performance system then an Intel one.

I really don't know how you could come with an asinine comment like that. Its proven over and over again that AMD chips beat the living hell outta Intel chips when it comes to Cost vs Performance ratio.

[ronin2040]

big poppa pump has a point. AMD has always (generally) costed less for equal or better performance than Intel processors, and we've also had to put up with a helluva lot less heat issues. As for DDR2, remember that its a matter of months (?) before we get our socket M (?) and have DDR2 memory

DDR2 IS supposed to be better, btw, since the higher clock rate supposedly makes up for the higher latency....

[jcarle]

One of the largest issues I have with AMD is cost. Performance for performance, you pay 2 to 3 times more for an AMD based performance system then an Intel one.

I really don't know how you could come with an asinine comment like that. Its proven over and over again that AMD chips beat the living hell outta Intel chips when it comes to Cost vs Performance ratio.

The AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 costs $1,011.00 and runs at 2.8GHz.

An Intel Pentium 4 512 costs $180.00 and also runs at 2.8GHz.

For $1,011.00 in the Intel camp, that buys me a Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 which is dual-cored and runs at 3.2GHz each core.

In most cases, for games you will see that AMD drop-kicks Intel (Example 1). However, in terms of RAW crunch power, Intel leaves AMD in nowhere land (Example 2). Sometimes though, they're both evenly matched (Example 3).

What's mostly killing Intel is the integrated memory controller... it's very obvious that the shortened latency from the integration of the memory controller has a direct effect on the performance gains that are associated with AMD (Example 4).

Crunch for crunch. An Intel CPU can crunch more then an AMD CPU for less, the difference uniquely lies in the differences between their designs. AMD processors don't wait as long for information as Intel processors do. That's something I can live with because I don't mind ramping up DDR2 to high frequencies with low latencies to catch up and surpass the AMD crowd. Thing is, I have that option, whilst AMD people are stuck running the memory that their CPU supports. No way to change for faster memory or overclocking only memory without having their CPU included in the equation.

[ripken204]

oh god help us jcarle. not one of these again...

intel 2.8 and amd 2.8 mean completely different things. to put it in simple terms, intel does only a little per clock cycle, therefore it needs more clock cycles to do the job. amd does alot per clock cycle, therefore needs less clock cycles.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16819103602

this is a 3200 venice, the 3200 means its about the same speed as a 3.2 intel but it only runs at 2.0ghz

[jcarle]

oh god help us jcarle. not one of these again...

Like I said before. This is an infernal debate that will probably never end. It's a debate that's been going since AMD released their AM5x86 processor in 1995. 10 years lately and the debate is still red hot and fueling.

Thing is, computers are getting faster and faster regardless of which company you go for. Both have advantages and disadvantages, just depends on your tastes and wallet.

[big poppa pump]

Comparing an AMD 2.8ghz proc to an Intel 2.8ghz proc is like comparing apples to oranges, let alone an FX57 to an Intel 2.8. With your knowledge I am actually surprised you ended up doing such a BS comparison. Its a well known fact since the Athlon XP days that there is no possible way to compare an AMD to an Intel in terms of clock speed.

The Athlon FX series is top of the line for AMD just as the Pentium EE is to Intel. Comparing those 2 is more or less like comparing equivalent CPU's. So given the prices for each of them, the prices are almost at par for both AMD and Intel.