AMD vs. Intel

Plantwiz

I hope Intel jumps on this...I'd really like to see AMD stay on the top!


Link to article:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122284,00.asp





AMD Challenges Intel to a Dual-Core Duel

Company proposes a contest to see which chip maker has the fastest dual-core processors.

James Niccolai, IDG News Service
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Advanced Micro Devices has challenged Intel to a public fight to see which company has the best-performing 64-bit dual-core server processors.



The company placed advertisements in major U.S. newspapers this week proposing a contest that would pit the fastest server based on a dual-core AMD processor with the fastest server based on an equivalent chip from Intel, AMD says.

It's the second time this year that AMD has taken its rivalry with Intel to the press. In June it took out full-page newspaper advertisements urging people to read its antitrust complaint against the chip maker.

The advertisements in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and other newspapers show an AMD processor standing in a boxing ring waiting for Intel to appear, AMD says.


Third-Party Testing
If Intel accepts, the contest will be overseen by a third-party testing lab using standard benchmarks measuring performance and energy consumption.

Some analysts dismiss performance benchmarks as a distraction since they rarely reflect real-world computing conditions. But vendors often cite them to show the performance of their chips.

AMD says a head-to-head fight would allow customers to decide which company's processors best suit their needs. It will also launch an online petition, it says, presumably to pressure Intel to take part.

Intel, in Santa Clara, California, could not be reached for comment early Tuesday.

Dual-core chips have two processor cores on a single piece of silicon, boosting performance and reducing power consumption compared to two single-core processors. AMD released its first dual-core Opteron processors earlier this year. Intel said last week that it would release its first dual-core server chips later this year, ahead of its original schedule.

Metaldave

Thats kinda cool. Wonder who will win. Would be nice to see AMD whoop ass. I recently changed from Intel to AMD and Im very happy I did.

Plantwiz

I've been a long time AMD fan, but recently have been considering the Prescott P4

So, I'd love to see how the 64-bit market plays out....I'm guessing AMD has an edge or they wouldn't suggest a challenge

Metaldave

Isn't the prescott nicknamed the presshot?? As it over heats so fast??

Ricka182

I was strictly AMD for years, then they I switched to my current P4(got a good deal). I am planning on going back when dual-core becomes a bit more solid in performance, and lower in price.

Plantwiz

Metaldave wrote:

Isn't the prescott nicknamed the presshot?? As it over heats so fast??

Haven't had any trouble with them. Are you using a chassis with the recommend airflow?

mobri09

Back in the late 90's i would go with intel anyday, but if i was planning on a new chip...would go AMD now....they seem to be ontop or just a little more ahead right now.

darkmagic

Well, to be honest with you guys, i have never tried AMD, always been with Intel. Right now i am using Intel P4.

Reading all of your posts it seems AMD is a better options, any reasons for that ?

Metaldave

Plantwiz wrote:

Metaldave wrote:

Isn't the prescott nicknamed the presshot?? As it over heats so fast??

Haven't had any trouble with them. Are you using a chassis with the recommend airflow?

I have never actually used one. I just read it on expert-exchange a while back. Funny story though I had to take an angle grider to my box to put in my new board a while ago, very enjoyable 2 hours So there is plenty of air flow now

Plantwiz

darkmagic wrote:

Well, to be honest with you guys, i have never tried AMD, always been with Intel. Right now i am using Intel P4.

Reading all of your posts it seems AMD is a better options, any reasons for that ?

Initially, the match coefficent was handled more efficiently and the throughput was quicker than Intel.

As I've drifted away from AMD press releases over the past couple years, I'm not certain how that stands today, other than benchmark tests (of games) are still showing equal or better than P4 for their throughput even with a slower FSB, lower perceived MHz/GHz, and in many cases less L2 cache.

I've had to use Intel for my clients, but as I may have mentioned, my home equipment is all AMD.

Kind of an under-dog thing years ago - and the reason I used them (plus it fit my budge).

With the 64-bit variable coming into play as well as Dual-Core technologies....It will be interesting to see how everything plays out

Plantwiz

Found this on AMD:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8826_9014,00.html

dsa1971

darkmagic wrote:

Well, to be honest with you guys, i have never tried AMD, always been with Intel. Right now i am using Intel P4.

Reading all of your posts it seems AMD is a better options, any reasons for that ?

more bang for you buck. I have nothing against Intel and had a P4 with my old Dell but when I've built my own PCs I always go with AMD because the cost is much less and the performance is as good or better than Intel.

darkmagic

Well, i have to "BUILD" my new computer & i would be assembling it completely on my own so i guess i would use AMD on this one, any issues when networking a Intel & AMD computer, i really don't think there should be any issues but just to make sure.

Because my final objective ofcourse would be to network the 2 computers.

johnnynodough

AMD is far superior in gaming.

JDMurray

johnnynodough wrote:

AMD is far superior in gaming.

Funny you should mention that. ExtremeTech just posted an article on that very subject. In their Intel vs. AMD comparison, and by a large margin AMD did come out on top.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854785,00.asp

AMD CPUs do run hotter than their equivalent Pentium. I always recommend using one of the better CPU cooler systems with any high-performance AMD CPU.

johnnynodough

FUnny thing with AMD's, they do run hotter, but also overclock better then Intel, Im running a 64 3500+ at 2.6ghz on air right now in an almunimum silverstone case, and am debating on getting a new dual core and putting a watercooling system in. Right now at idle with the 3500+ at 2.6ghz it runs around 54 c.

JDMurray

johnnynodough wrote:

FUnny thing with AMD's, they do run hotter, but also overclock better then Intel

That just means that Intel is better than AMD at determining what the maximum speed of each manufactured CPU is. The more accurately a CPU is rated for its actual speed the less you will be able to OC it past its rating.

It's possible that AMD might be purposely marking faster CPUs with lower speed ratings as a tacit marketing campaign to get more OC'er to choose AMD. This seems unlikely to me, but it's possible.

Plantwiz

jdmurray wrote:

It's possible that AMD might be purposely marking faster CPUs with lower speed ratings as a tacit marketing campaign to get more OC'er to choose AMD. This seems unlikely to me, but it's possible.

Or because they do tend to run 'hotter', the may be going with the most reliable speed for that CPU and minimizing the likelihood of an overheat under proper use.

RussS

Personally I like Intel due to their cooler running. I have never had an AMD chip fail on me, but I have had many unexplained component failures and am now starting to put that down to excessive heat in the case.
I could fill the case with fans, but why use extra power and create exta noise?

mobri09

Russ,
I totally agree with you on your statement about the increase of tempature with AMD. At work everyone lives by AMD and they all crack jokes because i like intel so much. But they all tell me and as i read also that AMD technology has become alot cooler! Since my intel chip has never failed yet (knock on wood) i would be scared to migrate over.

JDMurray

RussS wrote:

I could fill the case with fans, but why use extra power and create exta noise?

I have six fans in my tower case, including the two heatsink'ed on my video card and CPU and one in my PSU. My system is very quiet and they (probably) use less than 60ma/hour total. I don't buy $3 fans.

TheShadow

mobri09 wrote:

Russ,
I totally agree with you on your statement about the increase of tempature with AMD. At work everyone lives by AMD and they all crack jokes because i like intel so much. But they all tell me and as i read also that AMD technology has become alot cooler! Since my intel chip has never failed yet (knock on wood) i would be scared to migrate over.

Actually on all the new chips the roles have reversed Semprons over 2200 with a full cover plate are considerably cooler because they are based on 64 bit chip technology. The ful 64's above 3000 are also cooler. On the other hand the high cache Intel chips have become considerably hotter.

RussS

jdmurray wrote:

I have six fans in my tower case, including the two heatsink'ed on my video card and CPU and one in my PSU. My system is very quiet and they (probably) use less than 60ma/hour total. I don't buy $3 fans.

LMAO - if I have 6 fans in a case I go crazy with the noise. And I don't use $3 fans either ... I use $4.50 ones
Actually the case fans I use are about $30 NZD and are fairly quiet, but it is the vibration that gets me. I am at fault for using $150 cases though - if I use $300 ones the vibes don't worry me.

Ricka182

I have zero case fans.....except for three ultra-quiet radiator fans at the top. Liquid cooling rocks!

JDMurray

RussS wrote:

but it is the vibration that gets me. I am at fault for using $150 cases though - if I use $300 ones the vibes don't worry me.

I'm using $100-120 cases from Antec and they are as solid as a rock. What are your cases standing on? Wood, linoleum, or metal shelving? To they have feet that raise them above the floor? Maybe you need a surface that'll bleed away some of the vibration. Maybe you just need to tighten a few screws down too.