Which CPU Is Better? AMD Or Intel

[jipman 0]

It really doesn't matter much for any programming language, the compiler should adapt to the CPU used.They're totally NOT the sameAMD's are waay cooler than Intels, while P4's are about 50/60 C in temperature, the AMD's are often near the 30/40'sAlso, it's a fact that amd's have better performance per megahertz.

[wutske 0]

I haven't read everything, yet, but this is what I think about the AMD or Intel question.

 

Today AMD is the best to get, mainly because it runs a lot cooler and cheaper (consumes less energy) and also possible more quiet.

For speed I would also go for an AMD, nowadays they have SSE3 too, but if you go dual core, I would go for Intel (only speed wise) because they offer dual core models at higher speeds.

 

If you go budget, I'm not shure, the Semprons are relatively cheap, and the Celeron D are better than normal Celerons. I'd go for a low speed S939 Athlon64 instead of a sempron or celeron.

 

Price wise; if you are a REAL gamer, go for the FX57, lots of power, lots of overclocking but hiiiigh price.

For Dual Core, I'd suggest Intel, because they are cheaper.

For Single Core, go for AMD.

[kam1405241509 0]

Price wise; if you are a REAL gamer, go for the FX57, lots of power, lots of overclocking but hiiiigh price.

For Dual Core, I'd suggest Intel, because they are cheaper.

For Single Core, go for AMD.

1064316684[/snapback]

I agree if you're a gamer you'd go A64FX, and otherwise dual-core. But Intel announced a 130W TDP max for their Pentium D & EE 840 .. and they released a chip at that TDP in May (I think it was 620 or something). If you overclock, you'd have crazy temps, though if you're going dual-core you probably wouldn't anyway. I'd still go AMD for dual-core because of the better design wrt lower latency integrated memory controller & crossbar switch, higher performance (as you mentioned), lower TDP & probably much lower electricity bills in the long run with PowerNow etc esp if you use your PC a lot ;-). I'd only really go intel if there's was some platform benefit, but i can't see any at the moment. I still can't understand why someone would go the intel route right now, esp since next year everything changes .. so there's no realistic upgrade path after next year, probably!

[kam1405241509 0]

It really doesn't matter much for any programming language, the compiler should adapt to the CPU used.

 

They're totally NOT the same

 

AMD's are waay cooler than Intels, while P4's are about 50/60 C in temperature, the AMD's are often near the 30/40's

 

Also, it's a fact that amd's have better performance per megahertz.

1064316544[/snapback]

It's not usually automatic, you have to tell the compiler to optimise for SSE3 & any other options you like (like x86-64), and this all adds to the bulk/size of the binary output. Most apps I've seen still don't take advantage of SSE3, for example, though AMD now has this too, so there's no issue .. plus SSE3 was just a few extra instructions (about 12, I think .. can't remember exactly .. one of the things it had beyond SSE2 was some further speed ups for matrix calcs).

 

K8 & P4 are totally different architectures. The biggest problem with P4 & the NetBurst architecture is it's deep pipeline (number of stages in a cycle) design, cf K8 which is more closer to the prev gen good x86 designs! The reason for going that route is to make it easier to clock at higher freqs, but the downer is much lower performance per clock cycle, and so they had to do stuff like SSE3 (SIMD) & parallel pipelines & intelligent compilers and branch predictors trying to guess what might be next so they can work ahead of time & keep all those pipelines full and busy ... unfortunately they found they couldn't do it well enough, there were too many branch mispredictions (equiv to cache misses in HDD algs etc). Still it was a really interesting ride from the theory point of view to see that this can't be done well even with really smart compiler writers etc :-).

 

I think you meant performance (GHz) per Watt (TDP). And you're correct, intel are now focusing on this issue, but it'll be next year by they time they finally get something out to compete!

[kam1405241509 0]

and it will shut it self down when its over heated.

This is a GOOD thing, better a shutdown that a burnout.

 

His problem is with overheating.

He wither did not fit the heat sink correctly, did not use themral paste, overclocked, or simply does not use adiquate cooling.

 

WOW... dual core 4800+

NICE !

 

and i thought my Amd64 3400+ was fast !!

 

id love to link afew of those in a cluster !

1064316487[/snapback]

 

Totally .. I think all the probs I've seen with failed discs etc were somehow related to not cooling properly (one I shortcircuited & it literally was on fire with smoke bellowing out of it, the other, well someone turned on the heating on the hottest day on the decade ... a day when tarmac at Heathrow had melted ... the AC's dial was labelled incorrectly, which I noted, but this person thought otherwise!). Now I'm a paranoid backup'r ;-).

 

The 4800 rating assumes you can make serious use of those with 2 decent threads! There's been a number of people overclocking recent A64FX's to beyond 3GHz .. that's probably more useful to most people. The only software I know of that makes use of >2 threads is for engineering & rendering .. though yes I too wish I could persuade my lab to get a tightly clustered Infiniband HTX system, if it was a bit cheaper & if it didn't already spend money on a Xeon cluster last year ;-).

[kam1405241509 0]

stick to intel, i heard from my friend that amd crashes a lot, and it will shut it self down when its over heated. don't know if thats true but i'm sticking with intel

1064316265[/snapback]

I think you are referring to the old THG video where they killed an old AMD proc by removing the HSF for a while to simulate a fan failure. These issues are long gone. Intel were the first to have a decent thermal diode on the chip to help it shutdown ASAP, and AMD followed suite a year after that. Ditto for SpeedStep/PowerNow (though intel needed it more, like, ASAP!) & MMX/SSE1&2&3/PCIe/USB1&2 (intel-dominated or defined 'open' standards, so what do you expect .. but AMD matched them ASAP) .. both AMD & Intel are working on virtualization/DRM hardware too, probably with near simultaneous roll outs ... and AMD beat Intel to dual-core by months/years (depending on if you take the view of ignoring paper launches & looking at where it's most useful, ie at the high-end server range, as well as general desktop tasks etc). They never once said it was the wrong thing to do. Unlike Intel which said noone needed x86-64 (take a look at the Far Cry update, and a look at IA64 performance-per-Dollar ;-)). They are also taking their sweet time to produce an answer to large-scale AMD systems at the high-end ... AMD is smaller, but faster, IMHO, at the moment.

[kam1405241509 0]

I have an intel processor, a 2.4 ghz    and for so far, i haven't any problems with it, but is intel also better for programming in visual basic? or is amd just the best cpu there is?

1064316239[/snapback]

For VB/C/J programming, word processing etc, even my ancient 586 machine would be fine, depending on how bloated your apps are (I think VB requires an IDE & is a very visual way of developing GUIs, hence the name .. and if you use recent versions then you'd need a decent machine since this is the way MS codes, eg they had a famous flight sim hidden in a previous Excel version & their initial recommended spec for Longhorn/Vista was 6GB .. and then RAM prices shot up ;-))). You could use a version of VB that was released around the time of that 586 and obviously it'd be fine, but my guess is you're asking about the latest version of MS IDEs (vStudio), not all the junk I just wasted everyone's time on in saying (sorry for the tangent yet again!!). Even so, it's not that heavy when coding, which is simply typing some text & with the dynamic interpreter code trying to pre-empt what you type .. which is the only thing I like about IDEs ;-). Most UNIX coders use emacs, make etc .. rather than IDEs (though there are UNIX IDEs too of course), so you don't have to go down that path .. most MS coders I know use VS.

 

Now, once you want to run that app you just developed, you have to compile it. There are distributed C compilers (no idea about if VS has this functionality) and at this point the more CPUs you have (either locally or on a LAN) the less time you have to wait ... so if you're compiling something big (if you work in a team etc, or use other static libs that must be compiled every time instead of linked dynamically [in my case I don't really do this anymore since I pretty much just work on my own code, and it's relatively puny cf pro dev apps ;-)], & have to compile other's code as well) may be it's worth going down this route ... which probably means AMD dual core chips.

 

Another nicety is that you can test your apps for other OS's simultaneously using VMs, but perhaps that's less of an issue to you with VB & MS OS's ;-).

[kam1405241509 0]

ok...you guys are comparing AMD's and Intel's CPU in two different fields, gaming and business.

I wonder to know, which is better for a studnet who is studenting computer graphic??

3DMax, photoshop are used frequently, and writing program with OpgeGL.

Would 64bit CPU have better preformance (compare to 32bit) when those kinds of software are used??

1064316201[/snapback]

Hey Jedipi, for DCC/CG (3DS etc) & GL coding etc .. AMD has better FPU performance & also SSE3 now, a better implementation of x86-64 (which allows a larger memory address space .. which will help you manipulate giant >4GB image/video files .. check out 64-bit Far Cry though for proof that it's worth going this way in real-time 3D apps .. incl HDR, drawing further depths, etc ;-)) ... the list is endless.

 

I can't remember where this was, but I read a review on dual-core AMDs, and they found that certain PARTS (rendering) of the DCC/CG process was better accelerated by 2 threads than others (real-time viz) .. though both cases were pretty good (I think it was about 130% & 180% or something like that for most of these sorts of apps).

 

As someone else said earlier, if you're into 3D apps you need a decent 3D card. Which one depends on the apps you use or value most etc. For GL you don't need a pro card since most gaming cards also support GL still (though with Vista there's a major issue wrt GL becomes a 2nd class lib under D3D .. seriously crap considering how many pro/academic apps are written in open OGL so they run on giant UNIX clusters .. I guess most academics etc have or are moving to OSX/OpenSolaris/Linux/etc anyway so it's not really an issue, but still, I can't see the point of the move esp with MS making SFU a priority on their servers & making Vista have many UNIX like features ... perhaps different people within MS have differing views so there's no homogeneity in the rather massive/complex whole OS :-((). Er, sorry for the rant/tangent again ... had to get it off my chest & hope others can shed some light on the issue ...

[kam1405241509 0]

Overall, AMD gives you more computing bang for your buck.  That said, there are important architextural differences that may, or may not, be relevant for what you want to do.  If its gaming, go AMD.  If its business apps, go Intel for hyperthreading, because that can make a noticeable difference.  If its lower power/noise, go intel and get a Pentium-M and a desktop chipset adapter.

1064316198[/snapback]

Majestic, if it's multithreading you want, go AMD dual core, not Intel Hyperthreading! AMD dual-cores run at 69degC TDP, whereas the P4D/EE were something like 130 (175 when someone overclocked .. making watercooling a must in this case ;-)) at the max/highest end ... running at high frequencies is not the way to go if you want low heat/power!! Pentium-M's even in desktop mobo's don't even come close to competing with an Athlon 64 FX for gaming ⌠though they are great for things like Mini-ITX car-PCs & HTPCs, no doubt, but not for serious gaming enthusiasts, which is what the majority of home users (and probably Asta members I'm guessing!) are .. it's like comparing apples to oranges wrt different market segments, really!! With PowerNow (the AMD equivalent of SpeedStep) you get further efficiencies. Also, there are low-power Opterons available (the HE & EE chips) if you want to go really low power/heat for rack servers/clusters! There are also A64 mobile chips & they'll be the first with dual-core mobile if that's your thing!! For performance per Watt intel is nowhere near them & they know it .. hence they say they are realigning to aim at this for next year ... we'll see .. at least they're not denying everything and then only months before launch showing an about turn, like they did with the x86-64/IA64 issue! For now, I can't see any reason for going the Intel route for most tasks.

[kam1405241509 0]

Just to add a bit more on WeaponX in terms of gaming i think almost all forums favor AMD more for being the "gaming chip" and Intel is more the business type multi tasking cpu. Im sure if you did a survey here at Xisto for the gamers ( i assume thats wat u r into) have in their machines, AMD will come out on top. Countless number of AMD 's adverts are aimed directly at gamers aswell so they boast about it and i have not seen this met by Intel.

So i will have to disagree on the "its really all in the name"

1064316194[/snapback]

I dunno. AMD is a great gaming chip, but I wouldn't say Intel is a good business-type multi-tasking CPU compared to AMD, when AMD has the best dual-core implementation by far, and hyperthreading is next to useless in comparison (most people/vendors disable it by default since in some tasks it's actually slower .. it was pretty good at multimedia apps a while ago but thing's have changed now with AMD dual-core being widely available [if only the huge demand didn't outstrip AMD's supply so much .. but I'm sure they're working hard on that .. it was just much larger than anticipated by all those marketing/market research firms ;-)] in many market segments .. it was just a temporary fix to the unique problems of the NetBurst architecture).

[kam1405241509 0]

This is my summary of how I view AMD vs Intel, currently ...It used to be said that AMD chips don't do as well as intel for multimedia, but now Intel are stuck because of thermal problems & can't raise frequencies anymore. The most recent AMD reviews show AMD winning in all tasks. They also support SSE3 now. I don't know any games that run better on intel. 64-bit Far Cry is a great example of what x86-64 can do .. an AMD innovation. AMD is definitely not the el-cheapo equivalent anymore, they are the leaders. Intel tried to force people to move to IA64, and had to emulate 32-bit x86 in hardware, an ugly/expensive solution compred to extending the architecture & adding registers etc.AMD also designed this generation for dual-core operation, unlike the underperforming hyperthreading (which was only developed to cover up lacking performance of the deeply pipelined netburst architecture of the P4). Modern AMD K8 CPUs have integrated memory controllers, so there's lower latency, and allows you to use older/cheaper DDR1 memory! It also enabled HT to be used to link processors together, each with their own dedicated dual-channel memory buses, so it could scale indefinitely until, of course, board makers reached their maximum possible density of the physical limitations for placing tracks on the n-layer motherboard. No more "add more procs reduces per proc bandwidth in the shared FSB" problem anymore :-). This was only on mainframes/supercomps until AMD decided to take a leap of faith and to just go for it :-)). And now AMD pro CPUs are finally the recent #1 on a month-by-month basis.I'd say Intel aim at the masses & go for what sounds great (marketing), but is the cheapest solution (so they can sell to the masses). This is what they want to do, they want volume & think huge profits will come that way. But there's only so much far behind you can be before customers decide to ignore those issues. So Intel decided to focus on the platform (which they are really strong in & can beat AMD on because they are so big .. but then AMD partnered with chipset vendors who'd been screwed by intel domintating their space!!). Now Intel are forced to not only accept x86-64 over IA64 for the masses, but also to focus on performance per Watt wrt TDP as AMD have been for all time! AMD don't care about marketing (and have quite bad marketing execs it would seem given their 2nd place .. though that's finally changing!) and they mainly care about what's best for the customer (which is the ideal that I learnt in marketing class bizarrely .. but never followed & often negated!!). They go for the best solution, no matter the cost & are willing to take HUGE risks/gambles if they believe their design is correct.

[kam1405241509 0]

As someone else said earlier, if you're into 3D apps you need a decent 3D card. Which one depends on the apps you use or value most etc. For GL you don't need a pro card since most gaming cards also support GL still (though with Vista there's a major issue wrt GL becomes a 2nd class lib under D3D .. seriously crap considering how many pro/academic apps are written in open OGL so they run on giant UNIX clusters .. I guess most academics etc have or are moving to OSX/OpenSolaris/Linux/etc anyway so it's not really an issue, but still, I can't see the point of the move esp with MS making SFU a priority on their servers & making Vista have many UNIX like features ... perhaps different people within MS have differing views so there's no homogeneity in the rather massive/complex whole OS :-((). Er, sorry for the rant/tangent again ... had to get it off my chest & hope others can shed some light on the issue ...

1064325615[/snapback]

Hi, again, Jedipi,

I should've mentioned that if you want to use pro 3D apps like the various CAD variants, Maya, etc .. it MAY be worth spending extra bucks on a pro card that has lower performance in games (though often they have more VRAM, higher bandwidth etc ..). But you could get most of the way there by doing some DIY mods to enable use of the pro drivers, and could overclock to get the extra bps. The only issue is memory & resolution (although hardware clipping, accurate line drawing/anti-aliasing etc might not be enabled in all hacks!). This is probably gonna be less of an issue what with the new unreleased ATI X1800s etc .. I'm sure Nvidia will answer them back ;-).

 

I can explain in more detail if you want .. just ask ... or take a look at the pro reviews online.

[hazeshow 0]

I have no idea of the inside life of a processor, Hyperthreading an all this stuff. My decision to choose Intel is only an emotional decision. I really hate AMD's way of 'lying' in their product names. An AMD 2400 does not run on 2400 MhZ, so this name is given only to put sand in the consumer's eyes. Even if 100 MhZ would cost half the price of a 100 MhZ Intel processor, I would alway choose Intel because they don't lie in that way.

[Killer008r 0]

Personally I like AMD better, but thats just because I haven't had all that many AMD Cpu's burn out on me. I've had the one I use right now for about a year and it is still working perfectly. When I used to use Intel, my computer would freeze frequently, overheat, and wont run as fast as I like it to, not to mention their 64-bit technology is moving way to slow for my likeing. Right now I'm using an AMD 64 929 socket, which isn't the best socket type but it works very well.

[cryptonx 0]

Well if you go the Tomshardware.com forums/community , almost all ppl will flame the hell out of INTEL and advice you with an AMDbut since they are almost all GAMERS .. it's normal they tell u so since AMDs really shows more FPS / Performance in GAMES . I personaly own AN AMD Athlon 64 3500+ and a 3000+It's very very good .but As times go by you realize the fact .. for me as a gamer and 3d modeller . AMD is perfect for gaming rigs however for renderings and office work , Intel shows to be better in benchmarks .so scale your needs and see whats the right one for you, in the end it's not going to be A FATAL performance increase or decrease .....