AMD or P4 FINAL DISPUTE!!!

[SportyGuy220]

Ok look, im tired of this.

1) I want to know where i can find out what is the difference between the 64 bit processors and the hyperthreading.

2) why is p4's processors so high in cache and ghz but amd is competing with lower spec's?

3)what processor is best in what area. why p4's use bandwidth and amds are more usefull of dual channel

If anyone can answer these questions please do so.

 

[BillLeeLee]

Yay, another Intel vs. AMD thread, always a fun time.

1.) 64-bit processors can address more memory (technically 2^64 bytes of memory, but anyways, will be way higher than 32-bit's 4 GB of memory limit). Also, you can run 64-bit code, and 64-bit procs can crunch floating point operations better than current 32-bit procs.

Hyperthreading, however, is Intel's implementation of pseudo-multiprocessing, making the P4 handle multitasking more smoothly by using a logical processor in addition to the physical processor.

Intel does have 64-bit procs now in the Nocona, and will introduce consumer ones sooner or later.

2.) There are other factors at play, like the pipeline, front side bus... Don't fall into the Megahertz myth. The AMDs are slower in clock speed, but they use a 10 stage pipeline, whereas Pentium 4s use either a 20 or 31 stage pipeline. Longer pipelines allow you to ratchet the clock speed higher easily, but if you suffer a branch misprediction, this incurs performance penalties because you basically have to flush out the pipeline. In longer pipelines, this hurts more than in a shorter pipeline. Also, AMD chips have better floating point performance (double pumped Floating point unit compared to Pentium 4's ability to only do one per clock cycle).

3.) Pentium 4 needs a lot of memory bandwidth to perform well, because it needs the long pipeline to be saturated with data so branch mispredictions don't hurt it as much (it'll always have more work to do fast). The AMD line favors tight memory timings for top performance, and only recently has the Athlon 64 (consumer line, not FX/Opteron) acquired Dual channel capabilities. In performance tests, I don't think I've seen much of a performance difference between a single channel Ahtlon 64 and a dual channel Ath64 (besides in synthetic memory benchmarks).

Currently, Athlon 64s pretty much rock the 32-bit world, thanks in small part to their on-die memory controller, etc. etc.

 

[Dan_D]

Also in games teh Athlon 64 is the chip to beat. But the P4 rules at video encoding and if your running a production machine where you multi-task alot the Pentium 4 is the way to go.

The Pentium 4 is no slouch in game performance and when OC'ed to extrememly high speeds it can give other processors a run for their money. P4's scale well so overclocking often yeilds impressive results. My machine in the sig runs every game out there very well.

Also I'd like to point out one downside I've always experienced with AMD chips. This is not AMD's fault but the fault of the chipset manufacturers and motherboard manufacturers.

In general the AMD platform doesn't seem to be as stable as the Intel. Again I blame everyone but AMD directly. Just everyone else involved in the platform.

The chipset drivers from VIA absolutley suck. If you don't do everythig exactly right it really screws up your system.

If you pick up a good motherboard you should be fine. Buy a cheap one and you'll have an unstable pile of crap on your hands. Whereas any Intel chipset board is pretty stable at stock speeds.

For stability Intel is quite frankly unmatched. AMD's can be just as stable but only with the right board and drivers. I've had alot more problems out of Athlon machines than Pentium machines.

 

[SportyGuy220]

good thing i bought MSI K7N2 with ultra nforce 2 chipset. Har har har

 

[Dan_D]

I've got no experience with the NForce chipset. In general with Nvidia I have nothing but good things to say about their drivers. If I decide to go AMD again it would be with an NForce solution. SIS has sucked in my opinion for some time. VIA as well. So that leaves Nvidia as the only choice remaining.

 

[XeRo_Dark]

AMD POWER!!!!!!! nuff said

 

[blip]

Yay, another Intel vs. AMD thread, always a fun time.

1.) 64-bit processors can address more memory (technically 2^64 bytes of memory, but anyways, will be way higher than 32-bit's 4 GB of memory limit). Also, you can run 64-bit code, and 64-bit procs can crunch floating point operations better than current 32-bit procs.

Hyperthreading, however, is Intel's implementation of pseudo-multiprocessing, making the P4 handle multitasking more smoothly by using a logical processor in addition to the physical processor.

Intel does have 64-bit procs now in the Nocona, and will introduce consumer ones sooner or later.

2.) There are other factors at play, like the pipeline, front side bus... Don't fall into the Megahertz myth. The AMDs are slower in clock speed, but they use a 10 stage pipeline, whereas Pentium 4s use either a 20 or 31 stage pipeline. Longer pipelines allow you to ratchet the clock speed higher easily, but if you suffer a branch misprediction, this incurs performance penalties because you basically have to flush out the pipeline. In longer pipelines, this hurts more than in a shorter pipeline. Also, AMD chips have better floating point performance (double pumped Floating point unit compared to Pentium 4's ability to only do one per clock cycle).

3.) Pentium 4 needs a lot of memory bandwidth to perform well, because it needs the long pipeline to be saturated with data so branch mispredictions don't hurt it as much (it'll always have more work to do fast). The AMD line favors tight memory timings for top performance, and only recently has the Athlon 64 (consumer line, not FX/Opteron) acquired Dual channel capabilities. In performance tests, I don't think I've seen much of a performance difference between a single channel Ahtlon 64 and a dual channel Ath64 (besides in synthetic memory benchmarks).

Currently, Athlon 64s pretty much rock the 32-bit world, thanks in small part to their on-die memory controller, etc. etc.

That's the clearest description of the differences that I've seen... that should go in a FAQ

 

[SportyGuy220]

what happens if you take the psuedo-multitasking and the 64 bit's and combine them. Then give them p4's high speed ghz with huge L2 and L3 cache. OMG, be right back got to go........check the mail

 

[i3lacKnyte]

what happens if you take the psuedo-multitasking and the 64 bit's and combine them. Then give them p4's high speed ghz with huge L2 and L3 cache. OMG, be right back got to go........check the mail

later next year amd will release a dual-cored processor which will do this. but it wont be "pseudo" it will be two physicial cores instead of what the pentium 4 now has, a singular core with a physical and a logical processor. right now the closest you can get to thisamd wise is a dual opteron system, but the registered memory that is required is slower, and memory with decent timings is very hard to come buy and expensive.

 

[Dan_D]

later next year amd will release a dual-cored processor which will do this. but it wont be "pseudo" it will be two physicial cores instead of what the pentium 4 now has, a singular core with a physical and a logical processor. right now the closest you can get to thisamd wise is a dual opteron system, but the registered memory that is required is slower, and memory with decent timings is very hard to come buy and expensive.

Intel's doing the same thing. Both companies show dual cores in their 2005 roadmap. Most people seem to think that AMD is the only company doing that. Intel's had the technology for some time. Well before AMD. Early this year Intel had a press release stating that they had the technology and the ability to do dual core CPU's. But never stated when they would hit the market.

Although AMD did in fact add dual cores to their official roadmap first.

BTW the Nacona Xeon's aren't that expensive for 3.0GHz chips. The boards are what's killer. Especially the PCI-E boards. So you could have a dual processor Xeon system with EMT64 and have 4 virtual CPU's if running with two CPU's.

 

[SportyGuy220]

so your saying one is better for multitasking and other is better for floating point processing. Well how do you decide which one you want by saying. "i think ill multiprocess on this one?" heh.

 

[Stiletto One]

Ehh, the difference isn't huge. In desktop stuff, it's nice to be on an HT P4 (like my jaunts in Flash and Photoshop at the same time), but I personally tend to do on thing at a time. Like, I'm playing a game OR I'm working OR I'm burning discs.

For the record, a twin Opteron benches faster than a twin Hyper-Threading-enabled Xeon. Anandtech had some numbers for this.