• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Intel/AMD face-off

A

Anthem515

n00b
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
35
Alright, I have heard all of this controversy, and I just want to get right down to it.

Which company, strictly intel or AMD, has the better processor?

I don't want any biast answers.
 
TECHNICALLY youre already being biased...cos you posted this in the AMD Processors section :D :p :D

My contribution/experience is that AMD chips give you the most for your money and outperform its equivalent in terms of OCing...least for me...

Then again, im not the most professional OCer on the block...
 
Dual Core AMD's beat any intel processor in pretty much every application... but I haven't been following intels newest processors (dothan?) so that may not be true anymore.
 
An overclocked Pentium 955 gives the AMD X2 4800 a run for its money... but other than that, it's pretty much no contest.
 
Anthem515 said:
Alright, I have heard all of this controversy, and I just want to get right down to it.

Which company, strictly intel or AMD, has the better processor?

I don't want any biast answers.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming dual-core here: AMD processors strike a better balance between performance, heat and price. That's what I call "better".
 
yes, the 920s are good chips, but if your going for a comperable priced setup, its 260 for the processor, which is a good price, but then you gotta add 200 bucks for the motherboard and you hafta get a psu with the 8pin EPS header, which can cost more vs a Fortron Bluestorm per say.

for the amd setup, its like 300 for the x2 3800+ and then 130 for the ultra-d and then you can get a bluestorm 500w for 70 bucks instead of a powerstream for 120. and they are both comperable setups and both will overclock like banshees. upwards of 4.3ghz and 2.7ghz respectively.
 
I understand where you guys are coming from, but really, when it comes down to it, do you really see a difference?
 
Anthem515 said:
I understand where you guys are coming from, but really, when it comes down to it, do you really see a difference?
Click to expand...
I think you do see it. For one, there's the smoothness of an Athlon X2, since it was designed to be a dual core processor in one die, whereas the Intel offerings are actually two physical dies slapped onto one substrate (they're supposed to put out a thought out product next round). Also, you have the fact that the X2s (like all Athlon 64s) have the memory controller on-die. (Correct me if I'm wrong on the details here, guys) Thirdly, current Intel offerings have a stupidly long pipeline (31 stages) where the Athlon only has... IIRC 16? Intel's all fine and good, if the branch predictions are always right. But that would only happen on the same day that Microsoft released a free Linux distribution with no bugs. :) With a shorter pipeline, when a branch prediction fails, has less to go back and re-do and also already took less time to work before the misprediction. That's why Athlons have a much higher IPC (Instructions Per Clockcycle) rating, and tend to perform better for most tasks even compared to higher clocked Intel stuff.

On top of all that, like CCU said, AMD's keeping it real, and while Intel might have dropped the prices on the CPUs themselves, but all the supporting parts are still not cheap.
 
If by "better" you mean perform the tasks they're intended to, they both work flawlessly. When you drag in cost and performance, thats where the bloodshed starts. If you spent $200-300 on an Intel or AMD processor, I have no doubt you'd be satisfied.
 
GilmourD said:
I think you do see it. For one, there's the smoothness of an Athlon X2, since it was designed to be a dual core processor in one die, whereas the Intel offerings are actually two physical dies slapped onto one substrate (they're supposed to put out a thought out product next round). Also, you have the fact that the X2s (like all Athlon 64s) have the memory controller on-die. (Correct me if I'm wrong on the details here, guys) Thirdly, current Intel offerings have a stupidly long pipeline (31 stages) where the Athlon only has... IIRC 16? Intel's all fine and good, if the branch predictions are always right. But that would only happen on the same day that Microsoft released a free Linux distribution with no bugs. :) With a shorter pipeline, when a branch prediction fails, has less to go back and re-do and also already took less time to work before the misprediction. That's why Athlons have a much higher IPC (Instructions Per Clockcycle) rating, and tend to perform better for most tasks even compared to higher clocked Intel stuff.

On top of all that, like CCU said, AMD's keeping it real, and while Intel might have dropped the prices on the CPUs themselves, but all the supporting parts are still not cheap.
Click to expand...

athlons are only 12 stages :D and intels mem controller. which is on board, sucks compaired to AMD's. 90% vs 50%-60% eff is enough to keep me away. everything else you said seems to be correct.

and intel can directly increase the cost of the mobos by upping the price they sell their chipsets at. corrupt huh?
 
for the laptops. Yonah, aka Core Duo, is easily the best mobile chip right now.

I haven't seen (or really looked for) good reviews of overclocked Pentium D 920/930s vs overclocked Athlon X2s. Those 40-50% overclocks the 920/930 chips can get certianly closed the gap between themselves as the X2s. Of course the Pentium D 8x0 chips weren't even in the running, and I'd still take an X2 right now.

The more interesting contender for AMDs dual core offersings is Sossaman, the higher power, faster clocked Yonah. But that's targeted as a workstation / server chip, we'll have to see how availible they are for individual consumers.
 
good call Papaming.

and i saw an article that said that Turion was just slightly worse on batteries then Dothan was. and they were using the 35w Turion, not the 25w.
 
Danly said:
If by "better" you mean perform the tasks they're intended to, they both work flawlessly. When you drag in cost and performance, thats where the bloodshed starts. If you spent $200-300 on an Intel or AMD processor, I have no doubt you'd be satisfied.
Click to expand...
...yep.

Both have good things to offer. Don't forget that the reason any of these parts don't cost $1000.00 is good old fashoned competition. Glad they are both around, kicking each others asses, keeping the cost down for all of us.... :cool:

Regards - B.B.S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top