Ah .... AMD vs Intel. What do you have and why?
Which one owns which in your opinion?
Supposedly AMD is better for gaming and most gamers will agree with that one, but my intel is working flawlessly for gaming although it runs hot it still performs. Intel all the way!
Which company will outlast the other? or will another 3rd party step in with a superchip and decimate them both? Lets here your thoughts on the subject!
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
Hmm i used to be an intel guy till i discovered overclocking..i never went back. The fact that I can take a 754 pin AMD 64 athlon 7000+ 2.4ghz and overclock it to speeds riveling a 3.8ghz pentium 4 just astounds me, only problem was it was a single channel, so im buying a 939 right now. Not to mention Hyper transport >Hyper threading.
That all depends though.
AMD>INTEL for gaming cause it has a shorter pipeline allowing for faster processing with less wattage taken.
INTEL>AMD for pretty much everything else cause it has a much longer pipeline so it can do more things at once. With massive amounts of power.
Also they have taken an Intel and overclocked it to 5.25 GHZ Which you wouldnt have been able to do with an AMD because of the shorter pipeline.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cgi-bin/downloads.m?id=11
Theres a vid too. It 25 mb so you can just read the article and look at the pictures.
INTEL owns all.
and hyperthreading>hypertransport
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
as far as the standard issue cookie cutter computer user goes, either is just fine. However when you start throwing out benchmark tests and such, top vs top, AMD generally wins.
How funny is it that it took an intel chip overclocked to 5.0 Ghz, to match Doom 3 benchmarks on a factory 2.6 Ghz FX-55, and that was on the 130 die, would be even worse on the newer 90 die.
Compare dual cores and be amazed that an AMD X2 4800+ Dual core running at 2.4Ghz crushes a pentium 840 series DC in basicly everything.
I just like the fact that I bought a $120 AMD64 3000+ Winchester cpu, that after a simple overclock, offers the same performance as a $600 Intel 670 Prescott cpu in everything except industrial level model rendering.
AMD is the present, Intel is the FUTURE!
Good luck AMD.
Both are great. I happen to be using a 2.8Ghz Dual core Pent. D.
Though if you are really into computers AMDs are a bit more fun.
my dad works with a 14 teraflop computer (or something along those lines), he said go with an AMD, so i did
Promise that forever we will never get better at growing up and learning to lie
Scrufdog wrote:as far as the standard issue cookie cutter computer user goes, either is just fine. However when you start throwing out benchmark tests and such, top vs top, AMD generally wins.
How funny is it that it took an intel chip overclocked to 5.0 Ghz, to match Doom 3 benchmarks on a factory 2.6 Ghz FX-55, and that was on the 130 die, would be even worse on the newer 90 die.
Compare dual cores and be amazed that an AMD X2 4800+ Dual core running at 2.4Ghz crushes a pentium 840 series DC in basicly everything.
I just like the fact that I bought a $120 AMD64 3000+ Winchester cpu, that after a simple overclock, offers the same performance as a $600 Intel 670 Prescott cpu in everything except industrial level model rendering.
Thats not fair. Everyone knows AMD owns the dual core market....... and the 64 bit market.
Although Ive taken my pentium 4 630 and overclocked it to run almost exactly between the 650 and 660. Running hot of course. Especially with the 90 die. Dam the prescott!! Going Water Soon!! And I only bought it for 180 W0Ot!
Of
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
Amd. but it depends on your application. I game a lot.. and it's pretty much all I do. So having gamed on both processors I actually like the AMD.
Scrufdog wrote:as far as the standard issue cookie cutter computer user goes, either is just fine. However when you start throwing out benchmark tests and such, top vs top, AMD generally wins.
How funny is it that it took an intel chip overclocked to 5.0 Ghz, to match Doom 3 benchmarks on a factory 2.6 Ghz FX-55, and that was on the 130 die, would be even worse on the newer 90 die.
Compare dual cores and be amazed that an AMD X2 4800+ Dual core running at 2.4Ghz crushes a pentium 840 series DC in basicly everything.
I just like the fact that I bought a $120 AMD64 3000+ Winchester cpu, that after a simple overclock, offers the same performance as a $600 Intel 670 Prescott cpu in everything except industrial level model rendering.
hmm then maybe before i buy this 3200Venice you can show me how to properly OC a 3000 and I can save some $$$ and get an either better Main Board.
Oh yeah did I mention Im building my first rig?
...BTW Im building my first rig.
Say it with me, "Its not what you know...It's what you can prove"
Inari wrote:Amd. but it depends on your application. I game a lot.. and it's pretty much all I do. So having gamed on both processors I actually like the AMD.
Ive gamed on both processors as well and I still prefer intel. No idea why.
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
Never gamed on an AMD, I had them put a P4 in my alienware....and looking back I probably should have gone with the 64bit AMD...ehh....but I was talking to my A+ instructor and he was talking a little about VIA chips...I know they make chip sets and I guess they are starting on processors or something to that effect. But yeah, I'm still pretty green to a lot of computer stuff...just worked on some old p3 compaqs
It comes down to a few different criteria, and both have differing architectures and approach number crunching slightly differently.
Either way, Intel is lagging seriously at this point, but I forsee in about 5-6 quarters that AMD is going to be playing SERIOUS catch-up with Intel. Certainly, they have Dual-core and consumer 64 bit processing sewn up for now, but I think that when the itanium (or it's replacement) hits the consumer market, it'll light firetrails... Intel has been sinking some major R&D bucks into the next generation of processors, and they're going to be running very cool, and very fast given the new semiconductor technologies that are coming out of Canada of all places.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I have a friend that does video editing for a living. He bought a new computer last year. It had an Intel CPU and he hated it. His last computer had an AMD CPU and he stated that the AMD was able to handle video quicker and cleaner. He now has a new AMD CPU Computer and loves it. I have built several computers and after my first two, which were INTEL, I have been using AMD. They run cooler than Intel and have great video quality.
98 Z24
RIP Specks
Adam Asmus wrote:Never gamed on an AMD, I had them put a P4 in my alienware....and looking back I probably should have gone with the 64bit AMD...ehh....but I was talking to my A+ instructor and he was talking a little about VIA chips...I know they make chip sets and I guess they are starting on processors or something to that effect. But yeah, I'm still pretty green to a lot of computer stuff...just worked on some old p3 compaqs
Yeah VIA and a company called Transmeta are making processors now.
Unfortunately they a relatively new and are not very dependable , but they could be a viable alternative to AMD and Intel in the near future.
Quote:
Certainly, they have Dual-core and consumer 64 bit processing sewn up for now, but I think that when the itanium (or it's replacement) hits the consumer market, it'll light firetrails... Intel has been sinking some major R&D bucks into the next generation of processors, and they're going to be running very cool, and very fast given the new semiconductor technologies that are coming out of Canada of all places.
I havent heard of this itanium technology. Im gonna have to look that up.
Nick wrote:AMD is the present, Intel is the FUTURE!
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/guides/itanium/
Apparently Itanium processors are meant to be high end server and workstaion processors.
And with 4 MB of L3 cache who would think otherwise?
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
I know that... if they were meant to be anything else, they'd have been seeded into the general marketplace.
They're going to stay server-side processors from what I've read, Intel is developing a 64bit processor for the general public, but they're aimed squarely at making the AMD 64's look like a Buick GNX at a top-fuel drag.
About the new semi-conductors, it's the smallest transistor made and functions... I forget the exact details about it (it was about 3 years ago when I switched from Comp-Eng to Forensics) but the technology is pretty sweet. It was developed at the Univ. of Alberta as I remember.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Just bought an AMD Athlon 64 about two hours ago. So I guess I'd say AMD
.
However, I also just bought an nVidia for my video card, and I'm an ATI fan, so I guess it all comes down to what gives me the best bang for the buck.
Right now, that's definately AMD on the processor side, and nVidia as far as GPU's go.
I wish things wouldn't break down to a 2 horse race all the time in computers...
AMD or Intel...
nVidia or ATI
Microsoft or.... oh wait, bad example.
iPod or... wait.. another bad example...
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Asus+Intel+Nvidia=only a computer god would use.
Also have you read up on the cell chips they're going to be using in the PS3? Supposedly its about 8 minichips all working as one. Which would be by far a significant leap in technology if they can keep it stable at a higher clock speed.
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
Excuse me make that nine cores.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,39187097,00.htm
Hopefully it wont be a letdown.
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
OR a burn up.
I thought it was funny that PS2's Emotion processor is fast enough that Iraq tried to purchase enough of them to run a Nuclear modelling computer. (too bad they're skewed for rendering 3d video
> I can see it too: Scientist:"We know know what will happen when we create our atomic bomb," Saddam:"Show me!" *Ratchet and Clank shows up on screen*
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
lol
*****************************************************************
"The J's weren't designed to be sports cars, the suspension sucks, the brakes are tiny, and the target market for our car doesn't need to be able to do any more than 65mph." - Shifted
A more accurate observation has never been typed. These should be the starting points before any serious performance modification. What's the point of making a serious performer if you can't control it's power?
