General discussion

Locked

AMD vs Intel

By shaddaiscript ·
I really want to know the diffrence between these two rpoducts.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

14 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

It depends on what you want them for

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to AMD vs Intel

For home use the AMD is probably OK as most home users are game players and the like and can afford to be without a computer for a few days/weeks while it is being fixed when it breaks either from what they have put onto the machine or a genuine hardware failure. But in all seriousness it is a "Personal" thing on what you think of as important as an individual.

The Home market is price driven so the AMD is a more palatable unit being cheaper than than the Intel of equivalent specs although as I write this even those rated speeds are being thrown out the window by both companies.

On the business side however where reliability is the all important catch word Intel is King and will remain there because it is a known quantity and a solid company which AMD isn't as they are always attempting to break into the "Big Market" to outsell Intel and always so far this has backfired on them nearly crippling them finically for a long period of time so in the interests of long term availability of replacement CPU's Intel is the Business preference well at least reasonable business where they can not afford prolonged down time which in some cases is measured in Millions of Dollars per hour. Any company will factor in the costs of down time when making the decision of what to purchase and when to buy it.

Right at the moment the 64 Bit AMD appears to have the edge on the Intel unit as it can run both 64 & 32 bit applications but in actual fact it is trading off all of the advantaged of the 64 bit OS and Software in an attempt to get sales now and hopefully be compatible with future applications as they are released. Now a home user may be able to take a chance as they normally only have the one computer to deal with and are not heavily affected but any business has a considerable investment tied up in hardware which is depreciated every year and have a normal life expediency of around 5 years from a Tax point of view. These places just can not afford to take the risk as if they make the wrong decision it costs them quite a lot of money and time to change over to what is required but even then they tend to allow their existing hardware to depreciate to nothing before replacing it which by no means infers that it is no longer functional but that it is no longer economical to keep the existing hardware as it starts costing them money that could be better spent elsewhere.

I think I've tried to be fair on both brands pointing out the good and the bad but

Let the FLAMING begin.

Col

Collapse -

Intel or AMD?

by pgm554 In reply to It depends on what you wa ...

There were better processors and OS's,but the maketplace just never got to see them for what they were.

Soon after the introduction of the X86 code base, Intel saw that there were limitations to the code base of the x86 instruction set and were going to introduce a newer faster chip(16 bit) that was not backwards compatible with the x86 instruction set.

IBM saw the need for OS2 to take advantage of a newer better chip design.
But neither came to total fruition because of the compromises made in the marketplace.

But there were marketing issues in that you would obsolete much of the software all ready written.
So the compromise was the 80286, a 16 bit chip that built on the x86 instruction set. It was not as good as a completely new chip design, but Intel took a chance and ran with it. The rest is history.

So now, what we have is a new 286 like gamble from AMD in their Opteron chips. The 64 bit Itanium from Intel has been anything but smooth in transition.
The biggest issue is the inability of the chip to run software as efficiently as their older x86 chips.

So if we were starting from scratch, the Itanium would be a good start. There are other 64 bit chips being sold (Sun SPARC and DEC Alpha), but they are just unable to run the x86 instruction set natively (just like Itanium).

So what we have from AMD is a compromise and a gamble. The chips are cheaper and are for the most part, very reliable.

Intel is like IBM, and as the saying goes, nobody gets fired for buying IBM.

Right now Intel chips have an advantage on the high end (Xeon) because they can scale to 32 processors for SMP.AMD can't.

But, for most everything that requires a basic 32bit x86 instruction set, AMD is just as good and cheaper.

So,if the gamble from AMD works,they could grab a lot more share of the CPU chip market over the next couple of years.

The market place will make the choice.

Collapse -

Your so Right

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Intel or AMD?

If the gamble from AMD pays off....

That is the whole problem with AMD they are always gambling with the companies future in the hope of making it big without first getting the necessary converts across they just hope to force the market to their way of thinking. No while this is a penitentially good idea it always seems to backfire on AMD and causes them to lose lots of money. Just look at their history they are constantly stumbling from one fiasco to the next and never making any real money they are always on the edge of bankruptcy and that in itself is a very good reason to steer clear of them for a business environment. After all you want to know that the CPU you buy today will be replaceable in 12 months time and the company hasn't gone broke through some stupid deal that could have made them a few Billion over night.

This is what I see wrong with AMD they are always constantly chasing the "Fast Buck" and more often than not paying the price where as Intel just plods along making faster and faster chips and chip sets for their products. granted the Intel has a different socket for just about every increase in performance while the AMD is still basically on a Socket 7 layout. But the end result is that any business knows that Intel will be there for the long haul even if their CPU's are not as good as some others but unfortunately the same can not be said for AMD as their history is littered with "Get Rich Quick Schemes" that have never worked.

incidental you are wrong about the scalability of Intel CPU's you can go to 128 not 32. If you want any more than that you should be looking at an IBM mainframe.

Col

Collapse -

Theoretically speaking...

by pgm554 In reply to Your so Right

Yeah,the Xeon might be able to scale to 128,but nobody is shipping a system that does more than 32(Unisys)and they have only shipped 300.
So what we have is a marketing ploy in the spec design from Intel.

As for the AMD socket 7 ,it has been almost dead for over 2 years.The K6 series is almost unbuyable.

The K7 is what put AMD on the road map,they actually had a chip that was better ,faster and cheaper then anything that Intel was shipping.

Intel tried to over clock the Pentium III to 1GHZ and were having failures left and right.So they had to modify the core and come up with a different chipset to have a similar performing chip on the PIII(Tulantin) which topped out at 1.4 GHZ.

It wasn't until P4,that they were able to do better clock speeds.And even then the archtecture was crippled by the extended pipline.
AMD chips per clock cycle are much more efficent than anything from Intel.

Collapse -

Actually your a bit wrong about the P4 V AMD

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Theoretically speaking...

It actually wasn't until the P4 "C" that the Intel chip was comparable to the AMD of a similar rated speed not the original P4 and even then Intel had to resort to HTT and Dual Channel RAM to get the speed.

You are quite correct about no systems currently being shipped with 128 CPU's but I was only thinking of Microsoft's claims about its new OS 2003 Enterprise Server as that was their claim but in all honesty if you where even considering something like that you would be better off looking at a mainframe it would probably be cheaper as well. What I did find interesting was a HP Quad box at a Microsoft Partners meeting could only run its CPU's to 20% of their capacity and the M$ guys where making out just how good the Software/Hardware combination actually was I thought it stunk but then again I'm only an OEM builder so what would I know as I've dumped 2003 for this very reason and switched to Linux for all my Quad boxes at least that works and I can get 100% CPU usage out of these things. However maybe with a lot of mucking around with 2003 it may have been possible to improve what was happening but as far as an "Out of the Box" solution it wasn't.

My only real gripe with AMD is the company as they do not have a great track record in business as they are constantly running far to close to the edge for my liking but other than the scalability issue and company record I think that for Workstations/Game Stations the AMD is great and leaves the Intel unit for dead with the right chip set M'Board.

But as I do most of my work in the business area I have to supply what meets my customers needs for the foreseeable future and that is Intel however on the other hand I had some kid try to imply that I was robbing a customer by replacing a burnt out Duron with another Duron as the price of the Athlon was only a bit more and he just couldn't understand that as it was an insurance job I had to provide the closest CPU available to the dead one and the insurance company just wouldn't spring for any thing other than a Duron. The original unit had a 800 MHZ Duron and I replaced it with a 1,200 MHZ Duron which was then the slowest CPU that I could buy.

But for any home unit where cost is not an important factor and here I do mean "Down Time Cost" I prefer the AMD over the Intel but for any company where there are hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour involved in any downtime I have to go with the Intel as it just works better and with the multi processor M'Boards on the servers you are keeping the required parts to a minimum and there are no compatibility problems in the network particularly when you are adding workstations. But then again I suppose it is a "Personal" thing and what works for me may very well not work for someone else.

However it is my companies reputation that is very important to me and while we don't supply the cheapest units we do have the reputation of suppling good solid reliable units that just work without any problems and that is what is the most important thing to me.

I recently built and AMD unit for a small business who is a "One Man Band" and he was only interested in cost so I used an AMD and NVida chip set M'Board and the thing had all sought's of problems that where only cured by a BIOS flash two months after I built the unit {this was when the update became available} and it left a lot to be desired as the M'Board that I used was one that came as "Recommended" from the AMD site. While I could afford some problems on this particular unit if it was to be a constant long term thing I would rapidly lose what business I currently have and I certainly would not be in a position to keep my staff employed and growing the company with mainly from word of mouth customers recommending me to their friends and business acquaintances.

Col

Collapse -

Price and performance

by TheChas In reply to AMD vs Intel

As I see it, the main difference between AMD and Intel is that for the same level of performance an AMD system will cost a lot less.

Until now when AMD beat Intel to the punch with a viable 64 Bit CPU, Intel was always the technical leader and AMD made "compatible" chips.

Some CAD and related business graphics programs do run better on Intel CPUs. This has more to do with how the programs were written rather than any specific difference between the 2 CPU manufactures.

AMD has supported a process referred to as "over-clocking". As such, the Athlon CPU line is the "darling" of gamers since they can tweak out a bit more performance from the CPU.

As far as reliability, I have seen more infant mortality with AMD CPUs than Intel.
Once a system is running, I see similar functional lives for AMD and Intel systems. So long as the other components are of similar quality.

1 big difference between AMD Athlon XP CPUs, and Intel Pentium 4's is that the Intel chips run a LOT cooler.
In fact, Intel P4's have a built-in safety feature that slows down the CPU in case the fan fails.
AMD CPUs will burn up within seconds if the cooling fan fails.

Chas

Collapse -

Actually I recently had a repair

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Price and performance

Where the heat sink/fan had come off the AMD CPU and fried the poor thing but while I do not believe that is an AMD problem rather a building problem it does show a very great weakness in their design.

I very much like the Intel chip sets which cut back the duty cycle of there CPU when they reach a preset temp I seen so many Intel CPU's live to play another day because of this over the years that I could no longer even consider the AMD a viable alternative for reliability when they get a bit on the hot side.

However being in business I do have to look at the "History" of both makers and AMD is littered with "Get Rich Quick Schemes" which have almost invariable nearly brought them to their knees or even bankruptcy so for real business computing I do not think that are a viable alternative. And currently most M'Board makers don't either as there are only a few Dual AMD M'Boards on the market and no Quad AMD M'Boards even available, while that is most likely a result of AMD not making chip sets to run on like Intel does it is a severe shortcomings for business applications.

But for a "Home" games unit I think they are great and unbeatable in terms of bang for buck and future upgradability as they have kept the same socket since the days of the Duron or even previously where as Intel has constantly changed its sockets as new generations of Processors become available. Even in the P4 range there are two sockets so it makes repairing/upgrading them very hard to say the least but at least I know any Intel unit that I build is far more likely to be alive in a couple of years of hard work in a dirty environment than an AMD unit of the same spec's even if it was possible to make them that way.

Col

Collapse -

Nut just sockets

by TheChas In reply to Actually I recently had a ...

1 thing that bugs me about Intel P4 CPUs is that you have to select the "correct" CPU for the chip-set in use.

There may be 3 or 4 different CPUs of a given processor speed. Yet only 1 of those will function on a specific motherboard.

Chas

Collapse -

Yep your so right

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Nut just sockets

But I think the main trouble comes in when the non Intel chip sets are used to run the P4's on as they are a bit cheaper.

I tend to stick to the 865 or 875 chip sets as they seem to work best with the current P4's but I'm sure when Intel releases its next generation CPU and chip set it will be a different story again. That is the one big draw back with Intel the constant changing of almost everything involved in effectively running a CPU to its max potential.

I still have a Dual 450 P11 here that performs flawlessly and is often as fast or faster in running programs and complex computations as the latest P4's or even the Xeon's.

Like everything else it all depends on how well the M'Board is designed and while I tend to steer clear of the Intel units back then I found the Gigabyte M'Boards to be brilliant. But the same can be said for the AMD boards with the NVidia, VIA or whatever chip sets they have some work very well and some leave a lot to be desired.

While AMD are tops in the standardization stakes some of the chip sets that come recommended for their Processors leave a lot to be desired but then again I suppose that's the name of the game when you are involved in building these things you are constantly learning and there are always better M'Boards out there.

I can still remember back in the old 486 days you had the choice of 30 pin RAM on the cheap boards or the then new 72 pin RAM on the better boards which where continued over to the first of the Pentium boards but latter replaced by the SD-RAM which was even faster again.

It is however interesting to look at some of the so called "Server" M'Boards from different makers as I've recently had to repair some old servers and I ran across a Dual Processor Tyan P11 M'Board with 8 X 72 pin RAM sockets on board so with these the CPU's hardly worked as well as they could of or then there was the Soyo Dual Processor M'Boards with only 4 X 72 pin RAM sockets so these CPU's ran even slower. Or at the more recent P4's where SD-RAM was used instead of the RD-RAM as recommended by Intel but these where cheap M'Boards with cheap RAM on them so I guess you got what you paid for. Unfortunately it was the big end of town in their constant search for more profits that sold these M'Boards as the P4 platform of choice so these units just didn't perform any where near as well as they could of. I've lost count of "Brand Name" P4's that I've run across without HTT enabled and only 1 RAM stick in them and these are the "C" version of the P4's. I can not help but wonder just how these companies get away with making these things that just do not take advantage of the full potential of the CPU's ability. Even the AMD's support Dual Channel Ram and you see very few of these "Brand Name" units with 2 RAM sticks in them so I personally think it is the customer who is being short changed in these cases.

Col

Collapse -

AMD and Intel

by TomSal In reply to AMD vs Intel

One of the topics I can get into..the ol' AMD v Intel topic.

As an avid pc gamer (for about 20 years now) I must agree with others in this thread..in the realm of gaming AMD is king. The only gamers who don't use AMD are the ones who A) Aren't tech savvy they just want to buy a pre-made system and be done with it, B) Have lots of money to **** away (re: rich kids?) or C) Want no business to do with with tweaking or overclocking.

AMD chips (I myself having used nothing buy AMD in my home PCs for about 6 years now) have one draw back --- HEAT. It is true, by personal experience they run very hot. But the issue is put down if you load up your box with lots of good fans, don't forget a good exhaust AND intake fan design AND use a QUALITY heatsink (I suggest a heat pipe if going with an AMD solution over 3ghz) and fan. My gaming box at home runs about a steady 39-42 C, 42 is the highest I've seen and that's under full load too. I think that's pretty darn good.

Intel only has one purpose remaining and that's the business world. The XEON chips are still the choice solution for servers IMHO (I mean if you are only looking at Intel or AMD). And while the FPU issue that used to be a much bigger deal years ago (Intel used to just embarrass the heck out of AMD with the floating point issue), Intel still has a slight advantage with floating point operations..though latest benchmarks indicate that AMD is finally getting its act together in that area as well.

BTW, AMD is well aware of the heat issue and its latest chips are being designed to run significantly cooler than anything prior in the AMD product line, when compared against the performance it offers.

For a REALLY good and concise FACTUAL view of AMD and Intel products I highly suggest browsing the Anandtech site. (www.anandtech.com).

Back to Community Forum
14 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums