View Full Version : AMD vs. Intel
AMD seems to have a performance edge in x86 computing power both in terms of raw numbers, actual benchmarks, dual-core, 64 bit, and power dissapation. Even Dell has begun using Opterons in their server line.
Intel is trying to catch up, with reorganization, and an engineering shift. Do you think they can or has the giant been tamed for good?
fos....
BTW, I have never been one for the latest and hottest computer setups. The liquid cooled, high strung flaming gamer is not my cup of tea. Last years or older works fine for me. Heck, I'm really happy with a command line nterface. :)
Most recently I have been experimenting with low power small footprint mini-ITX rigs.
fos....
hacked1o0o
05-21-2006, 10:19 PM
in prefer amd better than intel , amd processors do have a few bugs but intel is more technical. if you were to host a server for whatever i would go with intel. i hear thet have a speciality in that area. amd does have moderately good customer support though.
On the server side is where AMD has a particular advantage with their multi-core technology. The majority of servers are Linux based and many (most?) are AMD or moving in that direction. Dell is beginning to offer AMD processors in their server line due to customer demand. They have been losing market share largely due to their Intel only stance.
fos....
danieldk
05-22-2006, 11:22 AM
On the server side is where AMD has a particular advantage with their multi-core technology.
That depends on what the server is deployed for, for some areas the limiting factor is the uplink (or downlink) spreed. Personally I have no strong preferences for either brand. AMD often gives more bang for the buck, on the other hand Intel CPUs and mainboards have a track record for stability. So, usually that is what I use for servers.
shivandeveloper
05-22-2006, 06:00 PM
Even for older hardware, AMD has a performance advantage. The Barton cores kicked all over their Intel competition.
I strongly prefer AMD myself. Intel is not out of the race for one reason: they have buckets of money, scratch that, they have a freaking wellspring. AMD in comparison has the bucket. It would not take very much for AMD to go belly up, one bad mistake and they're gone. Intel is more like Hollywood, they can put out trash mutliple times before getting it right and still make it, at least for now.
AMD's other shortcoming is they're personal motherboard BIOS chipsets. You basically get two choices (or did, maybe there's a newcomer) Via and nForce. Via chipsets are cruddy, maybe one in every 4 I've ended up with has been good. nForce I've not tried as the mobos usually come with onboard stuff I don't want.
jpaulb
05-29-2006, 08:44 AM
Via chipsets are cruddy, maybe one in every 4 I've ended up with has been good. nForce I've not tried as the mobos usually come with onboard stuff I don't want.
I am using the MSI K8N Neo4 MoBo with the nForce 4 chip set and an Athlon64 3200 +. It works quite nicely. According to SETI it does it's calculations at 1578.62 million ops/sec what ever that means.
. This is using 32 bit OS. I have no idea if the 64 bit apps would be faster. At least I can mix.
As far as I know Intel's 64 bit only runs 64 bit apps, which at the present time doesn't make it very interesting to the majority of users.
Paul
tom_servo
06-01-2006, 06:20 AM
As far as I know Intel's 64 bit only runs 64 bit apps
That is true of the Intel Itaniums, but not the new 64 bit P4s.
Intel has 2 64 bit CPUs. There is the Itanium, a whole new design (I have seen some claim it is heavily based on the DEC Alpha, but I don't know how true that is) 64-bit CPU that is not compatible with other Intel CPUs (does not use the x86 instruction set), and does not work well with 32 bit. This chip is targeted at servers, is expensive, and hasn't been very popular.
AMD's Opteron introduced new 64 additions to the x86 instruction set, and some other clever ideas (more registers, NX bit, etc.). This new instruction set is called x86-64 (and about a dozen other names), and maintains compatibility with 32-bit programs. 32 and 64 bit programs can happily run side-by-side without any problems. Intel now supports the x86-64 instruction set in the newer P4s.
I personally prefer the AMD CPUs. VIA chipsets don't seem to be as bad as they use to be. My AthlonXP has half a VIA chipset (AMD northbridge, VIA southbridge), and has been very stable. With the memory controller now part of the CPU in the Athlon64, there are fewer things for VIA to screw up. :)
Alain
PS. Way off topic, but I am glad to see that the Libranet community I had thought was dead has really just found a new home. Yay!
jpaulb
06-05-2006, 12:36 PM
I have never liked Intel from day one,they remind me too much of Microsoft, a lot of hype and no action.
My wifes first company computer was an AT (Advanced Technology).Intel 8086 running MSDOS. Advanced conpared to what? I had a Sincliar QL, with a 68008 cpu running QDOS and a Swiss modified version of their business suite, This would multi task like the big boys. . I could write an invoices, search a database and print at the same time. With that AT you could write or print; but not together. So much for advance technology
I quess the only Intel cpu I have bought is in the IBM A30, the boss uses that :wink:
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.