AMD vs. Intel

**gunnut** · 16 Nov 06, 06:40

Originally Posted by hello

I'll go with AMD. It was all-round better until Intel brought the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme. Right now I'm on an Athlon X2 4400. But my favorite processor is the STI(Sony/Toshiba/IBM) Cell, which outperforms all current desktop processors and is only found in the Playstation 3. It's supposed to be 3-12 times faster than any desktop processor.

Here's an analysis on the cell processor used in PS3 and its limitations.

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?cpage=1

Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200+ or better than even an Athlon XP 2800+ CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are classified as “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores.

The reason they can sell for so cheap is because they are not as robust or complex as what we have inside our computers. The execution theme in both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs is similar to that of what you would see in the original Intel Pentium Processor. (Not referring to the Pentium 2 3 or 4, but the original) This is because they’ve stripped out hardware designed to optimize the scheduling of instructions at runtime. As a result, neither the 360 nor PS3’s CPU contain an instruction window. Instead, instructions pass through the processor in the order in which they were fetched; hence both are “In-Order Execution” CPUs.

Marketing talk from Microsoft and Sony: Thanks to these multi-core processors developers will be able to multi-thread their games and get significant performance improvements and achieve Artificial Intelligence in games that people previously thought impossible for a videogame. It’ll be as if you’re playing with another living breathing human being.

Cell processors may be revolutionary and may have a future. But it is no match for a regular desktop PC chip...for now.

**~~northface~~** · 17 Nov 06, 21:19

But was'nt Intels Pentium and AMD's K6 developed by the same person? Vinod Dham (IIT Bombay grad). I think he led both teams and joined the AMD project after Intel. So if the latesty models are based on those processor designs i guess the performance of both should be about same.

**gunnut** · 18 Nov 06, 01:17

Originally Posted by northface

But was'nt Intels Pentium and AMD's K6 developed by the same person? Vinod Dham (IIT Bombay grad). I think he led both teams and joined the AMD project after Intel. So if the latesty models are based on those processor designs i guess the performance of both should be about same.

I don't believe the K6 and Pentium are anything alike. They may have the same designer, but K6 in fact was a RISC processor instead of CISC processor, natively. K6 runs x86 instructions in emulation.

**~~northface~~** · 18 Nov 06, 14:32

I don't believe the K6 and Pentium are anything alike. They may have the same designer, but K6 in fact was a RISC processor instead of CISC processor, natively. K6 runs x86 instructions in emulation.

>>>

True. Even though they would'nt be anything alike I was assuming that ultimately the processing capablities of both processors would not be too different.

**standoh** · 22 Nov 06, 07:31

There's an AMD Athlon, and a Duron.
So what's the M for,MORON

**gunnut** · 22 Nov 06, 20:17

Originally Posted by standoh

There's an AMD Athlon, and a Duron.
So what's the M for,MORON

I think you mean Pentium M. That's from Intel.

Duron used to be an Athlon with 1/4 L2 cache. This name has been retired in favor of their Sempron line. Sempron is the Athlon with 1/4 to 1/2 the L2 cache. Sempron64 is the Athlon64 with 1/4 to 1/2 the L2 cache, and only single channel memory.

Pentium M derived from Pentium 3. It was adapted for desktop use and renamed Core.

**Canuck** · 01 Dec 06, 03:56

Intel all the way RIGHT now

I have owned both never had an issue with either.

I have Owned a Intel P 120, Amd Athlon 800Mhz, Intel P4 2.8Ghz all chips have performed well but the new Duo core kicks ass I don't own one YET.

I will not be buying anything till VISTA is stable then I will look at building a PC or just buying a notebook.

I always thought the M was for mobile Ie there premier CPU for Laptops

And DUO core is useless until they design app's than can use the power IMO. But I still want one

**Outlaw** · 07 Dec 06, 00:40

I myself have a Amd Athlon 3500+ 64 bit Am2 socket. Runs like a charm.

**~~SnowLeopard~~** · 12 Dec 06, 08:41

Since I build my own computers in desktop, it's AMD. They're cheaper. Of the two I've built (successfully, earlier projects weren't), hadn't had any problem with them that wasn't attributed to software ..... or at least, any problem that was really a disaster, didn't occur with an intel machine.
---------------------------------------------------
("Windows Air: The terminal is pretty and colorful, with friendly stewards, easy baggage check and boarding, and a smooth take-off. After about 10 minutes in the air, the plane explodes with no warning whatsoever.
Windows NT Air: Just like Windows Air, but costs more, uses much bigger planes, and takes out all the other aircraft within a 40-mile radius when it explodes."--from If Operating Systems were Airlines, (wtte))

**glyn** · 12 Dec 06, 09:44

Changing the subject (more than) slightly, has anyone seen the new Apple iMac 24" ? It appears to be fantastic and can run MS Windows like a charm, so presumably it should also handle Vista (?). The amazing thing is the beautiful screen and the fact that Apple Macs are becoming affordable. I strongly suspect that when the new Mac OS 'Panther' comes out early next year I shall get one. Do I need a 24" screen? No, but I want one!

**Esskay** · 14 Dec 06, 16:34

With coming of Vista AMD will be hard pressed. Still the workhorse for Developing countries - delivers more value for money. If I needed that kind of hardware, I'd have gone silicon graphics !! :(

**gunnut** · 14 Dec 06, 18:42

I hate Vista.

**Esskay** · 14 Dec 06, 18:51

Ditto
Everything I owned in silicin wafers was gobbled up by vista... without a burp!
Its going to be hell to pay up for hardware again !!

**glyn** · 15 Dec 06, 22:18

Originally Posted by gunnut

I hate Vista.

And why should this be? Pray tell!

**Esskay** · 16 Dec 06, 09:15

It appears that the minimum system requirement for the OS has taken a jump. The link is enclosed below.

Minimum Supported Hardware Requirements for Running Windows Vista.
Microsoft anticipates that many IT professionals will choose to install Windows Vista on existing hardware. To aid that process, IT pros need to understand the minimum supported hardware configuration on which Windows Vista can be installed and can run the core Windows Vista experiences. The table below illustrates these requirements.

IT professionals can run the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor on individual machines to learn which version of Windows Vista can successfully be installed on the computer. Upgrade Advisor will also report if the hardware is not sufficient to run any version of Windows Vista.

Minimum Supported Requirements
Processor
800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor2

System Memory
512 MB

GPU
SVGA (800x600)

Graphics Memory

HDD
20 GB

HDD Free Space
15 GB

Optical Drive
CD-ROM Drive5

-------------------------------------
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/w.../aa905090.aspx

View Poll Results: AMD vs. Intel?

Thread: AMD vs. Intel

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Just curious

just a stupid thoght.............

Vista Ahoy

Me too

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Celerons & Pentiums & AMDs, Oh My!!

Intel to Build Vietnam Chip Assembly Plant

Intel has set up $200 million China venture capital fund

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions