Rita, here are some points for you to think about (from an article in
Epinion.com):
Intel versus AMD, who are you betting on?
The Bottom Line With good points from all sides, the decision depends on the
application.
When working on a computer, all of what you are doing is processed by the
CPU (central processing unit), the brain of the computer if you will. Like
brains, computers aren't all of equal power. Some are the equivalent to a
rat brain, and some to Einstein. The trick is to find that sweat spot
between value and performance, that's when you've found the perfect
processor for you! But, before you decide how much power you want to jam in
that little chip, you're going to want to decide on the type. This my
friend, is where we enter a feud that has lasted longer than life itself
(well, at least for people that are younger than it!), the Intel versus AMD
feud.
From the early 80's when the company Intel was founded, (by the way, Intel
isn't derived from the word intelligence, it's a mix between the words
integrated electronics) Intel has taken off and dominated the home computer
market. It also took over the laptop processor market, and just recently
with the introduction of there first 64 bit processor, very might well take
over the server and workstation market (previously occupied by Sun's
UltraSparc and Compaq's Alpha). But, all along the road to fame Intel has
run into some competition. In the beginning, from IBM (the creator of the
desktop), then Cyrix (which is almost totally wiped out), and most recently
AMD. You might think that AMD will have the same fate as the rest, but the
fact is that AMD is putting up a huge fight and is actually taking away
Intel's market share in almost all markets.
Now that I've given Intel's background, AMD deserves some of the spotlight.
AMD (Advanced Micro Devices) doesn't have such a long and prestigious
history, but has done some pretty amazing things. No one knew about AMD
before they introduced there first hit product, the AMD K6-2. It was
designed to compete against the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and earlier Pentium
III's. They then introduced the AMD K6-III, which wasn't as popular and didn
't stick around long due to the introduction of the AMD Athlon and Duron
processors. The Duron was designed to compete against the Celeron, it was
designed as a consumer budget model. The Athlon was more advanced and was
designed to compete against the Pentium III. They then redid the Athlon and
came out with a Socket model (uses a small chip with pins on the bottom
compared to the slot which was about the size of a graphing calculator and
went in thin side down). This was designed to compete against the later
Pentium III models and the Pentium 4.
Now that you know some background information on the two companies, it's
time to start the debate between the Intel processors and the AMD
processors. The first fight is between the two consumer budget chips from
both models, the Celeron from Intel and the Duron from AMD. The next fight
is the desktop round between the Pentium III and Pentium 4 from Intel and
the Athlon from AMD. The next is the high-end workstation and server
markets, in which the Itanium from Intel and the SMP version of the Athlon
from AMD. The last battle is for the notebook market. This includes the
Pentium III with SpeedStep technology from Intel and the Athlon 4 from AMD.
Round One, Consumer Budget Processors
This fight is between the two entry level processors, Intel's Celeron and
AMD's Duron. Both of the processors don't perform as well as there desktop
counterparts, especially the Celeron. The Celeron is about 200 megahertz
slower than the Duron or AMD equivalent, although the technical clock speed
may be the same. In this one, the Duron WINS HANDS DOWN. It's cheaper,
faster, and fits in the Athlon socket, so if you built a system designed for
a Duron you could easily upgrade to an Athlon, no converters or change of
motherboard required!
Round Two, Desktop Processors
This is really where Intel and AMD fight because here energy is not an issue
and the speeds aren't limited by cooling or space. The Intel Pentium III
processor goes from 400 megahertz to 1 gigahertz. It performs similar to the
Pentium 4, but is cheaper (although not as cheap as the high end Athlon's).
The Athlon is meant to compete on all fronts. It goes from 550 megahertz to
1.67 gigahertz (and climbing). It usually performs at about the same speed
as an Intel processor 400 megahertz ahead (for example, a 1.4 GH-z Athlon
will beet out a 1.8 GH-z Pentium 4). They are also really cheap, with the
1.4 GH-z processor going for $100. The last processor is the Pentium 4. This
is aimed at the higher level consumer, but when sold with a desktop isn't
much more expensive. Overall, I'd say GO FOR THE ATHLON BECAUSE IT"S
CHEAPER, FASTER, AND DOESN'T USE RAMBUS RAM (the P4 only uses Rambus RAM,
the Athlon can use SDRAM or DDR RAM) unless you're a gamer, then I'd say go
for an Intel Pentium 4 based system at 1.5 GH-z.
Round Three, High-end Workstations and Servers
For a market where neither Intel nor AMD has ever been too successful, there
is an awful lot of competition. AMD competes with it's SMP based systems
(Symmetrical Multi-Processor, more than one processor) and Intel competes
with its 64 bit Itanium processor. The first half of the fight is centered
around high-end workstations. These are usually involved with CAD and CAM
programs which just suck up megahertz like there's no tomorrow. ON THIS
FRONT, THE SMP ATHLON SYSTEMS WIN OUT. They are much cheaper than the
Itanium chips and don't need a 64 bit operating system to perform to their
full potential. The server market is different. It doesn't really have much
activity directly onto it, but must serve up a lot of information to a large
number of clients. THIS FIGHT IS WON BY THE INTEL ITANIUM. People are
willing to pay more for speed when dealing with web servers, and the
operating system really isn't that important because only the clients are
going to interact with it and they won't need to navigate around the OS and
there aren't any compatibility issues like there are with programs like
AutoCAD.
Round Four, Mobile Processors
In one corner, weighing in at up to 1.1 Gigahertz, the Intel Pentium III
with SpeedStep. In the other corner, the latest mobile processor from AMD,
weighing in at up to 1 Gigahertz, the AMD Athlon 4! Alright, first things
first, what sets these chips apart from there desktop counterparts. The
SpeedStep technology that Intel talks about in the naming scheme is why it's
a mobile processor. SpeedStep enabled chips are designed to save power by
running at one speed when plugged in and another when relying on battery
power. For example, in my Dell Inspiron 8000 with an Intel Pentium III 900
MH-z SpeedStep enabled processor runs at 900 megahertz when plugged in and
750 when relying on batter power. This can be disabled though, at the BIOS
screen. The Athlon 4 (note that the 4 is just meant to compete with the
Pentium 4, it's basically the same as the normal Athlon) is just basically
an energy saver. At the end of the match, I'D HAVE TO SAY THAT THE AMD
ATHLON 4 PROCESSOR WOULD WIN because it doesn't slow down the processor and
is much cheaper (as are most AMD products).
End of first article
Also, a more recent article on the subject, dated September 23, 2003 by
DocMemory, discusses the new 64-bit CPU technology:
Advanced Micro Devices Inc. Tuesday will officially launch its Athlon 64
processor, a PC version of its 64-bit server processing technology which
promises high performance graphics and high end processing at the desktop
and notebook level, backwards compatible with 32 bit applications and
operating systems.
The launch sends a warning shot across the bow of the mighty Intel
supertanker.
The new entry by AMD beats rival Intel to the punch. Semiconductor giant
Intel's CTO Patrick Gelsinger last week at the Intel Developers Forum told
reporters that 64-bit processing would not be needed at the PC level for
several more years. According to Intel officials, PC operating systems and
applications aren't yet ready for the technology.
"This launch will do a lot to boost AMD versus Intel," said Kevin Krewell,
senior analyst at In-Stat/MDR. "It differentiates AMD products, and it will
be a high performing product, which could improve AMD's position in the
market."
Microsoft has made a 64-bit Windows beta available earlier this year and is
expected to announce general availability of the OS at the AMD launch
Tuesday or soon after. In addition, several Linux operating systems are
available to exploit 64-bit hardware. On the applications side, AMD
demonstrated Epic Games Unreal Tournament 2003 for 64 bits at Comdex, and
that product is currently available.
PC gamers and enthusiasts, or "prosumers," will be a big market for AMD
Althon 64, said John Crank, product manager for the 64-bit desktop side at
AMD. AMD expects platforms that incorporate the chip to be initially
embraced by the PC gaming community and then by consumers who are looking
for high end desktop processing to support their digital video and still
image editing applications.
In a pre-emptive strike , last week at the Intel Developers Forum Intel
announced its own first entry aimed directly at gamers -- Pentium 4
Processor with HT Technology Extreme Edition 3.2GHz, which offers an
additional 2Mbytes of cache.
"Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, a server processor in desktop clothes, is
Intel's short term response to Althon64," said Krewell. "The real Intel
response is Prescott, the 90nm processor expected to ship for revenue this
quarter, but which may not launch until Q1 2004."
In addition to the 64-bit capabilities, Althon 64 will also incorporate the
memory controller portion of the north bridge onto the same die as the CPU.
AMD has said this shift in architecture will further improve the performance
of its processor by reducing latency. But that innovation by itself will not
sell processors as much as the fact that it is a design that is different
than that offered by Intel.
"Integrating the memory controller represents a different approach to system
design," said Shane Rau, senior analyst at IDC. "In this day and age,
differentiating is probably a good thing because you can do something better
than your competitor. Integrating the memory controller could be a good way
to improve overall main memory performance."
Processor start-up Transmeta incorporates the entire north bridge function
on the processor, and will be launching its next generation CPU, Efficeon,
in mid-October.
"The alternative architecture offered by AMD and Transmeta gives system
vendors and consumers choice and that is good," said Krewell. " It is
important for Intel competitors to offer differentiated products."
AMD launched its 64-bit server chip, Opteron, in April. Intel's 64-bit
server chip, Itanium, first hit the market two years ago.
End of second article
Anyway, Rita, I can hardly agree with your conclusion that AMD CPUs are
unreliable. I will concede that for servers, the Itanium is probably the
best bet - barring any differing conclusions from the CPUs coming out of
newer technology. However, for all other uses, AMD is the best choice from a
performance, reliability, and cost point of view.
Regards.
