To AMD or not to AMD?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephan Rose
  • Start date Start date
NoNoBadDog! said:
despite the hype and hyperbole from the Intel fanboys, AMD is *still* the
best chip on the market. I would suggest you look at the Athlon64 X2.

Even with the advent of the Core 2 Duo, Intel still hasn't got a clue that
they need to get away from having the memory controller not on the die
itself. The Core 2 Duo claims the fastest clock speed, but in real world
it will be slower because it uses the L2 cache buss to handle CPU to CPU
communications. Due to this architecture, the L2 cache, although large, is
"shared". This means that the two cores cannot operate independently like
the Athlon64 X2 can. It also dramatically increases the latency of data
transfer in the L2 cache. It is not a very elegant or efficient means of
allowing the two cores to see each other, but it is cheap for Intel to
build it that way.

FWIW, the Intel fanboy crowd can flame me all you want. Intel has a
long...long way to go before it catches up to AMD.

Bobby
Click to expand...

You know what, I love AMD, been using AMD parts exclusivly for 8 years
now... But Core 2 Duo is better than current gen Athlons, end of story.
 
VanShania said:
Yes, Intels flagship Core Duo kicks Amds ass, but your paying $1000 for
it. All the other processors beneath Intels flagship Core Duo do out
perform their Amd counter parts, but not as much. I would say that what
ever you get, make sure its Dual Core. I just hope there isn't any
stability problems. There are a couple of patches that apparently have to
be applied with AMD to smooth the dual cores out.
Click to expand...
<snip>

Perhaps you refer to AMD's timing optimisations to help games respond better
to dual core setups? this has nothing to do with stability, everything to do
with optimising performance for dual core.

Carlo
 
Carlo Razzeto said:
<snip>

Perhaps you refer to AMD's timing optimisations to help games respond
better to dual core setups? this has nothing to do with stability,
everything to do with optimising performance for dual core.

Carlo
Click to expand...

Carlo;

You are correct, but it is important to note again that Intel Core Duo
and Core 2 Duo processors are merely two single core fused together. They
cannot be optimized for dual core operations because they are not true dual
core. They are not "aware" of each other, cannot communicate directly with
each other on die, and are not registered in the same manner as if they were
built as a discreet dual core unit. It is Intel's way of cost cutting,
while charging more for less.

Bobby
 
You know what, I love AMD, been using AMD parts exclusivly for 8 years
now... But Core 2 Duo is better than current gen Athlons, end of story.
Click to expand...

10+ years on AMD here, with the exception of a couple Intel systems.

All I can say is it's about time Intel has something I'd even consider
buying. One problem with Core 2 is I can't find any "feature packed"
boards for cheap, like I just built a friend an AMD X2 with a $65 SLI
board, anyone see a C2D board with all the bells and whistles for only
$65-$70 (US) reply ASAP please!!!

Ed
 
NoNoBadDog! said:
By reviewing the posts, AMD was recommended over Intel.
Click to expand...

EXCEPT for raw performance without regard for price. If that's what he's
looking for in a currently shipping system, the Core 2 Extreme is the only
choice.
 
NoNoBadDog! said:
You are correct, but it is important to note again that Intel Core Duo
and Core 2 Duo processors are merely two single core fused together. They
cannot be optimized for dual core operations because they are not true
dual core. They are not "aware" of each other, cannot communicate
directly with each other on die, and are not registered in the same manner
as if they were built as a discreet dual core unit. It is Intel's way of
cost cutting, while charging more for less.
Click to expand...

All that may be technically true. However, it does not change the fact that
for bottom-line, real-world performance in either single- or multi-threadded
apps, the Core 2 Extreme now has a significant performance lead over the
FX-62. For people who want that performance NOW and don't worry about cost,
there is only one choice.

Below that "top of the line" level, AMD still has the price:performance edge
IMO.
 
kevinbeall said:
So, Bobby, which AMD CPU would you choose from a money to value ratio at
this point? I'm also looking to upgrade, but I'm not sure if I should
wait
a few months and see what is coming out or just go ahead and buy now. I
guess the argument could be made that a month might bring cheaper prices.
Money is not a problem, but I'm not in the habit of throwing it away,
either. BTW, I'm a gamer and I also use my computer to edit some home
video
and keep up with my wife's music... nothing too taxing, but I DO like new
technology ;)
Click to expand...

Interestingly (looking through Newegg's current offerings), the "value" for
the CPU alone appears to be in the Socket 939 area, with a 4800+ (2.4 GHz, 2
x 1MB L2) at $291. With the AM2 socket, even though you get the "newer
technology," you can't get the 1 MB L2 unless you go to an Opteron ($705 for
2.4 GHz) or the FX-62 at $821. Closest to the S939 4800+ is the AM2 4600+
(2.4 GHz, 2 x 512 KB L2) at $253.

An SLI capable AM2 MoBo will go $95-237, and the range for S939 is $65-150.

So, it appears that you can find value and performance either way. The
"technology" side obviously favors the AM2...
 
Ed said:
10+ years on AMD here, with the exception of a couple Intel systems.

All I can say is it's about time Intel has something I'd even consider
buying. One problem with Core 2 is I can't find any "feature packed"
boards for cheap, like I just built a friend an AMD X2 with a $65 SLI
board, anyone see a C2D board with all the bells and whistles for only
$65-$70 (US) reply ASAP please!!!

Ed
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the main draw back to C2D, and the reason why on the
comp.sys.intel thread the conclusion was that AMD has the better platform.
Right now, it's extreamly difficult to find a good motherboard packed with
lots of high end goodies, and enough legacy to keep costs down (i.e. more
than one PATA channel). I'm sure this will all be worked out over time, but
for the time being it's easier to peice together an AMD system than Intel.

Carlo
 
Your missing the point. No sense having all that power if you can't stick on
an X-fi, some tuners, perhaps some sata raid cards.... get the drift? An
intel mobo that has no pata, only 2 pci, and a few sata ports doesn't make
for a usable computer. As for pci-e(x1) its not worth using as its too
slow(until pci-e x4 appears, if ever) and theres not much out there for
hardware, if any at all.

--
Love and Teach, Not Yell and Beat
Stop Violence and Child Abuse

A64 3500+, Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 motherboard
All-in-Wonder 9800Pro 128mb AGP, MSI Theater 550 Pro
X-Fi Extreme Music,Antec 550 watt,Thermaltake Lanfire
2 Gb Dual Channel PC3200 OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5 CL2.5
2XSATA WD 320gb Raid Edition, PATA WD 120Gb HD
Pioneer 110D, 111D, Liteon 1693 Dual Layer burners
XP Media Centre Edition 2005
Sidewinder Precision Pro 2 Joystick
Logitech optical mouse
19 in Viewsonic A91f+
BenchMark 2001 SE- 19074
Games I'm Playing- Falcon 4, SP:WAW
 
As for pci-e(x1) its not worth using as its too slow(until pci-e x4
appears, if ever) and theres not much out there for hardware, if any at
all.
Click to expand...

So if PCIe x1 is too slow to use at ~266Mbps, what does that say for
regular PCI that only has a bandwidth of ~133Mbps shared between all PCI
slots/devices?
 
PCI andf PATA are on their way out,PCI-E is faster.And more boards are
becoming available,it's still a new platform.
 
Your missing the point. No sense having all that power if you can't stick on
an X-fi, some tuners, perhaps some sata raid cards.... get the drift? An
intel mobo that has no pata, only 2 pci, and a few sata ports doesn't make
for a usable computer. As for pci-e(x1) its not worth using as its too
slow(until pci-e x4 appears, if ever) and theres not much out there for
hardware, if any at all.
Click to expand...

The Intel D975XBX motherboard has 2 PCI-Express x8 slots, 1 PCI-E x4, 8 USB, 8
SATA and 1 PATA. But it has only 2 standard PCI slots.
 
C. Sowash said:
The Intel D975XBX motherboard has 2 PCI-Express x8 slots, 1 PCI-E x4, 8
USB, 8
SATA and 1 PATA. But it has only 2 standard PCI slots.
Click to expand...


In comparison to an AMD AM2 motherboard, which will seamlessly upgrade to
faster processors, and even quad core when they are available, the Intel
will only support an extremely limited number of Intel chips, and will not
support any future multi-cores.

Think I'll stay with a company that doesn't force me to buy a new
motherboard every time I want to upgrade my processor (Hint: it isn't
Intel!).

Bobby
 
Logan said:
So all the publications and websites that have put the Core 2 through
extensive testing and declared them the winner are wrong,and you're
right?Sounds like you have your own "fanboy" problem to deal with.I'll never
understand this blind devotion to any manufacturer in complete ignorance of
the facts.Does AMD make good processors?Certainly,and they deserve credit
for pushing Intel into improving.But for now,Intel has recaptured the lead
in performance and price.
Click to expand...

For a company 4-5 times the size, it sure didn't take them long. :) If
it weren't for competition from AMD, we'd all be running Intel 733Mhz
PIIIs (instead of Intel having dumped the obsolete s--- into video game
boxes) and Apple would comprise 50% of the market. Intel should enjoy
some time in Sun, but they'll have to work very hard to recapture the
server market they've lost. They are still a rotten company. The only
good thing of late is that Dell is suffering horribly, as they should,
being Intel's whore.
 
Apparently the latency is so slow that regular pci is faster for now, which
is why waiting for x4 speeds is whats killing the x1 market. Just something
I read

--
Love and Teach, Not Yell and Beat
Stop Violence and Child Abuse

A64 3500+, Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 motherboard
All-in-Wonder 9800Pro 128mb AGP, MSI Theater 550 Pro
X-Fi Extreme Music,Antec 550 watt,Thermaltake Lanfire
2 Gb Dual Channel PC3200 OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5 CL2.5
2XSATA WD 320gb Raid Edition, PATA WD 120Gb HD
Pioneer 110D, 111D, Liteon 1693 Dual Layer burners
XP Media Centre Edition 2005
Sidewinder Precision Pro 2 Joystick
Logitech optical mouse
19 in Viewsonic A91f+
BenchMark 2001 SE- 19074
Games I'm Playing- Falcon 4, SP:WAW
 
Frodo said:
AMD rates their CPUs by performance rating not true clock speed.
The AMD X2 4400+ true clock speed is 2.2GHz, but AMD rates the CPU as having
the performance of an Intel dual core running at 4400MHz
Click to expand...

Care to provide a reliable source for that statement?
 
Care to provide a reliable source for that statement?
Click to expand...

Well, he screwed that up a little. It's compared to a single P4 running at
4400MHz, not a dual core running at 4400Mhz. And you can download their
performance rating technics from the AMD web site. or at least you used to
be able to. Look for Benchmarking and Model Numbering Methodology.
 
NoNoBadDog! said:
The AMD Website. How long have you been off the planet?
Click to expand...

An AMD X2 4400+ is equivalent to an Intel ***DUAL CORE*** running at
4400MHz?

Please provide a link that states that!!!
 
Back
Top