intel vs amd

What?

Quote:

Original post by stylin What?

which company do you like better and what is better for games?

Pentium M is the mobile processor, aka Dothan, the older Banias or the new not-yet-avaliable Yonah. Pentium D is dual-core, and it is getting owned by Athlon X2 just like Pentium 4 is getting owned by the Athlon64 whenever it comes to games.
Did you say your father works in Intel? Why didn't you ask him?

Quote:

Original post by vNistelrooy Pentium M is the mobile processor, aka Dothan, the older Banias or the new not-yet-avaliable Yonah. Pentium D is dual-core, and it is getting owned by Athlon X2 just like Pentium 4 is getting owned by the Athlon64 whenever it comes to games. Did you say your father works in Intel? Why didn't you ask him?

i knew that. i meant d not m
also my dad will think intel is better because he works there

Right now, the AMD chips are better in every way except for mobile, where P-M is still a rather better chip. (And the Pentium D really just flat out sucks.)

The next gen Intels look far more promising though -- I have yet to see much of a meaningful roadmap out of AMD at this point.

Quote:

Original post by Promit Right now, the AMD chips are better in every way except for mobile, where P-M is still a rather better chip. (And the Pentium D really just flat out sucks.) The next gen Intels look far more promising though -- I have yet to see much of a meaningful roadmap out of AMD at this point.

why do you think that the pent. d is bad.

Quote:

Original post by 31337noob Quote: Original post by Promit Right now, the AMD chips are better in every way except for mobile, where P-M is still a rather better chip. (And the Pentium D really just flat out sucks.) The next gen Intels look far more promising though -- I have yet to see much of a meaningful roadmap out of AMD at this point. why do you think that the pent. d is bad.

Bad performance, coupled with high power consumption as well as some insane thermal figures.

Quote:

Original post by 31337noob Quote: Original post by Promit Right now, the AMD chips are better in every way except for mobile, where P-M is still a rather better chip. (And the Pentium D really just flat out sucks.) The next gen Intels look far more promising though -- I have yet to see much of a meaningful roadmap out of AMD at this point. why do you think that the pent. d is bad.

Don't worry about what I think; read it for yourself.
[EDIT] Aww, tom's blocked the images.

[Edited by - Promit on October 28, 2005 8:55:42 PM]

I really like my AMD64 3000+. It's a relatively cool chip (I had nightmare visions of super-hot thermal figures based on previous Athlons), has all kinds of fun stuff to play with (incl. SSE3) and generally gets things done for me.

I would probably have the same experience with an Intel Pentium, so I don't really care for this entire debate. The AMD64 was cheaper, though.

Quote:

Original post by Promit Quote: Original post by 31337noob Quote: Original post by Promit Right now, the AMD chips are better in every way except for mobile, where P-M is still a rather better chip. (And the Pentium D really just flat out sucks.) The next gen Intels look far more promising though -- I have yet to see much of a meaningful roadmap out of AMD at this point. why do you think that the pent. d is bad. Don't worry about what I think; ***imgs****

This isn't a valid comparison. The AMD 4800+ is much more expensive than the Intel 840, however the 3800+ and the 830 are priced about the same:

Quote:

i think intel is better because my dad works there.

What does that have to do with which company is "better" (And what do you mean by better? Intel is a huge company, far bigger than AMD. At the moment though, their processors aren't all that amazing though (with the possible exception of the Pentium M)

Quote:

which is better for games?

AMD, AMD and AMD. Maybe you can convince me to put Intel in around the 6th place or so...

Quote:

well the new pentium d which is dual cores is going to be good for games.

Not compared to an AMD dual core. :)
First, a single Athlon 64 core is far better at games than Intel.
So two of them are logically also better than two Pentium 4 ones.
Second, Intel's dualcore design is downright horrible.
First, they're adding two super-hot cores, when it's almost impossible to keep a single one cool, and second, they have to rely on the (off-chip) FSB for communication between the two dies (which is sloooooow), and they also have to share the same FSB for memory access (the FSB is already a bottleneck on singlecore Pentium 4's)

And third, almost all games run singlethreaded, so a dualcore CPU doesn't really make much difference yet.

But yeah, as others have said, the only good chip Intel has at the moment is the Pentium M (at least when it comes to power consumption and thermal figures).
It's a nice performer too, but doesn't have as much headroom as the Athlon 64.

Quote:

also my dad will think intel is better because he works there

Well, so do you: [wink]

Quote:

i think intel is better because my dad works there.

Quote:

(I had nightmare visions of super-hot thermal figures based on previous Athlons)

Ah yeah, I remember those days. Now a Pentium 4 literally generates twice as much heat as an Athlon 64... How times change...

I went for the Athlon AMD64 4400+ x2. It retails for around $550 now ($650 when I bought it :( ). Unless they have come out with a new one recently, it was the lowest end dual core they had with the 1 meg caches. With the default heatsink, it runs pretty cool, often cooler than the system temp. Performance wise, it flies.

AMD has treated me well, and they have better bang for the buck usually. And I dont have much buck, but I like lots of bang.

Quote:

Original post by 31337noob i think intel is better because my dad works there.

What a great argument!

Intel's P4's architecture is terrible. The pipeline is so incredibly long it's ridiculous. So what does Intel do? They apply a "hotfix" called "hyperthreading" that basically allows data to stall down a second thread once data is already busy stalling on the first thread. That, in my mind, is poor design and reflects the true flaws in Intel philosophy.

That, and I always root for the underdogs, and despite AMD's superior products, it has a much smaller marketshare.

Quote:

Original post by 31337noob i think intel is better because my dad works there.

This is possibly my favourite kind of dumb thinking.

Alright, I'll now throw in my usual for this sort of argument:

I've used Intel all my x86 computing days (although I've had a computer since about 1989/90 - BBCB MicroComputer), I have never owned an AMD (apart from my brother's 3 year old laptop, but I've hardly touched that either).

I have happily gamed on a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz (with Hyperthreading) with no problems, and also on this here Pentium M 2.0Ghz. I personally see no difference in in-game performance with an AMD64. However, I did notice drastically reduced load times on a dual core AMD 4400+ that my friend's got.

I'm happy with Intel myself, but the only reason I'm beginning to think about swinging AMD's way is simply because Intel are getting a slating on various forums. I don't know too much about hardware, so I can't always understand what you're saying. But people do seem to think AMD is better, so I would most probably try it out if I were to custom-build a rig in the (near) future.

But the general consensus seems to be this:

Laptop users - get Intel
Desktop users - get AMD.

Yeah, I agree Intel is going downhill, but only on the basis of what AMD fanboys tell me.

I'll give AMD a go, if just for a change.

HTH,

ukdeveloper.

Quote:

Original post by CrimsonSun Intel's P4's architecture is terrible. The pipeline is so incredibly long it's ridiculous. So what does Intel do? They apply a "hotfix" called "hyperthreading" that basically allows data to stall down a second thread once data is already busy stalling on the first thread. That, in my mind, is poor design and reflects the true flaws in Intel philosophy.

This is not true. The NetBurst architecture was quite successful not so long ago, when the Northwood "C" Pentium 4 trashed the AthlonXP. The architecture isn't great and the Prescott didn't bring the clock frequency increase Intel hoped for (neither the speed increase, which, like you said, the long pipeline is mainly responsible for). However, notice that even the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition with an increased FSB speed isn't much faster then the Pentium 4 (and most of the speed gain is thanks to the 2MB L3 cache), it isn't like how it was with the old Pentium 4 with a 533("Mhz") FSB which was striving for data. The HT technology is a nice technology but the Pentium 4 just doesn't have enough execution units to handle two threads simultaneously. Ironically, the Athlons would have benefitted more from an HT-like technology.

Thinking one bit of technology is better than another because you happen to have a relative who works on it isn't exactly the best criteria...

When I was following this stuff AMD consistently had better performance for the same price point. The downside was that there was that they had less quality control over third-party hardware so you had to be more careful what (e.g.) motherboard you got.

I have no idea how things stand today.