Intel VS AMD

[Deleted member 24505]

intel has 80% of the market so i doubt it.

 

[_33]

The better part for AMD will be when AM2+ and AM3 get released, and when everything will be moved to 65nm. I don't know why AMD is waiting so long before releasing a 4 issue processor like they said they would long ago (K8L). It's taking ages in microprocessor development time for AMD to get back in the game and it doesn't look as if 2007 will be good for them. When AMD will get back in the game in 2007, INTEL will already have 45nm in full production...

 

[DRDNA]

Catch up , aww man , my poor AMD team will have their hands full just getting the 4x4 to perform as well as the CD2...Err I hate to admit it but after this magic CD2 chip me thinks AMD will have a very hard time in any type of recovery(hmm maybe thats why they grabbed the GPU arena).... Dont get me wrong though , I would love another king pin processor by AMD but probably wont be for a good long while. Now watch , ...now that I say this AMD 's 4x4 will be the new magic chip lol

 

[DRDNA]

One other thing Intel can handle being just a little behind as they have the corporate market which as stated before means they own 80% of the market.... But AMD on the other hand depended on the enthusiast for its profits as the remaining 20 percent of that market being left over after Intel stomps threw.So of the 20% remaining it is said that the enthusiast is only small percentage , which would fall into that 20% group until the CD2 came along so what I am getting to is this does hurt AMD alot ...

 

[Athlon2K15]

C2d Sucks

ok i have found some comparitive benchmarks,showing that amd is still right with the infamous C2D they even overclocked the e6400to 2.7ghz,lol in my opinion INTEL SUCKS!!

 

[Namslas90]

Take that C2d fans. As I said before AMD always beats Intel and always will.

 

[DOM]

2.7GHz:shadedshu thats not even close to how much it can OC to. and that just shows a little OC can beat FX-62 at 2.8GHz so that just shows notting what the C2D's can do

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

2.7GHz:shadedshu thats not even close to how much it can OC to. and that just shows a little OC can beat FX-62 at 2.8GHz so that just shows notting what the C2D's can do

Yeah, that fx-62 doesn't overclock either And actually, A64;s tend to scale better with an overclock... when latency is a factor in bottlenecking it, especially.

I mean, gawd, my 3700+ only does 3ghz stock voltage afterall.

 

[Athlon2K15]

if will use your eyes you will notice that NONE of the amd are even overclocked,i dont give a damn if the c2d can overclock im talking stock speeds AMD wins hands down

 

[Deleted member 24505]

forget it dom,some people just have amd tinted specs and just wont admit intel is better at this time.

wait till intels 45nm chips come out just after amd's 65nm and intel will be ahead still and a whole die shrink in front.then amd fans will have amd's nice 125watt quad cooker to make 'em happy while we have 45nm chips clocked at 3.7ghz+ with dinky little coolers on.

if people wont admit one oviously better chip is better whats the point trying to convince them.you keep your inferia chip and watch as intel keeps getting better.

intel

amd

 

[infrared]

To athlonX2: nope, a stock e6400 is slightly faster than an fx-62, or an x2 at same clocks.

 

[Namslas90]

Winnie the Pooh Bear says AMD's are as fast as Rabbit and Intels are like Egor. lol

 

[Deleted member 24505]

come on then put yer money were ya mouth is,an get that 3800+ above ANY c2d in science mark then.if its a rabbit to intels egor it should be no problem.

 

[DOM]

but who well win if they where both OC to the Max? we all know. sorry didnt know the FX-62 was 2.8 stock but it wont get much oc over the 6800 but right now C2D's are better untill AMD comes out with something better.

it just matters who comes out on top not which brand it is

 

[DRDNA]

but who well win if they where both OC to the Max? we all know. sorry didnt know the FX-62 was 2.8 stock but it wont get much oc over the 6800 but right now C2D's are better untill AMD comes out with something better.

it just matters who comes out on top not which brand it is

Like he said>>> it just matters who comes out on top not which brand it is

 

[Chewy]

if will use your eyes you will notice that NONE of the amd are even overclocked,i dont give a damn if the c2d can overclock im talking stock speeds AMD wins hands down

Well since everyone overclocks, we should be comparing overclocks lol and I dont just use my computer for gaming so c2d works great for me. I convert movies to ipod..,. and that take alot to rip one fast.

I'm not a diehard intel fan or nothing either... if it wasent for c2d I would be using an amd cpu atm.... I will go with the best chip/price ratio.

and from those picture dippys posted it looks like amd could have a better gaming chip with the 64's at stock since I dont think games will need all this cpu power..... and will proform better with faster "otherthings" lol.

Edit: but also I dont have any problems runnings any new games with my e6300... for 180 usd.

 

[DRDNA]

Well since everyone overclocks, we should be comparing overclocks lol and I dont just use my computer for gaming so c2d works great for me. I convert movies to ipod..,. and that take alot to rip one fast.

I'm not a diehard intel fan or nothing either... if it wasent for c2d I would be using an amd cpu atm.... I will go with the best chip/price ratio.

Man o man you ended it perfectly "will go with the best chip/price ratio"

Hey Chewy do I work with you? There is another Technician at work who goes buy the nickname Chewy....I work at Kodak ???

 

[beachbum86]

ok i have found some comparitive benchmarks,showing that amd is still right with the infamous C2D they even overclocked the e6400to 2.7ghz,lol in my opinion INTEL SUCKS!!

LOL ok dude let me explain this to you-

That FX-62 ($700 -2.8ghz) is right on par with a Stock E6400($215- 2.13ghz) at some things...The E6400 AVERAGE out of the Box OC with the stock cooling is 3.4ghz...So if you look at that, For an FX-62 to be on par with an Out of the Box OC'ed E6400 you would need to get the FX-62 to 4.1ghz. and thats just to be even.. and that FX is on extreme cooling already. This is not taking into account that Intel C2D's have higher of a % perfomance boost than the AM2's when OC'ed.....

The memory badnwidth is in AMD's favor, but obviously you can see by PCmark/3Dmark scores that the C2D uses what little badwidth it gets ALOT more efficiantly. So once Intels controller goes onboard like AMD's is..what do you think will happen?

With ANY of todays Hardware..You will not see any AMD take the ORB over Intel.

 

[AsphyxiA]

i think that AMD has a patent on the onboard memory controller, i could be wrong but i dont think Intel have any plans of using it. I went to a seminar at quakecon and one thing they did was talk about how infferior AMDs controller was.

 

[Demon_82]

i think that AMD has a patent on the onboard memory controller, i could be wrong but i dont think Intel have any plans of using it. I went to a seminar at quakecon and one thing they did was talk about how infferior AMDs controller was.

Both AMD and Intel holds about a 90% of the patens of the CPU world, but both companies have signed a long list of 'understanding agreements' wich usually licenses technologies form one to another, os it's not a closed door. Anyways I've read that IBM and even Intel did tests of the onboard memory controllers years ago, it's jsut that back then it didn't help enough the architectures they had. And as far as I've heard, Intel is planning the use of onboard memory controller for 2008 if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Damn, I only just spotted this thread, cant beleive someone started this subject again so soon after the last one!

I own AMD, I love AMD but I love C2D even more cause it WILL run faster, it is better bang for buck, I have not forgot AMD ruled the roost for almost 3 years....but lets just acknowledge that today....intel does, manufacturers can bench at stock, I overclock so it's overclock results I am interested in....Now I am going to shut up, disappear for a week and hope this thread is dead by the time I come back!

Sorry, had a bit of a "turn" there

 

[AsphyxiA]

Both AMD and Intel holds about a 90% of the patens of the CPU world, but both companies have signed a long list of 'understanding agreements' wich usually licenses technologies form one to another, os it's not a closed door. Anyways I've read that IBM and even Intel did tests of the onboard memory controllers years ago, it's jsut that back then it didn't help enough the architectures they had. And as far as I've heard, Intel is planning the use of onboard memory controller for 2008 if I'm not mistaken.

hmm interesting i even asked the intel guy about this at quakecon and he tried to feed me bologna about how the FSB on Intel is just sooooooooooo much better than any "bolt-on" memory controller. But if intel does go to an onboard memroy controller, than AMD is really gonna have some issues. But then again like you said, they can share ideas. Maybe AMD can still take the lead. We'll just have to wait and see

 

[Alec§taar]

quad core will be pretty useless for most games anyway

Directly now, due to CURRENT game code designs (using coarse threading, which means sending network code to 1 cpu, game loop to another CPU, sound to yet another potentially available CPU core, etc.)?

I agree, MOSTLY, about it benefitting the game code ITSELF, directly!

However, how about INDIRECTLY (you'll see my point on this)?

I.E. -> What about the ability to send OS services, trayicon apps, &/or other backgrounded tasks (such as other apps running) to CPU cores the game's threads may not be running on, OR saturating yet totally?

I can see gamecode starving 2 CPU cores for available cycles to process interrupts on!

Especially IF the user runs many background apps/services/trayicon based apps alongside games (not trimming them as many folks do & I've actually been doing since NT 3.51, for efficiency)!

That would leave the CPU cores that game's threads are using "more open" since they do not HAVE to be the ones running the other tasks you are also running alongside running your game (and, you ALWAYS are)...

This happening means that moving other processes running OR the game itself (even if multithreaded) onto a CPU core(s) that isn't burdened by running as many other threads, or none yet, could literally feasibly/possibly have ALL to itself!

Here? Well, the more cores present? The merrier!

This would benefit games even, albeit indirectly, by running other apps on 2-N cores potentially available, leaving more CPU cycles for games (single OR multithreaded) threads, w/ less contention for interrupts on the CPU core the games are running on!

APK

P.S.=> Think about what I am trying to say in this example, & offer your thoughts on it if you wish... Yes, games are largely MOSTLY GPU bound, but there still IS the CPU processing element, & now that multithreaded gaming has come along & most of your apps you run, odds are, ARE multithreaded? This can help! apk

 

[pt]

for cheap performance AMD RULES, the 3xxx series do a great job, and it's super cheap
altought, if it was FREE, i wouldn't mid having a c2d setup

 

[Tatty_Two]

Directly now, due to CURRENT game code designs (using coarse threading, which means sending network code to 1 cpu, game loop to another CPU, sound to yet another potentially available CPU core, etc.)?

I agree, MOSTLY, about it benefitting the game code ITSELF, directly!

However, how about INDIRECTLY (you'll see my point on this)?

I.E. -> What about the ability to send OS services, trayicon apps, &/or other backgrounded tasks (such as other apps running) to CPU cores the game's threads may not be running on, OR saturating yet totally?

I can see gamecode starving 2 CPU cores for available cycles to process interrupts on!

Especially IF the user runs many background apps/services/trayicon based apps alongside games (not trimming them as many folks do & I've actually been doing since NT 3.51, for efficiency)!

That would leave the CPU cores that game's threads are using "more open" since they do not HAVE to be the ones running the other tasks you are also running alongside running your game (and, you ALWAYS are)...

This happening means that moving other processes running OR the game itself (even if multithreaded) onto a CPU core(s) that isn't burdened by running as many other threads, or none yet, could literally feasibly/possibly have ALL to itself!

Here? Well, the more cores present? The merrier!

This would benefit games even, albeit indirectly, by running other apps on 2-N cores potentially available, leaving more CPU cycles for games (single OR multithreaded) threads, w/ less contention for interrupts on the CPU core the games are running on!

APK

P.S.=> Think about what I am trying to say in this example, & offer your thoughts on it if you wish... Yes, games are largely MOSTLY GPU bound, but there still IS the CPU processing element, & now that multithreaded gaming has come along & most of your apps you run, odds are, ARE multithreaded? This can help! apk

But the "simple" facts are that dual core CPU's have been out for quite some time now and only 5-10% of games really utilise the potential of 2 cores so how long before we see real utilisation of a quad core design.....ages, now again you could argue that even a 2% improvement is worth it, I would beg to differ however, if Intel had manufactured a single core conroe equivilent, with the same process and overclocking ability for say 70% of the price of the dual core they would have sold a lot less C2d's but hey, if they dont even manufacture them then everyone interested has to pay the extra 30%.

Of course I am not talking genuine multi tasking here or even multi threaded apps only because you were talking about games.