Intel or AMD?

[whatsforlunch]

In the past, it was a general consensus that AMD dominated Intel in terms of performance. Nowadays, I'm leaning more towards Intel for their power consumption, performance and general ability to over-clock. Putting all things aside, which company produces the best processor and from their respective company, what model gives you the most bang for your buck?

[burkhartmj]

intel hands down now. Starting with Core 2, AMD has been a good generation or 2 behind with every processor they came out with.

Best bang depends on your situation. If you run alot of multithreaded apps then the Q9300 seems to be the popular choice, but the E8500 is much better for less threaded apps and for overclocking [though Q9300 can be decently overclocked as well]. And they are both about the same price, so it really is up to your working environment which one you'll benefit from more.

[dark_shroud]

I would recommend the Intel. I've never had an Intel die or fry on me. While my family has gone through a few AMDs.

[z31ftw]

Intel obliterates AMD in every aspect now.

The only reason anyone should go with AMD is if you are on an extreme budget.

[ArmpitOfDeath]

Kinda sad. AMD seriously worried Intel for a short while and now they're also-rans again. And for all sorts of reasons it's nice to have Intel on its toes.

The desktop Phenom is really a year too late, and apparently it's going to get worse before it gets better. The server / workstation chip Barcelona has also faced some delays and it's uncompetitive right now in terms of performance against the Xeon.

My A64's and Opterons ran 'like butter' (as Jobs might say) back in the day - but I don't have a single AMD left, expect for a recent Barcelona testing machine that is now sitting in a corner.

[whatsforlunch]

I've said all along that Intel has beaten AMD ever since Conroe but several of my friends are die-hard AMD people and they keep saying "AMD has something in the works." I really find that hard to believe anymore since they are a couple of years behind in terms of nanometers and performance.

Thanks for justifying my belief that AMD is practically dead.

[computoman]

The motherboards for the intel seem to be a lot more stable than the amd processors. i thnk that has been the real downfall for the amds. I agree intel chips seem to be more rock solid bullet proof than the amds. I really like the via c3 series. they require virtually no fans, though I would not run without one.

[crater]

Intel is kicking AMDs ass. That said, i still rep. the AMD. Rocking a X2 that i love in every aspect. Especially the price.

[darknessgp]

eh, either... Processors are at the point that unless you are doing something that is multithreaded and extremely cpu heavy then it really doesn't matter that much. Standard for a desktop, IMO, is at least a dual core 2.5Ghz. Laptops I would say dual core 2.0 Ghz.

[shrap]

intel hands down now. Starting with Core 2, AMD has been a good generation or 2 behind with every processor they came out with.

Best bang depends on your situation. If you run alot of multithreaded apps then the Q9300 seems to be the popular choice, but the E8500 is much better for less threaded apps and for overclocking [though Q9300 can be decently overclocked as well]. And they are both about the same price, so it really is up to your working environment which one you'll benefit from more.

I couldnt agree more.

If you want the best performance for gaming tho, afaik dual core still out performs quad cores. Since most games dont support 4 cores, a dual core with high clock speeds is said to be better.

I'm personally getting the Q9300, which can easily be overclocked to 3.5ghz :D

[renegadey2k8]

Spider is the key

AMD has said that the next best thing is to use things that know how to work together so i would go with the AMD 700 series chipset and the phenom CPU and a ATI Readon HD 3000 series Video cards this makes up spider and from what i have read AMD plans on doing this from now on

i helped my friend build i new pc he used this mobo (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131291) and this CPU (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103244) and a ATI Readon HD 3870 X2 and is running Vista 64 and loves it

but that is just what i think

[burkhartmj]

Spider is the key

AMD has said that the next best thing is to use things that know how to work together so i would go with the AMD 700 series chipset and the phenom CPU and a ATI Readon HD 3000 series Video cards this makes up spider and from what i have read AMD plans on doing this from now on

i helped my friend build i new pc he used this mobo (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131291) and this CPU (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103244) and a ATI Readon HD 3870 X2 and is running Vista 64 and loves it

but that is just what i think

The Spider platform is only really useful when utilizing CrossfireX since it's much better integrated than old Crossfire or SLi, otherwise, it's just a processor and a graphics card. Best performance per buck with a single GPU is still an intel penryn and an ATI 3000 Series

[victor_c26]

I've said all along that Intel has beaten AMD ever since Conroe but several of my friends are die-hard AMD people and they keep saying "AMD has something in the works." I really find that hard to believe anymore since they are a couple of years behind in terms of nanometers and performance.

Thanks for justifying my belief that AMD is practically dead.

I wouldn't wish AMD away though. They are a crucial part of the processor balance. If they fade away, Intel will let things stagnate again.

Who knows. They might have a wildcard in development, just like Intel had back in the end of the Pentium 4 era (ie Conroe development).

We need AMD to stay.

[absolutemayhem]

I wouldn't wish AMD away though. They are a crucial part of the processor balance. If they fade away, Intel will let things stagnate again.

Totally agree, plus it also helps keep the CPU pricess in line. With AMD still slugging away in the market, intel knows that can not just have the days of old price/performance gaps.

I'm an AMD supporter, because during my college years they gave me the power when I needed it, now that I am a professional, I am giving them my support. Also thats desktop, modern laptops i will go intel dual core 2.

-MayheM

[renegadey2k8]

well the whole buying of ATI didn't help AMD but all good things come to these who wait AMD has been working on a CPU/GPU combo and has said the next line of CPU from them will be all new so AMD is not done yet lets just hope they can hold off intel till then

on a side note i think it is funny that both AMD and ATI products have lost there edge after the merger

[burkhartmj]

well the whole buying of ATI didn't help AMD but all good things come to these who wait AMD has been working on a CPU/GPU combo and has said the next line of CPU from them will be all new so AMD is not done yet lets just hope they can hold off intel till then

on a side note i think it is funny that both AMD and ATI products have lost there edge after the merger

I would have to disagree. On the financial side, ATI is the only thing really keeping AMD alive. Besides, it only took about 1-2 generations of cards for them to start putting nVidia on it's toes again. Admittedly not their highest end, but what they competed with pricewise, they beat power-wise. And apparently this next generation of cards [the 4850 and 4870, due in about a month or 2] are powerful enough for nVidia to worry and consider releasing their 9900 early.

I don't want AMD to fade, mainly because I prefer ATI cards, and if AMD dies, so does ATI [horrible for GPU market too], but on the CPU side, VIA is actually ramping up their processors pretty quick to compete with intel. Just read yesterday that they are about to switch to a 45nm manufacturing process and create their first dual-core proc. So I'm not too worried about CPU competition.

[goldsteinmedia]

amd all the way it runs quiet and fast. i don't like intel

[burkhartmj]

amd all the way it runs quiet and fast. i don't like intel

currently intel chips run faster, cooler, quieter, and more efficient starting with the core 2.

[mikec]

Please explain how a CPU can run quieter? Chip A can run faster then chip B, It can also do more work with less energy and it can do said work while generating less heat but I don't hear CPU's making much noise. I hear a CPU cooler making noise.



BTW, which chip would you suggest for a machine for a 72yr old mom? Web surfing and email mostly.

[westudi]

BTW, which chip would you suggest for a machine for a 72yr old mom? Web surfing and email mostly.

Cheap, AMD dual cores are the way to go for situations like that. $50-70 for a cpu ain't too shabby.

[bani-banan]

I've been with AMD my whole life and I know bichez gonna come back even stronger.

You get what you pay for with AMD. I've never had issues over-clocking. Yes, they get extremely hot if you remove the fan, but if you have your bios set to force-shutdown when stepping over a "too hot to function-line" - You Will Notice that your fan is shit.

That being said, they're unfortunately getting beat by Intel. Core 2 duos are sort of worth the money. Their graphics-chips however are worth jack shit.

Are the core 2 duos 65nm?

[mikec]

Are the core 2 duos 65nm?

There are some 65nm and some 45nm Core 2 Duo chips out there.

[darknessgp]

...

Are the core 2 duos 65nm?

Anything made before Nov 07 is, everything after is 45nm. So, some are and some aren't.

[burkhartmj]

Please explain how a CPU can run quieter? Chip A can run faster then chip B, It can also do more work with less energy and it can do said work while generating less heat but I don't hear CPU's making much noise. I hear a CPU cooler making noise.



BTW, which chip would you suggest for a machine for a 72yr old mom? Web surfing and email mostly.

If the cooler doesn't have to work as hard, it doesn't have to be as ramped up, and can therefore run quieter. Of course the chip itself isn't making noise =]

[darknessgp]

If the cooler doesn't have to work as hard, it doesn't have to be as ramped up, and can therefore run quieter. Of course the chip itself isn't making noise =]

That's just assuming someone uses the stock cooler, and most of the times they aren't loud when new... Yes, having it spinning at a high speed will put more strain on it and eventually it'll degrade, but so will the other. Though you could always just get a better heatsink and fan than the stock.

[burkhartmj]

That's just assuming someone uses the stock cooler, and most of the times they aren't loud when new... Yes, having it spinning at a high speed will put more strain on it and eventually it'll degrade, but so will the other. Though you could always just get a better heatsink and fan than the stock.

mmm always do. Got a Zalman on my Core 2 e6600....though lately it's been runnin kinda loud. Either dust or it's old I guess.

[fishtoprecords]

I wouldn't wish AMD away though. They are a crucial part of the processor balance. If they fade away, Intel will let things stagnate again.

We need AMD to stay.

Very true. Sadly, AMD has been kicked hard by Intel, the Intel CPUs are faster, sometimes much faster. So all AMD can do is be cheaper. This is a bad place to be, as Intel can just drop prices and crush them.

We need someone to keep Intel honest, competition is good for all.

Both AMD and Intel need folks to need Vista so they can need new computers. Letting users run ancient computers is bad for both companies. Sadly for the chip and system makers, there are no killer aps that need the speed that is currently available for under $100.

[mikec]

We need someone to keep Intel honest, competition is good for all.

True.

Both AMD and Intel need folks to need Vista so they can need new computers. Letting users run ancient computers is bad for both companies. Sadly for the chip and system makers, there are no killer aps that need the speed that is currently available for under $100.

I don't care if it is bad for them. I like XP and my job doesn't require me to have the latest and greatest. As long as I can do research and get my email I am fine. ISP reliability and speed is more important. Keeping my machine safe from viruses and drive failure is also important.

Personally I believe that most people can live their lives with a computer that costs less then $500. OS and software excluded. Monitor also excluded, since some can use the same display for many years.

[yssman]

I'm indifferent at best, I haven't been keeping up with the specs, but the last two PCs I've bought were AMD-powered, and I'm not complaining. The current rig has a 64X2 6000, shes a bit hot/loud at times, but only when I'm working her hard. No big deal.

Its like Diet Pepsi and Diet Coke. They're about the same, just depends on whats on sale and whats around.

[burkhartmj]

Its like Diet Pepsi and Diet Coke. They're about the same, just depends on whats on sale and whats around.

woah woah woah, they are NOT the same!

But yea, I agree that most people are cool with any PC around 500 bucks especially with the recent influx of ULCPC's in the market, but as a power user, I like/need/want at least near the best. I mean, I'm not goin out buying core 2 extremes or anything, but I can feel the sluggishness of anything slower than my E6600 quite readily now. Many techies, even if they aren't gamers, appreciate the power that intel is offering over AMD at the moment.

And as far as competition, as I said earlier, VIA is starting to step up, and since they get a good amount of income from budget computers and low power stuff and such, they should be around long enough to really start competing with intel. It's ATI I'm worried about having disappear. AMD really needs to get the CPU/GPU fusion chip they've been talking about out the door before their situation gets any bleaker, because I love my ATI graphics cards =[

[fishtoprecords]

I believe that most people can live their lives with a computer that costs less then $500. OS and software excluded. Monitor also excluded, since some can use the same display for many years.

Actually I think most folks can be happy with a computer that costs $500 OS and software included. Monitor extra, perhaps.

For at least 95% of the users, if someone else did the setup, Ubuntu with Firefox, Thunderbird and Open Office would do everything they want.

The sub-$500 market is booming, and its a real problem for Microsoft, since they want $50 or so for Vista, and $80 for the 'student' version of Office. That ends up being a big percentage of the total package cost.

People buying cheap computers are not gamers or power users.

[mikec]

Gamers are a whole world unto themselves and since I do not use any serious PC games I will not even go there BUT what is a "power user"? OK, there are folks running Photoshop or other programs that require some computer power but can anyone tell me that someone using an Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 2.5GHZ based machine will do all that much work in a day over someone running an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+? Graphics folks and editors spend time looking at what is on the screen, deciding if they like what they see, IS what they did what the client wants... Yes, there are times that they click the <GO> button and want things to render or compile but the most modern machines are fast enough. Faster printers or scanners or upload speeds are also important.

I had a video editor whose job stopped because of the speed of the backup drive someone bought for him. If he had to backup or restore a project he had to wait.

BTW, has anyone done any serious power consumption comparisons between an Intel based machine and an AMD machine? Yes, the CPU eats some power but has anyone tried to make CPU coolers more efficient or any of the other fans? Have hard drives become more efficient or less efficient in the last ten years? Do the newest PCI-E wonder cards use more power then a basic PCI-E card? AGP?

[fishtoprecords]

BUT what is a "power user"?

BTW, has anyone done any serious power consumption comparisons between an Intel based machine and an AMD machine?

I define (YMMV) a power user as someone who needs power, professionally. A software developer, graphic artist. Musician doing multi-track recording and effects. Or even someone with bit torrent, email and six tabs in firefox with one or two streaming video.

For anyone not a power user, any modern dual core AMD or Intel chip will be plenty fast enough.

On the power draw side, you are right, it needs to be a whole machine measurement, not just the CPU draw. With low power CPUs, such as mobile models) the CPU itself can be fairly frugal. So the north and south bridges, disks, video, etc. can be as much or more than the CPU. And power supplies are not equal, some waste a lot of power.

When they downsized cars in the 70s, it was lots of little things that added up. They made the car smaller, so it could use smaller engines, which weighed less, so they could have smaller brakes, lighter transmissions, etc. Which improved gas mileage so they could have smaller gas tanks, smaller tires, which allowed smaller brakes, lighter transmissions.... in a cycle.

I think we are just starting to think about PCs in light of their power needs.
Electrical power, and heat. Not power users looking for the highest FPS rate.

[mikec]

I define (YMMV) a power user as someone who needs power, professionally. A software developer, graphic artist. Musician doing multi-track recording and effects. Or even someone with bit torrent, email and six tabs in firefox with one or two streaming video.


You addressed part of my post, not all. Many years back in Computer Shopper Borland had ads for I think their Turbo C. In the ads they had some claims about compiling speeds. Something like 10,000 lines of C per minute. That was on 8086 or 80286 processors at speeds no higher then 10-12 MHZ. A 2GHZ P4 is how many orders of magnitude faster then a 12MHZ '286? (I'd love to know if there is some way to calculate the speed difference.) When a modern programmer hits enter, how long do they sit and wait? Is their world ruined if it takes 35 seconds instead of 30?

People spend time looking at the screen deciding if they continue with their plan or stop and go another route. Raw speed isn't the only requirement.

What good is 12 page per minute printer if it takes 30 seconds to go from standby to print? Improve that time. Improve the speed of USB thumb drives.

[fishtoprecords]

When a modern programmer hits enter, how long do they sit and wait? Is their world ruined if it takes 35 seconds instead of 30?


When I'm paying a software engineer, I'm paying them to be productive making code, fixing code, adding stuff, etc. I'm not paying them to watch an hourglass.

The normal edit/compile/debug cycle gets repeated hundreds of times a day. Adding 30 seconds to each is huge.

More importantly, is that any delay over a second or two causes the mind to wander. A fair amount of time requires you to get into "the zone" where you can keep track of tons of stuff. A slow compiler makes you want, and the zone evaporates. It might take minutes to get back in it. For really hairy stuff, I need to be in the zone for hours at a time.

I would assume that this is equally true in other fields, you want your artist thinking graphical stuff, not waiting....

[mikec]

Don't you ever stop and think "OK, path A doesn't seem to work. Do I continue or do I try another route?" A five or ten second pause may give the person the split second to think and a new idea might be better then the old plan.

Perhaps it is slightly different in video production/editing then software creation?

[tokenuser]

When I'm paying a software engineer, I'm paying them to be productive making code, fixing code, adding stuff, etc. I'm not paying them to watch an hourglass.

The normal edit/compile/debug cycle gets repeated hundreds of times a day. Adding 30 seconds to each is huge.If that is the way your "software engineer" is working, then its time to get a new software engineer.

Suggest they grab a copy of Personal Software Process by Watts Humphreys, and follow it. It will greatly reduce the hundreds of times per day they do the edit/compile/debug cycle.

Link to what I am talking about here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Software_Process).
Book that will teach it to you here (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Personal-Software-Process-Engineering/dp/0201548097).

Any good software engineer will appreciate that PSP is language independent :)

[ Yes, I am a software engineer, and have been since the late 80's. ]

[fishtoprecords]

If that is the way your "software engineer" is working, then its time to get a new software engineer.
Suggest they grab a copy of Personal Software Process

Your opinion, not mine. We did that design, desk check, etc. stuff back when I stared. It took a long time to get cards punched, batches processed.

I agree far more with Fred Brooks in his "No Silver Bullet", where he said that the intensive edit/compile/debug cycle is much more productive.

The more important point it not that your method may or not be better than mine, or Brooks', its that with mine, you need fast systems for your developers. And in the course of a year, the price of a screaming fast system, even if you throw it away ever year, is tiny compared to the cost of salary, benefits, management, space, telephones, etc.

[absolutemayhem]

I cant really say anything about "compile time" except that, well that usually the time you check emails and do other work and CPU/RAM/chipsets all play a factor. Agree there.

But lumping in editing and debug time to a modern PC? Pascal, C++, Visual C, Visual studio, shit I'll even toss in a cobal editor/debug tool, they are not CPU intensive at all. Maybe way back in the days of 95, but post Windows 2k ... meh .. not an issue really. Sure editing code and debugging can take up a shit ton of time, but thats independant of hardware of any modern PC. {Not a Mac guy, so cant comment on that}

Having said that .. Keeping the developers HAPPY with the latest and greatest toys never hurts :) regardless

-MayheM

[darknessgp]

I cant really say anything about "compile time" except that, well that usually the time you check emails and do other work and CPU/RAM/chipsets all play a factor. Agree there.

But lumping in editing and debug time to a modern PC? Pascal, C++, Visual C, Visual studio, shit I'll even toss in a cobal editor/debug tool, they are not CPU intensive at all. Maybe way back in the days of 95, but post Windows 2k ... meh .. not an issue really. Sure editing code and debugging can take up a shit ton of time, but thats independant of hardware of any modern PC. {Not a Mac guy, so cant comment on that}

Having said that .. Keeping the developers HAPPY with the latest and greatest toys never hurts :) regardless

-MayheM

As a software developer, I can honestly say that compile time is the least time consuming thing I do. And really, the things eating up more system resources are any web browsers open (code references mainly), outlook for email, sql server managment studio, then probably visual studio. So to somewhat sum it up, at least for me the developer software isn't resource heavy (including time), it's that I run a bunch of other stuff at the same time.

[westudi]

Sadly, that might be the best post in this thread.

[burkhartmj]

Er, hate to be a killjoy, but look at the thread title. This was supposed to be about intel VS AMD.

[westudi]

Yeah, but the conversation was getting stale. Someone had to liven it up I guess.

[burkhartmj]

Yeah, but the conversation was getting stale. Someone had to liven it up I guess.

Lol, apparently.