>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> Gigahertz War!! Intel vs AMD
Bookmark topic
I agree with you guys on both sides of the camp, but i look @ innovation and in my eyes right now AMD have that up their sleeve in many respects. However, that does not mean is not innovative, infact the 65nm process is quite a feat.
There is one thing to remember though, Intel is a significantly larger company and thus has access to almost endless funds...AMD on the other hand doesn't, therefore the purposeful well thought out approach.
AMD doesn't really need to switch to the 65nm process right away, since their 90nm processors are scaling a better than Intel's 90nm P4's.
Intel's change to 65nm brings in cooler processors and more silicon real estate so all in all a good move. AMD will get there, but only when IBM has perfected the process for them.
I must admit i used to be a hardcore Intel person, but when AMD came along, i jumped ship cos i got more value for my money. Infact, i am typing this from an Athlon64 laptop...the future is in my hands already
and my upgrade path is going to be rather easy costing me very little.
I am very impressed with AMD's Opteron line up as well, they are scaling rather nicely, so much so that Dell have sneaked a peak @ it several times.
Good on AMD for providing some solid competition to Intel...thus speeding up processor development and making it value for money.
That was my other 2cents worth!
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 19:32:15
Edit :
Quote
My first PC had an Intel processor with an ashtonishing speed of 12Mhz
Intel 80286, 15 years ago...
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 19:44:06
Edit :
Quote
Quote:i look @ innovation and in my eyes right now AMD have that up their sleeve in many respects. However, that does not mean is not innovative, infact the 65nm process is quite a feat.
There is one thing to remember though, Intel is a significantly larger company and thus has access to almost endless funds...AMD on the other hand doesn't, therefore the purposeful well thought out approach.
AMD doesn't really need to switch to the 65nm process right away, since their 90nm processors are scaling a better than Intel's 90nm P4's.
Intel's change to 65nm brings in cooler processors and more silicon real estate so all in all a good move.
hey look at matrix raid,azalia audio ,pci-e these are good innovations first intro'd by intel,aint it? both intel and amd has their own innovations . one will catch the other soon.
Quote:AMD doesn't really need to switch to the 65nm process right away, since their 90nm processors are scaling a better than Intel's 90nm P4's.
i think its not correct,both has more or less almost same yields and efficiency in case of 90nm. since intels cpu's are running at much higher frequencies, it has a lot of leakage (especially in switching transistors , which has to work at high frequencies ) . prescott has these problems , look at dothan , it dont have much problems in 90nm as prescott.
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 19:50:45
Edit :
Quote
nickorooster Posts: > 500
@Hyperia
Im too tired and just got home from a friend's place (you know what i mean) so I can't be bothered to write much, but I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Honestly, Intel better either get their game together, and they
are working on it, so they can catch up. Others may say they don't need to, and argue that they already offer 64bit computing, but honestly, who's buying intel's 64bit stuff? Only for servers really, and not the average home consumer.
Nick
--
Posted: 2005-03-13 01:14:07
Edit :
Quote
I use both powered by AMD and Intel.
I have found the AMD better for running a lot of apps at the same time. not much difference apart from that.
So, i'd say AMD. Simple as that.
*****Tested*****
AMD Athlon 64 3000+
Intel Pentium 4 2.8Ghz
--
Posted: 2005-03-13 01:20:19
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-03-12 19:50:45, shyam335 wrote:
Quote:i look @ innovation and in my eyes right now AMD have that up their sleeve in many respects. However, that does not mean is not innovative, infact the 65nm process is quite a feat.
There is one thing to remember though, Intel is a significantly larger company and thus has access to almost endless funds...AMD on the other hand doesn't, therefore the purposeful well thought out approach.
AMD doesn't really need to switch to the 65nm process right away, since their 90nm processors are scaling a better than Intel's 90nm P4's.
Intel's change to 65nm brings in cooler processors and more silicon real estate so all in all a good move.
hey look at matrix raid,azalia audio ,pci-e these are good innovations first intro'd by intel,aint it? both intel and amd has their own innovations . one will catch the other soon.
Quote:AMD doesn't really need to switch to the 65nm process right away, since their 90nm processors are scaling a better than Intel's 90nm P4's.
i think its not correct,both has more or less almost same yields and efficiency in case of 90nm. since intels cpu's are running at much higher frequencies, it has a lot of leakage (especially in switching transistors , which has to work at high frequencies ) . prescott has these problems , look at dothan , it dont have much problems in 90nm as prescott.
@shyam:
I am not taking sides @ all like i mentioned @ the beginning of my comments. I am speaking purely about
processor technology not the rest of the system.
I also stated that IBM needs to mature their process before AMD uses the 65nm technology. There have been comments from AMD themelves stating such.
PS: I don't want to turn this into an argument.
--
Posted: 2005-03-13 14:19:19
Edit :
Quote
@HyperiaBlue
i said these because amd's are really too much hyped these days.when intel was running on 'northwood' it had clear advantage on athlon xp . but when intel launched prescott and amd launched amd 64 series ,fortunes turned around , deep pipelined prescott wasnt giving gains compared to northwood . but a64 was a good m architecture,so it received rewards .
now about the hype thing i said,i hear a lot of people saying that if we use a athlon xp (not even 64) , itll kick the performance nuts of any intel cpu and a lot of such things without knowing the actual thing!
--
Posted: 2005-03-13 17:48:52
Edit :
Quote
Well of course its situational Shyam, but for most home PC's and I believe anandtech has also shown in server performance, AMD is a very real winner.
Personally I got sick of intel around the time I went from a 500 celeron to a P3 866 and recieved no real system increase at all. (The system was already good, but you'd have thought the CPU would have made some noticable difference)
I switched to AMD after that and have never looked back.
Have I had to change my motherboard due to CPU socket changes?
Only once, recently, when I bought a socket 939 board for a 64bit chip. Else every other amd chip upgrade has been on relativiely the same boards. (I've swapped alot because i used to work for an importer so got all the latest boards really cheaply and was earning far too much at the time lol)
There aren't that many things an AMD will loose out on, and as for their laptop offerings i'm quite happy there. (Other than wifi, which is on pretty much every laptop now anyhow centreno's don't seem all that great.. unless of course they've overcome the "if I heat up I slow down" issue. Something that has screwed intel in benchmarks for sometime. (But hey they designed it that way
)
@govi:
AMD is in no way a compromise.
Any stigma about AMD is either from early AMD's (which were crap or just not supported well enough) or from having substandard motherboards - something that isn't an AMD only issue.
--
Posted: 2005-03-13 21:35:30
Edit :
Quote
is this faster AMD Athlon 64 Bit 3500+ /512 KB Cache/ 2000 MHz. FSB/ socket 939 OR this INTEL PENTIUM 4 CPU 540 WITH HT TECH. (1 MB L2 CACHE/3.2 GHZ./800 MHZ. FSB/)
Primary use: Compositing, Image Editing, Video Editing, 3d.
Secondary use: Gaming.
--
Posted: 2005-03-19 11:34:31
Edit :
Quote
Athlon 64 3500+ definitely! Much faster!
This message was posted from a T230
--
Posted: 2005-03-19 11:44:36
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
