Intel v AMD

[holeycow]

I'm just about to upgrade one of my machines to a dual core processor, but I'm unsure whether to go amd or intel. I've always used Intel in the past and have heard horror stories about AMD cpus having bad problems with heat, although I hear they give more bang for the dollar.

What's the experience of you guys? Is one a stand out above the other? or is it "six of one, half a dozen of the other"?

[Captain Obvious]

At the moment, AMD processors are a better purchase than the Intel processors. Intel's Pentium 4-based processors aren't very good, and they're working hard replacing them with the vastly superior Pentium M-based ones ("Core Duo").

No, they don't have problems with heat. Their Thoroughbred CPUs (or was it the Thunderbird?) had a problem with heat insofar if the cooling equipment broke down, the computer wouldn't automatically shut down when the CPU got too hot. Instead, it just kept going and going, and eventually turned into toast. Note that this was just one or two different models, not all AMD processors, and for it to happen, the heat sink had to actually fall off, or the fan break down. Somewhat unlikely, to say the least. This is where the horror stories come from. Ever since the Pentium 4 was released, AMD processors have actually used less energy than Intel processors, and have thusly been cooler. All their CPUs for a good number of years now have also had automatic shutdown in case they overheat, so no need to worry about that.

[doimus]

It's incredible how negative PR can hurt a company, like even 5 years later, as it is the case with AMD.

Fact is, current AMD processors heat a lot less than Intel Pentium 4/D units, much much less.
Also, A64 has better 64-bit and dual-core implementation, while Intel just patched both things up in a hurry just not to fall back on the market.


Although, the rumor is, new Intels (the "Core" line) should be real performers, especially 64bit desktop versions. We shall see how AMD responds to that.

[kilvano]

The Core Duos are really expensive but im sure they will come down.

AMD just realeased the FX60 dual core. Basically 2- FX55 sharing a memory controller.

Its about £600 so hope you have deep pockets

Chris

[hstewarth]

I think the Core Duo line is for notebooks and actually not the same as line intended for desktop. I seen on Roadmap sites that the new line is sort of a merge between the Centrino and Pentium 4. Also there is a newer even better dual core Notebook line coming.. Unfortunately the Xeon / Server class version is like in 2007 while new desktops are plain for this summer.

I am also curious about Dempsey Xeon line - Dual core model. I think I saw some performance reviews and signficantly improved over older models from Intel and also AMD server models.


The following is link to road map site

Roadmap (http://endian.net/roadmap.asp)

Yonah 01-05-2006 Dual Core notebooks
Dempsey Q1 2006 Dual Core server line
Conroe 07-xx-2006 New line of desktops cpus - new tech
Meron 2H 2006 New line notebook cpus - similar to conroe
Woodcrest Q3 2006 New line of server cpus

I am pretty sure that Dempsey and Conroe this year, not sure about Meron and Woodcrest.

[holeycow]

Thanks for the input. It looks like my new machine will be my first foray nput using AMD CPUs :)

[lots]

At the moment, AMD processors are a better purchase than the Intel processors. Intel's Pentium 4-based processors aren't very good, and they're working hard replacing them with the vastly superior Pentium M-based ones ("Core Duo").

No, they don't have problems with heat. Their Thoroughbred CPUs (or was it the Thunderbird?) had a problem with heat insofar if the cooling equipment broke down, the computer wouldn't automatically shut down when the CPU got too hot. Instead, it just kept going and going, and eventually turned into toast. Note that this was just one or two different models, not all AMD processors, and for it to happen, the heat sink had to actually fall off, or the fan break down. Somewhat unlikely, to say the least. This is where the horror stories come from. Ever since the Pentium 4 was released, AMD processors have actually used less energy than Intel processors, and have thusly been cooler. All their CPUs for a good number of years now have also had automatic shutdown in case they overheat, so no need to worry about that.

AMD's Thunderbird (nick named firebird) based Athlon was the hot one. Even with massive cooling, it hit around 56-60C. The Thoroughbred based CPUs (specifically Thoroughbred B) _drastically_ improved the heat conditions. Basically fixing the issues with heat. Also, the implimentation of a special circuit that cut power to the CPU when the heat was too high, was implimented around the same time, along with a few new standards for the socket (extra space around it I believe). Basically AMD only had heat problems for one CPU generation. Much like Intel has heat problems with its current generation of Pentium4 (these things are crazy hot :P, and consume HUGE amounts of power).

The current single core AMD chips produce a little less than half the heat and consume less than half the power of current P4s, just to give you perspective.

[kfinla]

id recommend AMD right now. The dual core tech in the amd is currently better than the pentium d's.

Get a AMD 64 X2, 3800, or 4800 if if can afford it. 5200 will be out in 6 months or less i think.

[KnuxTE]

I just got a nice Powermac G5 2ghz Dual Core. And I can say the issue is that there is no 64bit version of lightwave for the mac to take advantage of any CPU. What Newtek should do is create a 3rd ap (other than ScreamNET) that renders for 64bit CPUs

[TheDynamo]

Anyone remember Cyrix? I had one of those chips in an 166mhz PC a long time ago. That thing ran so hot that I had 3 case fans, 1 CPU fan and I still couldn't run it on a warm day (70+ degree) without it dying every 45 minutes.

Ahh back in the old days.

I'm starting to do the husbandly process of priming the wife for a new computer as the one I have is working past it's second year in age. The angle I'm using is that the current computer (with a little modification) would make a great media center for the home ;)

Dual Core laptop or Dual Core Desktop.... that's a decision I would love to have to make :thumbsup:

-Dyn

[Edbittner]

This is kinda interesting........
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/opteron-xeon-workstation_20.html

E.

[Stooch]

if you are building a renderfarm the 3.2ghz Xeon is the best bang for the buck.

[Chris_Partridge]

I'd advise you to wait for the AM2 socket version of the AMD CPUs. These motherboards and CPUs will support DDR2 memory at speeds of 667MHz. Expect to pay top price for the FX-62 (AM2) and a little less for the AMD X2 5000 (AM2). Alternatively, later in the year Intel will be releasing the Conroe line of CPUs which are rumoured to give Chipzilla the speed crown back. We'll see.

[jwilli3]

These motherboards and CPUs will support DDR2 memory at speeds of 667MHz.

Actually there are rumors that they will come out the gate with support for 800mhz DDR2.

[Lightwolf]

if you are building a renderfarm the 3.2ghz Xeon is the best bang for the buck.
Nah... AMD X2s and cheap integrated motherboards... :D

Cheers,
Mike

[hstewarth]

I think my next machine will be Woodcrest line - or possible the extreme eddition of the Conroe line. Woodcrest is Xeon class of Conroe which enhanced version of Duo procesor which is actually suppose to be merge of best technologes of Pentium M and Pentium 4. Higher speed buses and better floating point. These lines of chips also suppose to have SSE4 which enhances Video stuff.

The Woodcrest line like the Demsty also has dual independent buses. The bus is suppose to 1333Mhz. The extreme edition of Controe is suppose a 3.33Ghz Woodcrest in Conroe packaging. I am desiring the Woodcrest line with dual cpus and hoping that the 4 core Clovertown will fit in same socket. This could mean 8 cores early next years running on 2 cpus.

Intel will official anounce this info in March at IDF but here is nice like I found about the stuff.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060209222156.html

Stewart

P.S. I not sure if the Demsty is going to see lite of day. It is last Xeon Netburst cpu - but I think Intel is concentrating on next generation.

A co-workers has a 2Ghz Pentium M notebook and also we have 3Ghz desktops at work for deevelopment. He states that 2 Ghz Pentium can compile the code as fast as the 3Ghz ( both with 7200RPM drives ). With that fact in line, I predict that the 3.3Ghz Conroe XE ( only one core ), will be equivent to a 5Ghz Pentium 4. ( 3.0 / 2.0 ) * 3.3 is my calculation.
But the Conroe and Woodcrest have 4Meg cache which could make a big difference.

[Captain Obvious]

A co-workers has a 2Ghz Pentium M notebook and also we have 3Ghz desktops at work for deevelopment. He states that 2 Ghz Pentium can compile the code as fast as the 3Ghz ( both with 7200RPM drives ). With that fact in line, I predict that the 3.3Ghz Conroe XE ( only one core ), will be equivent to a 5Ghz Pentium 4. ( 3.0 / 2.0 ) * 3.3 is my calculation.
A 2GHz Pentium M is faster than a 3GHz Pentium 4 at most things, especially compiling code. But your "mathematical method" is flawed. First of all, the Woodcrest/Conroe/Memrom are different cores from the Pentium M, and will perform differently. Secondly, just because a 2GHz P-M is as fast as a 3GHz P4 at one task, doesn't mean the performance relation is the same at other tasks. Thirdly, system performance doesn't scale linearly with CPU performance and CPU performance doesn't scale linearly with core frequency.

[lilrayray77]

You know the war between intel and AMD has raged on for a long time. From most of the research that I have done and from most of the things I have heard is that AMDs are faster than intels. But there is just one thing that bugs me about this. If AMDs are really better, why is it that all of the proffesionals/companies working with CGI are using intels; also why would Apple switch to intels if AMDs were infact better?

[Lightwolf]

If AMDs are really better, why is it that all of the proffesionals/companies working with CGI are using intels;
Well, they don't. There is also a lot of marketing involved if you look at larger studios and _big_ press releases.
also why would Apple switch to intels if AMDs were infact better?
Secure supply. intel can simply produce more.

Cheers,
Mike

[Captain Obvious]

also why would Apple switch to intels if AMDs were infact better?
In addition to what Lightwolf said (he's right as usual ;) ), there's also the simple matter of money. Intel might simply have cut Apple a better deal than AMD did.

[Lightwolf]

In addition to what Lightwolf said (he's right as usual ;) )...
Time to screw up big time then... this can't be healthy ;) :jester:

Cheers,
Mike

[AbnRanger]

That's why AMD has just added a new state of the art Fab facility in Germany...next to their current plant. They still have a long way to go before they can match Intel's Market share...and that's why Intel exploits their size and market leverage to the fullest, by coercing large PC makers such as Dell, Sony, Toshiba, etc. to deal with them EXCLUSIVELY or they "may" miss ship dates or bribes...uh hum..I mean heavy REBATES (for maintaining the exclusive relationship)....even though AMD is performance-wise, kicking "Intel Inside" their private parts.

[hstewarth]

A 2GHz Pentium M is faster than a 3GHz Pentium 4 at most things, especially compiling code. But your "mathematical method" is flawed. First of all, the Woodcrest/Conroe/Memrom are different cores from the Pentium M, and will perform differently. Secondly, just because a 2GHz P-M is as fast as a 3GHz P4 at one task, doesn't mean the performance relation is the same at other tasks. Thirdly, system performance doesn't scale linearly with CPU performance and CPU performance doesn't scale linearly with core frequency.

I know its not perfect, but I expect my estimates may be actually low. I espect that a 2Ghz Conroe will be faster than a 2Ghz Pentium M. And at 3.33Ghz, the Conroe XE should be quite a fast beast.

Taking in account that its multiple cores and with application like Lightwave, it should be a major factor faster than Pentium.

I also understand that a major factor will be disk speed, which is really constant between the system. Except for possiblilty of Woodcrest which may have a impact with dual independent buses.


Time will only tell what really happen. Can't wait to see what the numbers on once the Intel releases official information.

[hstewarth]

In addition to what Lightwolf said (he's right as usual ;) ), there's also the simple matter of money. Intel might simply have cut Apple a better deal than AMD did.

May Apple knows something about the future Intel processors that is confidential.

Part of might be SSE4 which is suppose to help out Video acceration. This is very important in the Apple community.

I know part of its because the reduce cost because so many computers used Intel cpus but I don't believe its the primary version.

I am curious if this going to make it easlier on NewTek for Lightwave on both Apple and Windows.

[Stooch]

Nah... AMD X2s and cheap integrated motherboards... :D

Cheers,
Mike


nah, if you do your research on benchmarks for the price 3.2 xeons would walk all over them. :)

its amazing how much they dropped in price. thanks amd.

[Lightwolf]

nah, if you do your research on benchmarks for the price 3.2 xeons would walk all over them. :)

I did... a single, single core 3.2 GHz Xeon costs more than a dual core X2 3800+ - and the AMD is almost as fast (well, it beats my dual Xeon 3.06 easily). (intel 350€ vs. AMD 300€ from my favourite dealer)
Add a 90€ motherboard with on-board gfx, a bit of RAM etc... and you've got some hefty performance for roughly 600-700€ per node.
...and since the Opterons just came down a lot in price they even make a lot more snese in dual socket boards as well :)

Cheers,
Mike

[Captain Obvious]

I know its not perfect, but I expect my estimates may be actually low. I espect that a 2Ghz Conroe will be faster than a 2Ghz Pentium M. And at 3.33Ghz, the Conroe XE should be quite a fast beast.
Well yeah. ;)


Part of might be SSE4 which is suppose to help out Video acceration. This is very important in the Apple community.
That's true.



I am curious if this going to make it easlier on NewTek for Lightwave on both Apple and Windows.
It won't, at all. Porting software from Windows to Mac is mostly about the software, not the hardware.