AMD or Intel

[Justin]

im a bit surprised to hear some of these things. amd's products excel in certain gaming applications, but the prescott has generally better performance. a lot of people bash intel, but they don't realize that intel is primarily responsible for the existence of the x86 architecture. all non-intel x86 compatible cpus borrow heavily from intel's designs and instruction sets.

First off:

1) 100% wrong about the Prescott. The WInchester A64 cores absolutely destroy the prescott. The FX defeats the EE.

2) Intel is only responsible for x86 because IBM adopted x86 at the time. Regardless of what the big players had chosen, the others would have followed. Intel did not make some huge breakthrough with x86. There were better alternatives out there, and still are today. Read history.

3) Provide one link where a P4 3.4 Prescott is better, overall, than an Athlon 64 3400+

 

[zephead]

not this argument again...
intel processors didn't get into four-fifths of the world's computers by being inferior to others or by some corporate trickery.
enough said.

 

[linuxcorex]

hrmm

Well, this is always a toughy, and before I say anything let me note, that im running an AMD64 right now.. Im equal sided on this debate, both companies are good for what they offer. Back when AMD first started off, they literly were ran by Intel, they used intels designs everything. Intel allowed this, they sold them their processor designs up until mid 90's. AMD has always been the "follower" in the microprocessor market. In these past years, they seem to be moving further away from this, but even in todays market they continue to "reverse engineer" most of the engineering intel does. I personally think, Intel is the company with the magic, the engineering, the technology and the quality! AMD offers the market their lower prices. Now you may say, well if AMD reverse engineered intel wouldnt they be the same? But let me add this: Is a copy better than the original? Its really Quality(Intel) vs. Price(AMD). Its a hard decision, and a personal one at that matter.

 

[linuxcorex]

You as an IT Professional should know that NO ONE in IT uses AMD Servers, because their a POS. Thats one of the key reasons Intel has outsold AMD in 32bit and 64bit systems in the last year. AMD does ok, when talking consumer computers. But you can't even attempt to bring them into the server world.

"I can build an AMD top-end sever for about 2/3s of a mid range Intel and it will hold it's own with the Intell top-end severs. You as an I.T. tech owe your employer the lower cost server, and it is up to you to tell them not to toss their money away on the Intel. and this is the very reason the worlds best servers are AMD not Intel."

 

[1000cc]

First off:

1) 100% wrong about the Prescott. The WInchester A64 cores absolutely destroy the prescott. The FX defeats the EE.

2) Intel is only responsible for x86 because IBM adopted x86 at the time. Regardless of what the big players had chosen, the others would have followed. Intel did not make some huge breakthrough with x86. There were better alternatives out there, and still are today. Read history.

3) Provide one link where a P4 3.4 Prescott is better, overall, than an Athlon 64 3400+

The prescott looks even worst against the 3800+ http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2/athlon64-3800/index.x?pg=6

 

[Justin]

not this argument again...
intel processors didn't get into four-fifths of the world's computers by being inferior to others or by some corporate trickery.
enough said.

Enough said or not, you were wrong about that. Don't ignore facts.

Also, the majority of technology that Intel "shares", such as MMX, Intel is forced to share and they also get paid to license it.


Saying intel is this and that because of they are huge is like saying Microsoft has a 95% marketshare because they have a superior product, when this is clearly not true. Intel is good at MARKETING. As far as technological superiority, AMD has that crown right now for desktop processors, through and through. Keep in mind Intel is now using AMD's reference for 64bit, instead of their own which was canned.

 

[zephead]

Enough said or not, you were wrong about that. Don't ignore facts.

all you did was say the winchester destroys the prescott. take a look at these benchmarks from THG:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-13.html
there's pages and pages of benchmarks. doesn't look at all like the winchester is 'destroying' the prescott. the tests don't even include intel's latest 6xx series. i don't put all my faith in benchmarks like those myself and others have linked to, but they aren't meaningless either.

 

[Justin]

Pretty sad when a CPU running a full 1000mhz+ slower is outperforming the EE in 75% of benchmarks, isn't it?

Actually, it isn't. What's sad is someone who believes that "bigger is better". Intel has brought nothing revolutionary to the table for a long time. Microsoft gave Intel the finger and AMD the thumbs up for a reason. MS has adopted AMD's 64bit technology because it is a superior technology to Intel's former.

The 6xx series cannot be compared to the single-core Athlon64s. When dual core A64s are released later this year, then we will compare .

However, this has been a continuting pattern. since the release of the original Athlon (K7). AMD has always had a faster chip for a lesser price.

I AM NOT SAYING INTEL HAS A BAD PRODUCT. Intel chips rocks. For 99% of people, whether they have an Intel or an AMD makes no difference.

However, the P4 was a major step backwards. Going forward in reverse, if you will. Why do you think Intel will no longer be using the P4 architecture, but is instead revamping the P3 architecture? (See the Pentium M) Intel realizes it has made huge mistakes with both P4 and Itanium. Technologically, they are inferior chips.

 

[acidosmosis]

A companies "superiority" over the market has nothing to do with the quality of their products. You can easily outsell a product with excellent marketing. If you take a marketing class or are in marketing this is one of the common knowledge rules you live by.

If you were a salesman, you would attempt to sell your product by either lying about your product, or shedding light on only the good qualitys of that product.

On the other hand totally ignore the good/bad and take Intel's approach. Make a "neat" looking commercial, which is funny in some ways (mainly cause its kind of ridiculous) and appeals to 99% of consumers that watch television.

Intel loves to act like Nvidia and basically say "Our product is better, so buy it for that reason". In the process wasting millions of dollars that they could use on research and development to make that product better.

As far as AMD vs Intel goes, there is NO WINNING BATTLE in a discussion like this here (Why? Because its obvious no one will ever agree and the differences are not large enough to make a decent comparison of advantages). You either pay a LOT more for Intel or you don't. Who is smarter in this scenario? In my opinion the person who saves money and gets an AMD processor.

I personally don't think spending a lot more money on a product that will only be superior by a SMALL margin of 5% (MAYBE 10% in EXTREME circumstances) is smart. If your rich, fine.

Remember this small margin of possibility is hardly EVER noticed by you, in anything but benchmarks. You normally will never ever notice the performance difference with your "naked eye".

If you were crunching numbers and a small margin of performance was important in your business, and could possibly cost you time and money then go with the product that is 1% faster or more.

Lets remember, Intel is "better" in some situations, AMD is better in some situations. You really have to figure out which is "better" in the scenarios you will be using the processor most for. One may be better at gaming, the other may not. One may be better at Photoshop performance, the other may not. It's pretty much 50/50.

Unless your using a PC entirely for video editing then you won't really be able to decide for/against AMD/Intel in a way that you will win 100% of the time in everything you do. Your AMD/Intel will beat the competition one minute and not the next minute, depending on what you are doing.

AMD may excel slightly in some areas while Intel may excel slightly in other areas, but not by that much.

Now, if you decided that a Intel motherboard had the features you wanted that a AMD board doesn't then that would be a good reason to go Intel. Would it make sense expenditure-wise? Maybe not. That would be up to you.



By the way, Soul does know what he is talking about. I've not met a single person that has proved him wrong in anything he has ever said, so I would take what he says pretty seriously.

Even though he is a ****wad. HAHA Soul. :wave:

 

[linuxcorex]

Soul_Harvestor:
"Actually, it isn't. What's sad is someone who believes that "bigger is better". Intel has brought nothing revolutionary to the table for a long time. Microsoft gave Intel the finger and AMD the thumbs up for a reason. MS has adopted AMD's 64bit technology because it is a superior technology to Intel's former."

Nothing revolutionary to the table in along time? How about dual core dies, and just a resent breakthrough with the 9 laser processor, and how about the optical processor design? AMD has NEVER brought anything revolutionary, because they simply reverse engineer all intels ideas. About MS adopting AMD 64bit technology... is that why MS waited 2 years to come out with a 64bit operating system.. If you didn't know, Intel and microsoft are basically like a family.

 

[zephead]

i agree with most of acidosmosis's post in regards to this being an inconclusive argument. we all have our seperate opinions and that's the bottom line. one processor isn't 100% better than the other but there are noticable differences none the less.

AMD has NEVER brought anything revolutionary, because they simply reverse engineer all intels ideas.

perhaps this was true for the mid-90's but not in 2005. i'm sure soul harvester will have something more specific to contribute.

 

[BringinHeat]

Actually, it isn't. What's sad is someone who believes that "bigger is better". Intel has brought nothing revolutionary to the table for a long time.

http://www.intel.com/standards/case/index.htm

Are you kidding me with intel has not brought anything revolutionary to the table. They are into everything from TVs, to webstreaming, to PDAs to the most current one which was a headline on this website

https://www.techspot.com/story17177.html

We have gone over this before with intel but for a change how about you get something revolutionary that AMD has done that intel did not do first and give some links to support what you say

Microsoft gave Intel the finger and AMD the thumbs up for a reason. MS has adopted AMD's 64bit technology because it is a superior technology to Intel's former.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,52965,00.asp

Microsoft 64 bit OS for Intel's Itanium date Aug 2001, dont think its a coincidence that windows 64 bit version is coming out right when intel released their 64 bit enabled chip. Intel and microsoft are sleeping in the same bed for years. Microsoft is a business and not a "lets see which is a better chip" contest. If you were microsoft would you support the mainstream company or a company that is trying to get a hold of the marketshare. If microsoft gave intel the finger then they would have released a 64 bit version for AMD when AMD64 was released almost two years back but notice how they had the capability to release an OS 64 bit for intel (for people that say they were not ready or still in development).

If you dont believe me go to the official microsoft website just type in intel for search and notice how many microsoft and Intel releases they got and type in amd and see how many they have:

For intel:

http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?view=en-us&st=b&na=82&qu=intel

For AMD:

http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?st=b&na=88&View=en-us&qu=amd

As long as intel has control over the marketshare it will be stupidity for microsoft to give intel the finger.

The 6xx series cannot be compared to the single-core Athlon64s. When dual core A64s are released later this year, then we will compare .

Thats not dual core buddy, its the intel processor with 64 bit extensions just like AMD64 the one that i am talking about above.

A companies "superiority" over the market has nothing to do with the quality of their products. You can easily outsell a product with excellent marketing. If you take a marketing class or are in marketing this is one of the common knowledge rules you live by.

If you were a salesman, you would attempt to sell your product by either lying about your product, or shedding light on only the good qualitys of that product.

On the other hand totally ignore the good/bad and take Intel's approach. Make a "neat" looking commercial, which is funny in some ways (mainly cause its kind of ridiculous) and appeals to 99% of consumers that watch television.

I agree with you if you take a marketing class this is one of the most common rules to live by, so are you blaming intel for doing a good job marketing their business or are you blaming AMD for skipping marketing class.
And you are right with everything else on your post except:

By the way, Soul does know what he is talking about. I've not met a single person that has proved him wrong in anything he has ever said, so I would take what he says pretty seriously.

I am sure he knows his stuff but i guess he is not updated on the pentium 4 6XX processor.

Even though he is a ****wad. HAHA Soul.

I am sure he is a good guy. hahhaaha. :wave:

 

[linuxcorex]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcorex
AMD has NEVER brought anything revolutionary, because they simply reverse engineer all intels ideas.
perhaps this was true for the mid-90's but not in 2005. i'm sure soul harvester will have something more specific to contribute."


yeah, congrats they came up with a few new instruction sets! lol thats not engineering, its programming. I agree with you, AMD is moving more toward engineering their own things then they were in the mid 90's, but they are still mocking intel. Maybe in 5-10 more years they wont, but i doubt it. With all the new things intel has been cooking up. BringingHeat is on the same page. He actually follows the news.

 

[Justin]

Nothing revolutionary to the table in along time? How about dual core dies, and just a resent breakthrough with the 9 laser processor, and how about the optical processor design? AMD has NEVER brought anything revolutionary, because they simply reverse engineer all intels ideas. About MS adopting AMD 64bit technology... is that why MS waited 2 years to come out with a 64bit operating system.. If you didn't know, Intel and microsoft are basically like a family.

1) Intel did not pioneer dual-core processors. You are mistaken in this. IBM and Motorala were way ahead of the game in this. Both AMD and Intel laid out roadmaps for dual core processors at essentially the same time, and both are using completely different methods to accomplish this. Read the 8xx whitebook from intel.

2) AMD does not "Reverse engineer all intels ideas.". 3DNow, 3DNow+, PowerNow, CNQ, PAE, and many other technologies were pioneered by AMD. Including, among those listed, AMD64. The only time AMD ever reverse engineered Intel reference was with the x86 3rd and 4th generation, and partly the K5.

3) Microsoft is not "waiting". Microsoft has had an open beta for Windows XP 64 for a long time that was freely downloadable by anyone. AMD is a pioneer and took a great risk with A64. That risk has turned around to be very good for them. AMD, for the first time, was able to out-bid Intel in a market.

 

[Justin]

And BringinHeat: I was referring to the 8xx line. Don't blast me for a typo. Also, Microsoft has cancelled future support for the Itanium. Guess what, you aren't up to date!

 

[linuxcorex]

1) Look in the news kid, Intel announced theirs, then 2 months later AMD Announced theirs with basically the same design. This happens for about everything they do. Intel is into just about everything you could think of with microprocessors, AMD is still just doing PCs.

2) All you can name is instruction sets.

3) If you cannot see the relation than its pointless to even speak. Yes they had the Windows XP 64 Beta out for quite sometime, but do you think any consumer is going to dl the beta, specially if there computers contains some valuable data. There are tons of things wrong with the beta BTW. MS has put no effort up until this last quarter to get Win XP 64 done, becuz intel announced theirs. AMD and pioneer cant be in the same sentence, sorry try again. The only thing AMD has pioneered is the last 64bit processor design.

 

[zephead]

i think it's safe to say we will all know whether this speculation is correct after the smithfield launch and this dual-core athlon we've all heard so much about.

Intel is into just about everything you could think of with microprocessors

that goes without saying.

 

[BringinHeat]

And BringinHeat: I was referring to the 8xx line. Don't blast me for a typo. Also, Microsoft has cancelled future support for the Itanium. Guess what, you aren't up to date!

1) i did not BLAST you infact i started with

I am sure he knows his stuff

and merely said that you mite not be up to date about the 6XX processor i could have really went to town on that but i chose to remain classy and professional about things.

2) I know microsoft has stopped supporting Itanium2 the link was mainly to show that they had made a 64 bit OS for intel two years before AMD64 came out with.

3) Beta software is called beta software for a reason. Would you say that it is available for the masses just because a few people have it in beta with until recently no programs or drivers to support said software, i dont think so. And if you do come up with something please come up with something and average person can use and not a real tech software that half the population has never heard of. They had issues surfing the net on 64bit edition beta.

4) You say intel didnt come out with anything revolutionary when i gave you all those links not to mention all the other things they have done that have not come through or are still in development and all you had for me was instruction sets and even the AMD 64 they had to have numerous delays before they finally were able to release it.

Please give respect to a company when respect is due. Intel has done far more revolutionary things not only in processors but for technology itself.

I am willing to admit that Amd may have a better chip in the retail market rite now because it is something that they have earned.

Dont let your hate for a company downplay its achievements.If you choose to quote this line PLEASE HAVE LINKS TO SUPPORT YOUR ANSWER because anyone can come up with things from the top of their heads and not know that it was innovated somewhere else first AND HAVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN INSTRUCTION SETS we are talking about hardware or technology here and not who is the better programmer.

And BringinHeat: I was referring to the 8xx line. Don't blast me for a typo.

5) that wasnt A TYPO because:

doesn't look at all like the winchester is 'destroying' the prescott. the tests don't even include intel's latest 6xx series.

And your response to his thread

The 6xx series cannot be compared to the single-core Athlon64s. When dual core A64s are released later this year, then we will compare.

Takes a big man to admit that they did not know, there is so much going on in computers that none of us can keep track of everything.

However if intel had done the above you would have accused them of corporate trickery. :knock:

 

[linuxcorex]

well said.

 

[Justin]

Instruction sets are hardware. They are heavy R&D'ed patented hardware.


I never said Intel has done nothing revolutionary. I said in the recent past, they haven't. Because it is true. They have actually gone a step backwards in processor development by doing nothing beyond increasing the P4's pipeline length, resulting in nothing more than a faster clock speed. It isn't until the last year that Intel has gone along with the rest of the pack in that "clock speed doesn't mean that much"


" 1) Look in the news kid, Intel announced theirs, then 2 months later AMD Announced theirs with basically the same design. This happens for about everything they do. Intel is into just about everything you could think of with microprocessors, AMD is still just doing PCs."

Wrong. AMD's dual core specification calls for a far different design than Intel's. It is a unique solution, like both Intel and AMD have. But neither of them are "Revolutionary" here, and Intel is not bringing anything new to the table.

"2) I know microsoft has stopped supporting Itanium2 the link was mainly to show that they had made a 64 bit OS for intel two years before AMD64 came out with."

And SUN has had a 64bit OS for years before this. So what? The Itanium was a horrible processor that was largely unsupported. Microsoft never had a desktop OS for the Itanium, and they never will. The fact Microsoft cancelled it shows alone how much Intel was "innovating". They were reashing old garbage and it bit them back.




---------


"4) You say intel didnt come out with anything revolutionary when i gave you all those links not to mention all the other things they have done that have not come through or are still in development and all you had for me was instruction sets and even the AMD 64 they had to have numerous delays before they finally were able to release it.

Please give respect to a company when respect is due. Intel has done far more revolutionary things not only in processors but for technology itself.

I am willing to admit that Amd may have a better chip in the retail market rite now because it is something that they have earned.

Dont let your hate for a company downplay its achievements.If you choose to quote this line PLEASE HAVE LINKS TO SUPPORT YOUR ANSWER because anyone can come up with things from the top of their heads and not know that it was innovated somewhere else first AND HAVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN INSTRUCTION SETS we are talking about hardware or technology here and not who is the better programmer."



Oh lord.


I do not hate Intel.

I never said I hated Intel.

I have intel processors in my home.

I do not badmouth Intel because of hate.

AMD has the better chip because they have better developed the technology

Intel has the better marketing

I respect both companies equally.

Intel has not done anything noteworthy for nearly four years. When the 8xx hits the market along with a higher-scaled DDR2, I may sing a different tune. But not yet.

And if you honestly believe instruction sets are not noteworthy, you really are out of place and need to learn a little more. Hardware instruction sets ARE the processor. The ALU and FPU are composed of nothing more than predefined arrays of transistors designed to execute a small set of specific instructions. It is this HARDWARE that determines how advanced and how useful a processor is.


Arguing with you is pointless because you defy logic to its face. It is obvious you do not know as much as you think you know.

 

[BringinHeat]

1)When you asked for revolutionary innovations by intel i gave you among other things USB, PCI, ETHERNET, IEEE 802.11 which are all standards in todays computing world and i asked you to do the same for AMD irregardless of time frame.

You give me 3DNow, 3DNow+, PowerNow, CNQ, PAE. I never said instruction sets are not noteworthy but compared to what i have given to you above you have to admit they are not as revolutionary as you hail them to be.

2)You tell me that Itanium is a horrible processor and no one supports it.

I give you worlds top 500 supercomputers off which 16.8% are itanium 2s and Intel is 63.6% in the systems listed above and 54.7% in performance, the numbers above are valid till June 2005. Here is a link to what i said so you know i am not just coming up with this stuff:

http://www.top500.org/lists/2004/11/charts.php?c=9

3) Twice i have caught you red handed giving out the wrong info:

a)Once when you mistook the 6XX processor for a 8XX processor

b) And then blatantly lying saying that it was a typo on your part when it clearly wasnt.

And twice i have let you slide without personally attacking you or your knowledge of computers thinking you to be a mature professional person who can express their opinions about things without personal attacks.

where as you on the other hand:

Arguing with you is pointless because you defy logic to its face. It is obvious you do not know as much as you think you know.

Guess what, you aren't up to date!

I have backed all my information with links that support everything i write whereas you have yet to come up with anything.

I dont want this to get into a personal attack melee here so i am just going to leave this thread and not post on this again feel free to use any personal attacks against me i dont mind taking the higher road.

I for one respect your opinion and your knowledge and i agree with alot of what you say just because we have a difference of opinion about certain things does not mean we should start acting like middle school kids.

Peace see you all around the forum :wave:

 

[Justin]

1)When you asked for revolutionary innovations by intel i gave you among other things USB, PCI, ETHERNET, IEEE 802.11 which are all standards in todays computing world and i asked you to do the same for AMD irregardless of time frame.

Ding 1. Intel did not develop USB. IT was developed by more than one company, and in fact there are actually THREE standards for USB that exist today in new motherboards. As for "ethernet", sorry again, that was not an independant development.

2)You tell me that Itanium is a horrible processor and no one supports it.

I give you worlds top 500 supercomputers off which 16.8% are itanium 2s and Intel is 63.6% in the systems listed above and 54.7% in performance, the numbers above are valid till June 2005. Here is a link to what i said so you know i am not just coming up with this stuff:

Excuse me? Is this serverspot.com ? We are PC enthusiasts, desktop PC enthusiasts. If you want to argue "OH WOW INTEL HAS SOME OBSCURE SERVER FARM THAT IS FASTER", you're at the wrong board. Itanium is crap. No one here would need an itanium, and itanium for the desktop would be, well, crap.

3) Twice i have caught you red handed giving out the wrong info:

a)Once when you mistook the 6XX processor for a 8XX processor

b) And then blatantly lying saying that it was a typo on your part when it clearly wasnt.

No, I made a typo. Get over it.

And twice i have let you slide without personally attacking you or your knowledge of computers thinking you to be a mature professional person who can express their opinions about things without personal attacks.

where as you on the other hand:

I have backed all my information with links that support everything i write whereas you have yet to come up with anything.

I dont want this to get into a personal attack melee here so i am just going to leave this thread and not post on this again feel free to use any personal attacks against me i dont mind taking the higher road.

I for one respect your opinion and your knowledge and i agree with alot of what you say just because we have a difference of opinion about certain things does not mean we should start acting like middle school kids.

Peace see you all around the forum :wave:

You can do whatever you want, it doesn't make you right. This is not 1999, this is not serverspot.com, and we were never debating the merits of AMD. Bye.

 

[bwchato]

the day Intel smokes AMD hell will be frozen

 

[bwchato]

Intel is a pain and to expensive

 

[Didou]

I think this thread has gone way beyond the question in the original post.