Slashdot Mirror
Dual-Core Shoot Out - Intel vs. AMD
sebFlyte writes "The Intel vs AMD battle of the benchmarks continues. ZDNet is running its rather comprehensive-looking guide to a side-by-side test of Intel and AMD's dual-core desktop chips, the Athlon 64 X2 3200+ and the Pentium D 820. They look at pure performance, as well as the difference it makes to apps you might use on the desktop. In the end, AMD comes out as the winner. From the article: 'AMD currently offers the most attractive dual core option. The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ may cost $87 more than its Intel counterpart, the Pentium D 820, but the AMD chip is a much better performer. It also uses considerably less power.'"
It costs almost $100 more and is faster? What are the odds...
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
- Winston Churchill
Personally, I don't use dual cpus for servers because they are faster. As you say, they are not, kernel wise anyway. Dual CPUs do offer a higher availability, and the ability to crank the crud out of one cpu (compiling, etc.) while you can still get stuff done with the other. I use dual cpu VERY limited on desktop, but even then, I notice a difference in my ability to switch back and forth and start new apps, etc. while I am doing very heavy tasks.
On the server side, if a single threaded process goes haywire, instead of locking the box up, I can still log in and kill the process, no biggie. I have accidently "infinite looped" myself to death on single cpu boxes, and had to hard boot them, where on the dual, that wouldn't be an issue. That is just my experience, but I've been using dual cpus on several servers for over 6 years now. I would rather have dual 1gz than single 2.5ghz any day.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
The AMD chip is more expensive and uses less power than the Intel chip? Isn't it usually the other way around?
AMD chips have been the "low power" leaders for quite some time now -- at least 2 years. Pretty much since the introduction of the Athlon XP models.
As for the price difference -- yes, the Athlon64 X2 chips are more expensive than their Intel "counterparts", but if you look at the benchmarks or the design you'll see why -- the Intel chips are a rush job and poorly (but cheaply) designed. You don't get anywhere near the performance of the AMD design though, and Intel's already stated that this won't change until mid 2006.
Trust me, Dell is screaming bloody murder over this -- since the superiority of the Athlon64 X2 chips is completely undeniable, more and more of the server market is now shifting to AMD. And Dell is still purely Intel. Thing is, even if Dell was willing to break their allegience, it's doubtful that AMD could fulfill the quantities that Dell would want. They just don't have the fab capacity. And unless that changes, there's little reason for Dell to anger Intel (and lose some of the vast discounts that they get from Intel in the process).
The issue is that the second link is to the TDP of the X2 3800+, not the actual power consumption which will be lower than 89W, more likely 70W.
i ndex.x?pg=15
What matters is system power consumption however. CPU + Chipset + Everything Else. Of course you can test with Everything Else being the same, so it comes down to the CPU + Chipset. AMD have an on-die memory controller, so that is a couple of Watts saved over the Intel chipset, however Intel's chipsets are traditionally quite efficient (although whether or not the chipset for dual-core processors is I don't know). Best bet is to measure at the socket.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/
Under load:
Pentium D 840 uses 292W at the socket.
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ uses 178W at the socket.
Difference is 114W. Plug that into your calculator!