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.'"
The best price/performance deal is the $146 AMD 3000 chip.
It is an amazing little bugger that can git er done with ease but does not cost and arm + leg.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
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
Or, put another way, the bottom-of-the-line AMD 3800+ is less than 1/3rd the price of the top-of-the-line Pentium 840 EE ($328 vs. $999), yet it still beats it in most of the benchmarks.
Too bad they didn't compare the Pentium D 830 in the benchmarks - this is closer in price to the AMD 3800+
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Coral Cache Link of the entire article in Print View
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
Isn't this like the fourth time we've seen a Xeon-vs-AMD benchmark on the front page? It's old news.
The problem with the Xeons is they're totally throttled. The Xeon was like a V-6 engine under a VW carburetor; the dual-core Xeon is like a big-block V8 under the same carburetor.
The AMDs have better access to RAM and better (independent) cross-CPU communication. The dual-core Xeons were clearly rushed to market to answer AMD's offering, before Intel could get their own memory-access ducks in a row.
That is why I told everyone the best chip overall based on VALUE.
5 5&cid=13952965
You can get a brand new chip that is almost as fast as any other chip in the world, but at the PERFECT sweet spot in terms of price/performance.
Information here in my first post above that ironically 1 person modded off-topic in a thread about the best consumer processors: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1673
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
zdnet is usually fairly good, but not this time.
A kernel compiled for a single CPU is faster than a kernel compiled for multipe CPU's, even when you only have one CPU. This is why OpenBSD has two kernels: 1) one cpu and 2) multpiple CPU's. The main developer of DragonBSD said that his preference is single CPU, performance wise (I'll leave that as a Google exercise).
- Cheap
- Fast
- Low power consumption
Pick any two.On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
The result of troll incest is quite amusing.
Like most people, I will wait it out until the dual-core chips / products are stable and less expensive.
Not everyone is playing Quake 4 and Half-Life 2 on a daily basis.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
You must be new here...
Ahh the AMD wins overall in performance but can it cook make me a sunny side up egg as fast as the intel :P
GL HF!
I read somewhere recently that 'more watts used' = 'more powerful'
Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
What the hell is this doing in a discussion about processors?!
You don't get the joke. Re-read the message a few times slowly.
hint: try forming words out of every X letters. It's brilliant.
Trolling is a art,
"The Intel vs AMD battle of the benchmarks continues."
AMD has pretty much trounced Intel performance at every desktop and server pricepoint for the last 2 years at least, so who cares anymore? Even Dell has started carrying AMD CPU parts:
http://tinyurl.com/c57po
Dell is pretty much singlehandedly holding up Intel on the desktop, as they can drive the overall system price down on volume despite the higher-priced parts.
If their little Israel division hadnt come up with their M chips they'd even be worse off.
Huh? No reason you can't use Intel's compiler for AMD64 it if you like the code it generates (AMD64 supports SSE/SSE2).
/ eng/compilers/clin/220007.htm
Intel themselves even point out that their compiler supports AMD.
http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na
Incidently gcc 4.0 does automatic loop vectorization using SSE/SSE2, so I wouldn't dismiss it too quickly either.
The ultimate multi-core processor technology is VLIW (or EPIC as INTEL calls it). The cores are broken up into lots of tiny pieces, instructions are distributed through various pipes and run through whatever is available in parallel. The Itanium processor is Intel's EPIC problem child. Too complex, too much heat. Maybe it is just a bit too early for this technology. I think Intel could try to start a "mobile" Itanium project. They were quite successful with their Pentium M. Maybe that will give Intel an advantage. ;-)
Or, Intel designs a dual-Alpha processor to beat AMD, but that sounds not like Intel, does it? Someone at AMD who might like the idea?
Your PC may have Intel inside, but did you know that Intel's fabs have VMS and Alpha inside?
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).
AMD-optimized compilers are available from PathScale and AMD, but AMD processors will run Intel-optimized code pretty well anyway.
That's why you install two hard drives to match the dual cores - then you run the antivirus/spyware scanner on the one that you're not using - i.e. the one without your OS and programs.
Why? Unless you write your code in assembler (or you have some kind of irrational preference for a particular endianness), you'll never tell the difference between instruction set architectures. The only user-observable or programmer-observable difference between CPUs is speed, and x86 is faster.
Call me old school, but back in the day when 283, 386, 486, Pentium, P2, and P3, I always praised Intel for their products over AMD in regards to performance and stability. Of course, nothing lasts forever. Which is really sad when you think about it. Nothing hurts an Intel Fanboy like myself then to see lackluster performace and innovation from the the very company that started the x86 momentum in the industry.
Times have changed. It's time I started drop my "trust" and "faith" and start going with AMD this time around. Clearly, they are the leaders in innovation this time.
Life is not for the lazy.
By my calculations, the power difference between the Intel and AMD will make up the difference in the chip prices in about a month of continuous operation, at lease for Seattle electric rates (~$0.06/kWh)...
Oh well, Dell can easily ride it out - they probably make majority of their money off ordinary computer users who don't know any better and have no clue what this "AMD" thing is.
Okay. According to this page, at full-tilt the Pentium D 820 consumes 130.6W, while this page says the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ consumes 89W. So, how long would the Opteron have to run at full blast to make up the difference in cost of $87? Last month I paid $0.078 per kilowatt-hour. This seems to be reasonably average for the United States. 130.6W - 89W = 41.6W difference between the two. Some back of the Google-calculator math reveals: (US$ 87) / (41.6 W * ((US$ 0.078) / (kW * Hr))) = 3.05871582 years. A not-insignifigant amount of time. If you're in an area where electricity is more expensive like New York or California, the amount of time is even less!
Feel free to correct my math!
Um There is no good reason to buy intel over amd.
= 10
= 10
? i=2484&p=13
? i=2456&p=9
1 /1/
Opteron(server):
"
The choice today is clear. In 2-way configurations, the Opteron is a much more powerful and capable web server than Intel?s Xeon. "
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1935&p
"In a 4-way configuration AMD's Opteron cannot be beat, and thus it is our choice for the basis for our new Forums database server."
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1982&p
Athlon 64/FX/X2 (Home/workstation):
"The choice is clear - the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is better in every way than the Pentium D 830. For Intel's sake in the enthusiast community, Conroe had better be very competitive next year - because ever since Prescott, the Pentium 4 has been an utter disappointment."
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx
"There may be some corporation or individual who absolutely must have single core performance at all costs. In that situation, the FX-57 is the fastest option and the best fit."
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx
AMD Turion 64 (mobile)
"In most categories, the Turion meets or exceeds Pentium M?s performance at a lower price point"
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/articles/42/
Whoa? What's that? EVIDENCE that shows it's not worth buying intel on the basis of performance ever. INTEL does not have the performance crown. AMD processors do perform better, at a lower price point, and do consume less power and thus cost less to own over time (important for the server space).
Intel desktop processors cost more money, are slower, and use more heat.
right now AMD > INTEL
You mean it wouldn't perform well on real-world floating point applications then? Like SPEC fp 2000?
Spec fp 2000 results
Oh, I dunno, I think those AMD results look pretty good...
It's also worth noting that Intel's marketing machine has been an enormous success. For many average-joe computer users, AMD is in the same category as Linux and Firefox -- something nerds get excited about, but (they think) will destroy their computer or break the intarnets.
Even some of the more tech-savvy people I've run into aren't aware that an AMD will be essentially transparent to the user, except in that it has historically been more bang for the buck, especially for the gamer. And even when you tell them of a personal preference for AMD, or certain AMD chips, for whatever reason, the vast majority will still assume that since everybody (even Apple, soon) has "Intel inside," Intel is the way to go. Even if you convince them that AMD is a processor and not some kind of nerd voodoo magic, they won't be compelled to switch unless a computer salesman tells them it's cheaper and better while they're at the store.
By way of analogy: Every time I see a Dodge commercial for some HEMI-powered truck, I think "Oooh, it's got a HEMI. That must mean it's better than my poor HEMI-less Chevy." Do I know what the hell HEMI even means? Not at all. Which is why I'll have to ask one of my car-nut friends if I ever (god forbid) truck shopping. It's pure marketing and name recognition. People trust Intel becuase they think it makes the world go round. AMD is some communist revolutionary nerd chip from hell. (OK, that's exagerrating. But you get the idea.)
He's got thirteen channels of wrestling
Comin' in strong from a satellite send
A two hundred function remote control
Big screen TV with stereo
Football, baseball, nascar too
With picture in a picture it's all in view
And if it comes on just a little too late
With his VCR's he'll get it on tape.
He's a high-tech redneck
Mayberry meets Startrek
He's a bumpkin' but he's plugged in
He's a high-tech redneck.
--- Instrumental ---
He's got twenty sub-woofers in the back of his truck
A thousand watts of power and he keeps it cranked up
He ain't into hip hop, he ain't into rap
He likes to rattle them speakers with Ronnie Milsap
CD cassette digital tape, CB radar and scannin' short wave
And if he needs to talk to his honey at home
He just dials up her number on his cellular phone
He's a high-tech redneck
Mayberry meets Startrek
He's a bumpkin' but he's plugged in
He's a high-tech redneck.
He's a high-tech redneck
Mayberry meets Startrek
He's a bumpkin' but he's plugged in
He's a high-tech redneck...
AMD comes out on top quite rightfully but actually neither of these processors offers good value for, perhaps, the majority of all computer buyers. A great deal of what folks do - word processing, surfing, email, etc - can be done very well on a p3, a Mac Mini or even a Via Epia combo. The trend to bigger is better has simply landed people with behemoth-sized machines that are expensive to buy and run and messy to maintain.
It's also allowed free rein to OS bloat. And 1001 WinDel reviewers who'll gladly tell us that we really must have that 5-litre SUV to run the kids a couple of miles to school. That said, if you do need this kind of power then imho AMD's current chips offer a superb solution, but it's not for everyone.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
With all this new hardware, the case is 10deg cooler than when I had a P4 in there, off the same 500W power supply. I was still buying P4s when all my buddies had screaming AMD boxes, and I could not keep up in either Battlefield 2 or just recently in Call of Duty 2. I wasted a lot of time (and watts) sticking with Intel trying to cool their CPUs, but never again unless they take back the power/performance/price curve from AMD.
I aint holding my breath for that to happen.
Unfortunately, it seems that AMD still has several stability issues to solve...
I have run both AMD and Intel for years. I have 2 dead Intel processor/mobo - one is even a Intel PERL mobo! I usually retire my AMD processors because they get old, not because they fail. In fact, I have yet to have one die prematurely.
Since my last P4 2.4 HT on a PERL mobo gave up working one month out of warranty I was well - now a AMD kind of person. (I admit, I don't know if it was proc or mobo, but both were Intel). Given AMD is less power and faster, an AMD 64 X2 is my primary consideration for my next PC.
Mind you, if you work for Dell that does not sell Linux or AMD in North America I can understand the bias.
Sometimes they're faster.
How can this be?
Context switching between threads expensive in terms of cycles on a microprocessor. A second processor can cut down immensely on context switching - or even virtually eliminate it when only two threads are active.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The thing that bothers me about all these reviews is they fail to mention that the Intel processors need (more expensive) DDR2 memory versus DDR for AMD. If one is going to compare prices of the processors, the cost of the faster memory required by should be included in the price of their processor. Also note, that when AMD comes out with Socket M2 processors, which support DDR2, then they should benchmark even faster.
Realize that all there will be left in 5 years is x86... everything else will be reduced to a niche market.
The promise of VLIW never materialized. Inherently, it was made to simplify CPU design and push off complexity into the compiler. Of course, it's really frickin' hard to make your compiler output really nice VLIW code. Itanium and other VLIW machines, rely on this to run well. It's not going to happen.
Intel's advantage is that is has superior manufacturing vs AMD (plus marketing). Intel will get it's advantage back once the Pentium M architecture is ported across their entire CPU line.
Its the ones who know a little too much who are stupid.
I've never had a problem recommending AMD systems to non-techies. All they want to know is whether it has Windows, so they usually buy the AMD system on my word with no guff.
OTOH the last programming job I had, I was given the task of shopping for all-new replacement systems for myself and 5 others. I was told I should stick with IBM because purchasing dept. does those in volume. So after shopping a while on IBMs site, I decided it would be nice to stop staring at bubble-screens and get the more costly Flat CRTs instead. (This was circa 1999.) Lo, IBM had some less-expensive Athlons that would fit the bill and let me stay within budget with the flat 19" screens we all desired.
Now get this: Two co-workers who comprised the VB/Access contingent asked me why "Intel" could not be found in the system description, and when I explained they said they would not agree to any system which might be 'incompatible' with Windows! And here was IBM itself, selling the system with Windows preinstalled! So because of two bozo 'programmers', who were being oh-so-discerning, we bought the Intel-with-bubble-srcreen setups and just lived with the eyestrain.
As it happens, I never saw fit to purchase Intel after that.
AMD hasn't consistenly offered better CPUs at a better price.
Back when they were lagging in the performance race, with the early XP line (Palomino) versus the P4 (Northwood), AMD was trying hard just to keep up. They priced their processors typically 20% below equivilant-performing Intel processors.
AMD also had a pathetic platform for the server space, which consisted of (at most) a 2-way Athlon MP system utilizing a single 266MHz bus. The only chipset available, the AMD 761MP, wasn't exactly a top performer.
Keep in mind: back in 2001, AMD had ZERO server presence. Now they own 10% of the server market, and they are a popular choice for supercomputing cluster projects. Most of that has come since the release of the Opteron. You can only grow so fast...10%, given the Opteron has only been out for 2.5 years, is quite impressive.
These days, AMD's average selling price has gone way up, and their sales have also been growing impressively, which is why the company has posted their first profitable quarters in years. And AMD is poised to grow dramatically in the next few years as Fab 35 ramps up, more than doubling their current production capacity.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
I'd guess quantity.
Intel probably has the infrastructure to handle the increase of production created by Apple prodcuts, or at least appears to.
AMD might be able to handle the load, but Apple probably don't want to risk it. They've been burned twice already in the last few years by companies that couldn't keep up with the needed quantity or speed increases. While AMD would definately be able to handle the speed increases Apple is probably worried they'll buy another dry well.
Do I know what the hell HEMI even means?
Yeah, it means that the combustion chamber is hemispherical - woo. If you go truck shopping, reliability will likely be a bigger issue. As an aside, do ricer rednecks stick HEMI stickers on their 1/4 ton toyota trucks?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Why wait?
The term 'Hemi' is short for 'hemispherical', which describes the shape of the cylinder head's combustion chamber. From Wikipedia:
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
I don't think it's so much that Intel's chips are throttled. The X2 3800+ uses PowerNow, and so it too throttles back and drops voltage down when idle.
I believe the real story goes back to earlier architecture choices Intel and AMD made with the P4 and original Athlon chips.
AMD decided for SMP ops it would be better to design the link between CPU and chipset with a star topology, so each CPU gets its own comm lines.
Intel chose to stick to the simpler bus topology for SMP ops, which reduced motherboard complexity and simplified chip design.
This still applies into the dual-core arena, although everything is moved on die. Intel's cores talk to the system on a bus, meaning that under load bus contention creates a bottleneck as each core tries to move data around. On the AMD platform, each core can talk independently, and contention issues are minimized.
Worse still, some Intel chip designs examined on tomshardware show they tom's calls: double-core, where two separate cpu cores are mounted on the same chip carrier, rather than having two cores as one die. This means that cheaper CPUs can be made because the dies are smaller, but each die much be matched so that they'll run well together under a common heat spreader. And again, their sharing data lines.
I'm too lazy to break out reference URL's for your examination, so I may have some factual errors, but I belive the general idea here is accurate.
USNG: 14TPU4605
True true, but Apple is moving away from IBM and towards x86, not towards Intel, per se. While I agree that this takes some of the sheen off the claim that its the smartest move available, its still better than sticking with PowerPC. Intel, being the bigger player in DRM here, is going to give Apple the corperate confidence factor of locking the OS on approved hardware, so its a no brainer.
So yeah, you have a point, but I think its largly moot. Apple wants to kick MS in the shins, not destroy it. Moving to Intel puts Apple in a position to put Intel in a bad spot - who do they treat preferentially? Apple isn't MS, but they still sell a shitload of machines. Hopefully, Intel has to become non-biased from an OS standpoint, and we all benifit. Meanwhile, AMD has the most to gain here; as the benifits of exclusive deals and advertising subsities for OEMS is reduced because the relationships are no longer exclusive (risk sharing, it makes any business person cream in their pants), AMD suddently has more leverage in OEM talks. Its a good time to be an OEM I think; everyone wants to be your suitor, and you're ultimately the gate keeper. AMD, on the outside looking in, gaining the critical praise, ramping up production, cheaper R&D labour, and all that, is suddenly about to be the belle of the ball.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Cool. The PC BIOS was really starting to look old. I guess people with cars that use OpenFirmware won't be able to laugh so much anymore...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News