Slashdot Mirror
Intel Core 2 Duo Vs. AMD AM2
ThinSkin writes, "ExtremeTech has an extensive performance roundup across the entire line of Intel Core 2 Duo and AMD AM2 CPUs, from the cheap to the ultra-high end. Both companies bring five processors to the table, ranging from $152 to $1,075, with the mid-range CPUs boasting the best in price/performance. From the article: 'It's clear that Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup offers superior performance across the product line when compared with AMD's Athlon 64. In some applications, even a lower-cost Core 2 Duo can outperform some of the higher-end Athlon 64s.'" The ExtremeTech article is spread over 10 ad-laden pages. You can read it all on the printer-friendly page, but you'll miss out on the pretty graphs.
:-) crypto benches.
Seems core2 is closer to Opteron but not quite there.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
The last Intel processor I bought for home use was a P2. I recently purchased a Core 2 Duo 6400 and I am *so happy* with it. As discussed at this article:
8 02
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2
The Core 2 Duos are tremendously and easily overclockable. I upped my performance 25% by changing the FSB from 266 to 333. While this sounds like a significant overclock, for the Core 2 Duo it is actually rather conservative. You juse switch to DDR-667 memory. I'm using the stock Intel cooler and my chips are running just fine temperature wise. People who are more ambitious are going for 400+. When you combine the inherent performance and value in the line with the ease of significant overclocking, AMD isn't even in the same ball game anymore.
Evolution: love it or leave it
I agree. Everyone should be happy to see both pushing each other.
Actually when you calculate performance per dollar, it is closer than most think right now. This article is comparing a $200 Intel processor to a $150 AMD processor. When you compare the $200 AMD to the $200 Intel, not only are they neck-and-neck, but in certain benchmarks, the AMD comes out on top.
Imagine that.
Perhaps those that read articles and think for themselves will see such things. Those that only read headlines and troll won't.
Intel does have a very good processor line on their hands with the Core Duo 2. Even the AMD fans admit that. No one has said otherwise. It is the Intel fans who refused to acknowledge how far they were behind for 4 years. Now both are striving to be the top-dog. AMD claims they will be the best with the 4x4 line soon, and no doubt Intel will respond with a new line of their own.
Meanwhile performance is going up considerably, and prices down at the same time. I built my AMD 3000 system two years ago, and I can't believe what you can build now for the same price.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
This is Slashdot. The GP, I and probably a lot of other readers who are not average users care about performance in 64-bit mode. See, for example, I write 64-bit assembly code optimized for AMD processors. So far I have never had the chance to evaluate a Core 2 CPU. So, like the GP, I would like to see 64-bit benchmarks of Core 2 CPUs. Is it so hard to understand ?
Core2duo processors seem very attractive - nobody can deny that. HERE you can find Tom's Hardware benchmarks of Core2Duo against AMD processors.
However, another interesting thing is that Intel is very open source friendly. Intel's new top of the line graphics adapters (found on some core2duo motherboards) have _FULLY_ open source Linux drivers! That is a _BIG_ thing! You can find more information HERE. Imagine! Now you can have fully open source OS without any binary drivers messing up your system. These on board graphics adapters are also very fast and capable, so it's a big thing to many of us.
While it is true that you can buy any chip you can imagine in a server, the original poster gave me the impression that he/she wanted a cheap solution with a simple chip-on-a-board (ala PegasOS). Unfortunately, the money is in complete systems tied in with services, so that's the last thing you'll catch IBM selling.
And sure, IBM's chips are popular in consoles, but that's mostly because IBM is the only major chip house that will offer to develop custom chip designs. The game console companies help fund the R&D bill and sign-on for some minimum initial shipment, and IBM makes some money. IBM takes existing core logic and pieces it together to optimize performance for consoles, and out pops a new chip design.
But there's a good reason IBM has time for game consoles: IBM doesn't have NEARLY the sales volume of AMD, let alone Intel. AMD doesn't have time for custom chips because they have enough trouble just meeting market demand for their x86 products. They are shooting for 100 million chips next year once their new fab ramps up, and Intel is shooting for 300 million. IBM, by contrast, will sell only 3-20 million chips per-console, per-year, depending on popularity, and those sales rise and fall periodically as consoles get introuced and mature. Even with all three consoles in their pockets, don't expect IBM to sell more then 30 million per-year.
I don't really see what the attraction is to small-market chips like CELL anyway. My prediction on the subject has already come true: way back when IBM announced the CELL, I predicted that by the time it was released, the PC market would have a similar-performance chip on-offer.
With Intel's release of the quad-core Core2 products later this year (Clovertown), my prediction becomes reality. With 2x128-bit SIMD units per core (for a total of 8 128-bit units per chip), Clovertown is capable of the same performance levels as Cell. AMD's K8L, due out next year, is expected to boast similar performance levels.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Yes, AMD's pressure has pushed Intel to make a lot of changes for the better.
AMD's 386DX 40 Mhz pushed Intel to release faster 486 chips...otherwise Intel would have ridden their overpriced 486DX 33 forever.
AMD and Cyrix produced Pentium clones which pushed Intel and forced them to reduce prices.
AMD's push to revive Socket 7 (Super 7) with the introduction of the 100 MHz bus and the K6-2 forced Intel to release the Mendocino Celeron. With on-die cache, it was one of the best budget gaming processors ever released. The K6-2's "3D-Now!" instruction set forced Intel to finally admit that MMX was a failure, and release an addentum in 1999 with SSE.
AMD saved us from the hot, expensive, high-latency world that is Rambus. Without AMD pushing the industry-standard PC-133 SDRAM and later DDR SDRAM, Intel would have made Rambus the defacto desktop memory standard.
Fast-forward to today: AMD has been at parity or better for years, and it has slowed their improvements. After the cancelation of the K9 project, AMD sat on its ass, just releasing small improvements for K8. But now, with Conroe wiping the floor, AMD has to get back in gear, and is releasing K8L next year.
It's the way of the business. When you're on-top, you tend to stagnate.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.