Ok I know this is a really big thing to ask. I am trying to find answers to the question what CPU or CPU technology is better? From all that I read AMD seem to have a better CPU for most applications and a better platform (the whole FSB thing) than INTEL. There are so many different views and opinions out there. So many articles and forum threads I read are written by someone who is either AMD or INTEL bias.
Could someone explain the two technologies, and show why one CPU is better for say video editing and the other is not.
I am not asking for an INTEL AMD flame war here (there is too much of that already) I am looking for real facts so that I can understand how both technologies work from the CPU architecture to the motherboard architecture.
The simple answer. Intel chips are better optimized for, while Amd chips do the grunt work better.
You cant really say that x company's chips are going to do video editting better. You could say that Photoshop is better optimized for Intel chips. Unfortunately, that does not mean that Intel chips will work best for you in Photoshop.
Many video editing rendering progs are dual processor capable. They also are usually set up for SSE2 and or 3. Hyper threading allowed the intel chips a small edge with smp enabled progs. SSE also favored intel, because they could use the faster speed to move large chunks of data from memory, through a shortcut.
Now Amd has dual core chips available, that are much better than HT.
In SSE work, Amd's chips have been better at getting data from memory, due to the On Die Memory Controller. These two advances have leveled the field.
At this point in time, Intel has been unable to scale thier chips much, in the last two years. Amd has taken advantage of that, by making only a few advancements.
The majority of reasonable people, in the majority of forums suggest that at any given price point, an Amd chip will give better performance, and generate less heat. It is also reasonable to say that if you have adequate cooling, the Intel chips are not terrible.
They both make good processors. The main weight I put behind AMD is due to the fact that they consume 1/3 the power and produce 1/3 the heat. I really can't deal with noisy cooling solutions, nor overheated rooms.
Something people aren't seeing, and they're talking all about it, and that's the future. The future is paved with Multi-Cores and...guess what? 64-Bit! It doesn't matter if Conroe can outperform any AMD CPU in 32-bit benchmarks, because in 64-bit, current Intel CPU's perform worse! Yes, worse! (There are sites to prove this, including Intel.com saying it themselves), this is comparing a P4 in x86 vs. a P4 in x64, no AMD vs. Intel. If this has anything to say for future implementations of x64 in Intel CPU's, than it won't matter if you get a 4GHz Conroe, because it will still be beat by a 3GHz Brisbane.
I supose I will have to hunt done and kill the next person that makes this type of comment.
Intel's HT convices windows sheduler that it is dealing with 2 processors. That allows the scheduler to set priority high for 2 tasks.
You can do that manually in task manager, with an Amd chip. Then there will be little or no difference.
Photoshop makes it more dificult, since you need to set the correct exe to high priority, and photoshop is majorly optimized for Intel. ( I think they even used an Intel compiler, which slows Amd chips down)