Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can someone explain in detail please.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 17, 2006 5:08:36 AM

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.

thx

More about : explain detail

February 17, 2006 5:46:39 AM

ok since i am an amd fanboy and i do have an amd bias heres a neutral party link to mad mod mikes post explaining it all!
February 17, 2006 5:48:34 AM

and since you asked so nicely i wont turn this into a flame war ill keep my bias to my self ok
Related resources
February 17, 2006 6:29:08 AM

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.
February 17, 2006 6:32:26 AM

AMD is architecturally superior.

MadModMike's post is quite good :D 

To summarize:

AMD is better in these respects:

0. HyperTransport

1. lower power consumption

2. lower heat dissipation

3. True 64bit architecture which is 25-70% faster when running 64bit code

4. in SMP the more CPUs you add the more memory bandwidth you get.


Intel encodes audio and video faster when using Intel optimized audio and video encoders, when using AMD64 audio and video encoders the AMD is better.
February 17, 2006 6:41:58 AM

I have both AMD and Intel.

I used Intel for multitasking, burning dvds and stuff.

I strickly used the AMD for gaming.
February 17, 2006 6:54:37 AM

I too have both AMD and Intel however I use 2 AMD64s for everything I do.

All my Intel machines are for backup, are retired or are for "special projects".
February 17, 2006 7:26:13 AM

There are some things you guys havent looked at.

For instance Pentium M.

I'm not an Intel fanboy by any means. AMD has a nack for making great products, then intel swoops in a takes credit. AMD's 64bit chips are a perfect example.

However right now I do believe Intel has the chance (quote CHANCE) to over take AMD with their new platform direction. We'll just have to see what happens.

Bottem line.

AMD:
Better memory performance
Cooler chips
Best bang for your buck

Intel:
Cheaper chips (retail low end wise)
Higher clock speeds
Better mobile technologies

BTW all that is just my opinion, I'm sure someone will have a completely vaild rebuttle! 8)
February 17, 2006 7:30:22 AM

haven't use x2 yet. or P 8series or 9series...

but intel for me is great in multitasking. (photoshop and vegas and many other apps)

my A64 3200+ lags on that job. but really greatt in games.
its run so cool and quiet.

my intel is sure hot but with 10 fans...


both have it's pros and cons.

AMD is cheaper to bulid here.

nevermind the bandwagon. it depends on what suites you and your needs.
February 17, 2006 7:36:49 AM

AMD is still vastly better in 64bit mode.

AMDs are 25-70% faster when running 64bit code, particularly under Linux.

XP 64 and 2003 64 are so buggy that they are keeping the AMD64s from performing even better.
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2006 3:29:21 AM

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.
February 18, 2006 5:39:59 AM

Hey Linux.

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.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2006 5:54:13 AM

I'm not worried about 64-bitness right now, just heat, power, and performance. If I can get similar performance at 1/3 the heat and power, I'll game.
February 18, 2006 6:24:17 AM

Quote:
I'm not worried about 64-bitness right now, just heat, power, and performance. If I can get similar performance at 1/3 the heat and power, I'll game.



AMD64 consumes less energy, dissipates less heat, matches or beats Intel performance in most benchmarks, has OBMC, NUMA and other advantages AND it performs 25-70% better in 64bit mode.

Granted most people are not going to benefit from 64bit performance until they switch to a 64bit OS that works.

My FC4 x86_64 system does benefit however :D 
February 18, 2006 6:38:22 AM

Quote:
but intel for me is great in multitasking

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)
!