AMD vs Intel in 64-bit applications

[9-inch]

Well, since many fanboys (they now who they are) still believes that Intel is better than AMD in 64-bit ( :lol: :lol: :lol: ), I'll give hard evidence that will burst all their bubbles.

1) http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1860533,00.asp

In the end, AMD's implementation of x86-64 seems to be more robust than Intel's, although the results are definitely mixed. We'll need to revisit the issue as more real 64-bit applications become available. But for now, if you want to move to 64-bit Windows on dual-core processors, AMD may be the better overall solution.

2) http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982&p=1

3) http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/p4-600-64/

One thing that emerged somehow between the lines of the benchmarks is that the Athlon64 appears to be able to get more mileage out of 64-bit computing than the P4. That does not mean that the P4 fares poorly, on the contrary, a number of disciplines were taken with bravado by Intel's latest and greatest. On the other hand, the "clamshell" pattern of the Athlon64, coming in last in 32-bit and literally stepping all over the P4 in 64-bit mode shows a little bit of the difference between a processor architecture specifically developed for 64-bit computing as opposed to one that was patched to accomodate the latest developements in personal computing. Again, the P4 performs anything but poorly but we don't see that huge performance jump between 32-bit and 64-bit environments.

4) http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/08/23/windows_xp_x64/

5) http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=noconaopteron&page=5

This link from Anand's site clearly shows that AMD will plan on extending the AMD64 instruction set and also plans to include FPU extensions to it. As I stated before, Intel will have a hard time matching that since EMT64 lacks the extra registers AMD64 has from day-1.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2565

 

[CompGeek]

AMD now is better overall at desktops so?
They still are a small poor chip manufateurer.
I haven't seen anyone saying that Intel desktop chips now are better than AMD chips.
BTW just another 9-inch AMD fanboyish post.

 

[9-inch]

AMD now is better overall at desktops so?
They still are a small poor chip manufateurer.
I haven't seen anyone saying that Intel desktop chips now are better than AMD chips.
BTW just another 9-inch AMD fanboyish post.

8)

 

[MadModMike]

Even Intel themselves has stated that their CPU's in x64 environment performs worse than Intel CPU's in an x86 environment. Looking mainly at the Server level, Opteron 64 vs. Xeon 64, a 2.4GHz Opteron destroys a 3.6GHz Xeon, especially in MySQL. Under Linux x64, Opteron 64 and Athlon 64 CPU's annihilate any Intel counterpart, sometimes by over 40%. As I stated in another thread, it doesn't matter how well Conroe can do in x86, because if it lacks in x64 as is the situation with current generation Intel CPU's, AMD still has the upperhand.

As for CompGeek: AMD is a small poor chip manufacturer? You're simply referring to their money vs. Intel, am I right? And as we can see, just because you have more money, doesn't mean you can make a better chip (Opties/Athlon 64 vs Xeon/P4).

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

 

[ltcommander_data]

Warning: Long post

My question is what are you trying to prove in this post? You seem to want to compare Intel and AMD's performance in 63-bit applications, but 3 of the 5 links you provided are irrelevent.

The Anandtech article is nearly 2 years old now and does nothing to talk about 64-bit performance. Besides the Xeon they used in that comparison was an old Prestonia which I don't believe even has 64-bit support.

The Tomshardware article is similarly meaningless in this regard. It only compares the performance between the X2 4800+ and the FX-57 in 32-bit and 64-bit modes. That's hardly groundshaking evidence of Intel's poor performance.

The GamePC article is even more inconclusive. I really don't know what to make of it. The title indicates it's a 64-bit battle, but the operating system they use is Windows XP Professional with SP1. That's not even a 64-bit operating system.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=noconaopteron&page=7

You appeared to have been pulled in by the title and haven't actually read the article. The battle the GamePC article refers to isn't in 64-bit performance but in 32-bit performance of 64-bit compatible processors. They specifically say that another article would be demonstrating 64-bit performance, not this one:

We’re planning on re-visiting these processors in a future lab report with 64-bit Windows XP, Server 2003, and Linux, for a deeper look at performance and compatibility between these two processors.

Now, only ExtremeTech and LostCircuits deals directly with 64-bit performance. However, their conclusions do not to show that AMD is truly better at 64-bit than Intel processors. Both of the conclusion posts that you included indicate that AMD's architecture gains more from the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit, but it doesn't say that AMD wins decidedly in absolute performance. The LostCircuits article in particular needs to be taken with a grain of salt since it is nearly a year old and was testing Intel's initial processors with 64-bit support.

In terms of absolute performance winners, the ExtremeTech article also isn't reflective. It compares the 840EE to the X2 4800+, and I'm not ashamed in admitting that in most situations the X2 4800+ beats the 840EE. If the X2 4800+ beats the 840EE in 32-bit performance, than it isn't hard to conclude that it'll win in 64-bit as well. A more modern comparison would be between the FX-60 and the 955EE.

I haven't heard that EM64T lacks the extra registers of AMD64. If you could post a link to that fact, that would be appreciated. I seriously doubt that EM64T lacks the extra registers of AMD64 since I would think that they would be needed to fit the 64-bit code to begin with. I know EM64T lacks a few instructions, so it's possible those associated registers are missing, but not all of them. Obviously EM64T wouldn't support 3DNow! which is part of AMD64. As well, in terms of 64-bit support, both the ExtremeTech and LostCircuits reviews don't use the latest Intel processors. The B0 for the 8xx series and all Cedar Mill and Presler processors added two additional instructions to EM64T. That could be partially responsible for why Intel processors don't appear to scale as well to 64-bit.

It's good that AMD is planning on adding additional instruction sets to AMD64. However, instruction sets need to be supported by developers in order for them to be fully used. Intel will also be adding new instruction sets to Conroe although they've been tight-lipped about what they specifically are. It may be dubbed SSE4, and supposedly deal with multimedia acceleration among other things so it may be something to compete with AMD's planned FPU extensions. I believe AMD's new instruction sets are part of K8L anyways so we won't be seeing them until 2007.

The issue of whether Intel processors or AMD processors performn the best in 64-bit or gain the most going to 64-bit isn't as important right now anyways. Conroe is built on a completely different architecture than the Pentium 4s so it's 32-bit to 64-bit performance gain would be different. With absolute performance between Conroe and AM2 in 32-bit highly controversial, predictions in 64-bit are probably even more difficult.

 

[linux_0]

Here is a disk benchmark on Fedora Core 3 i386 vs. Fedora Core 3 x86_64

32bit = LEFT

64bit = RIGHT

http://spare2.com/bench/index.html

Disk bench ran on a Dual Opteron 252 with HW RAID 5 and 8 WD2500SD drives

 

[Heyyou27]

Stop posting this garbage please. My bet is you don't even use a 64-bit operating system.

 

[CompGeek]

Blah blah blah,k my mistacke
And really now,Intel needs some competition,otherwise it would hibernate in its cave.

 

[chuckshissle]

I have both AMD and Intel. I fairly believe that AMD is better in performance but as I have read an article last year that AMD earnings is not as much of that of Intel. Why is the better cpu not selling as much? Monopoly or consumer? :?

 

[CompGeek]

For a couple of reasons:
Intel has marketing and publicity
Intel dominates mobile world
Intel has reputation, so very few serious companies would choose the opteron as servers
Intel has deals with Apple, Dell, and a lot other companies.

For AMD it's almost a lost mission really,and it was like this from the start though miracles can happen.

 

[MadModMike]

wow, CompGeek, speakin' like a true Intel Fanboy, way to go! I wasn't referring to your "big fortune" (probably $10 allowance you get from mommy) but you calling AMD Poor and Small has no relevance here, because Money != Performance, and it's proven. The fact that Intel has such a grasp matters not, because AMD has already gained market share and in the Server market, runnng x64, SPEC benches alone have proven that the Xeon CPU is just so damn inferior to even that of the Pentium 4, and once business's start to see that, Opteron 64 will take it's rightful throne as the superior processor.

P.S. That "Domination" you speak of, will end with the lawsuit.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

 

[linux_0]

I can't speak on anyone's behalf but my own.

Here you go:

date; uname -a
Sat Feb 18 13:32:06 EST 2006
Linux hostname 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 #1 Thu Jun 2 22:56:33 EDT 2005 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

 

[CompGeek]

LOL that's speaking like an a**hole
Intel can easily outtech AMD. It's all coming. In 2008 Intel will dominate.
Intel takes it easy if you haven't seen this. There were always ups and downs but once Intel gets working it leaves AMD behind.
That's why this is a no win battle for AMD.
It should've been obvious that it was a missunderstanding mistacke. I don't usually attentifely read AMD fanboy posts,sry

BTW, i bet i'm a lot older than you. Being in the kindergarden does not grant you special rights you know? :lol:

 

[dvdpiddy]

how do you know that intel will beat amd huh maybe jusy maybe amd will pull a rabit out of their ass(is it hat or ass? i keep forgettin) so maybe in a few years amd will have a 3ghz sempron and it will pwen intel celeron d at the same speed

 

[MadModMike]

Hmm...The fact that you noted the age, proves that you're either young, or a very arrogant and ignorant old f*ck, age is extremely irrelevant.

The fact that you know nothing about Intel and AMD other than "INTEL PWNZ0RS! AMD SUX0RZ!" means you need to stop posting. Ever since the release of the Athlon 64, AMD has been superior (in performance) and you can't see it through your blinding Intel-ness, that further proves that you're a stupid Intel fanboy, you're worse than DVDPIDDY.

My OS

Piddy: It's hat, lol.

BTW: "attentifely" isn't a word, attentiVely, is.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

 

[chuckshissle]

Okay amd has more bus speed but why not increase the frequency to match intel's?

 

[MadModMike]

Because the amount of stages in an Athlon 64 pipeline is less than half the highest P4's (14 vs. 31 IIRC) and the smaller the pipeline, means it takes less amount of MHz to get it done and allows for low clock speeds to equal high performance, whereas a pipeline of 31-stages means it takes 31 clock cycles to get 1 command through the pipeline, and this allows higher clock speeds. I am no expert on the pipeline, I have forgotten most of my information, so if somebody knows more and can elaborate further, please do.

For a lamens definition:

Think of AMD as a Semi and Intel as a Pick-Up Truck, Intel can move alot faster, but when AMD arrives, it brings so much more.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

 

[chuckshissle]

aaahhh...I see now. I hear that AMD is going to 65nm and ddr2 ram? Does it mean Intel would counter with 45nm and ddrx? Or the battle would mainly fucos on multicore cpu's like quadros and up?

 

[MadModMike]

Intel does plan to go to 45nm, than 22nm, as well as AMD with DDR3. But we all know AMD doesn't advance quickly and the reason IMHO is because there is no point in reaching the end so quick, better to enjoy the ride with current technology and make it perform better with your CPU's.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

 

[Heyyou27]

:lol:

 

[9-inch]

My question is what are you trying to prove in this post?

Just wanted to keep someone's mouth closed for a good while. 8)

The Tomshardware article is similarly meaningless in this regard. It only compares the performance between the X2 4800+ and the FX-57 in 32-bit and 64-bit modes. That's hardly groundshaking evidence of Intel's poor performance

Because I wanted you guys to see how well the Athlon 64 sacales on ce running in a 64-bit environment compared to Intel which don't scale that much (sometimes running slower in 64-bit than 32-bit).

Here are more benchmarks that Intel's 64-bit performance is lacking against AMD offerings.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/fx60-vs-955xe/index.x?pg=3

 

[MadModMike]

And it proves that even where Intel used to shine (Encoding) it gets dropped right on it's head in performance by the FX-57 and FX-60 in x64. I don't care what people think about Conroe, we're going to see these same results from AMD and Intel in the future, IMHO.

"More clock speed means more power consumption, though, and the 4.26GHz monster system sucks up 339W under load." 50% more power than the FX-57 and 60, tisk tisk Intel.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

 

[CompGeek]

1. I'm not english and i don't really like watching my spelling unless i have to. I know english,french, my native language and bits of german. I think that's enough reason not to spell perfectly for your enjoyment.
2. Marketing and money are important, market share is the main goal for any chip manufacturer since that will bring more $$. Performance does count,but not in the way you see it. Intel can soften any of its flaws with this while AMD can't really afford a false step. If you look on the timeline AMD never actually came up with a product that wouldn't satisfy the average user . When they were down, prices were down. But AMD also can't afford many Intel breakthrus.
3. I doubt your inteligence since you started the flame war. Fanboyism is one thing,flame war is another.
4. Worse than dvd piddy? Heh, like i care! I always admitted that AMD 64 is the better chip. But that doesn't make any difference. AMD is fighting a loosing war.
5. I thought i was the most superficial poster out here,but with all that, i still think a bit of what i'm about to post . You've just taken the lead here
m8.
6. I think you're the one blinded. For you it's only AMD this and AMD that.
My posts,while sometimes lame tend to vary.
7. If you want to continue this dialogue ,please do it in a civilised manner.
I may be superficial but i still watch my language and only resort to "" when angered by not too bright people.
8. Just to annoy you more i'll continue posting intel "bull crap". I like it when people get hot on their chairs for nothing. You're taking this forum to seriously Get a life!

 

[MadModMike]

Wow...im in shock and aw. I can't believe there is somebody in this world like you, there isn't even a word to describe you....wow....you're freakin' hillarious. Everybody, give CompGeek a round of applause for being so upstanding and gentlemen like, he deserves a clap and a half! *Clap Cl* Congratulations! ,

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

 

[Schmide]

Are you Juin???