Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD>Intel not for long.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 18, 2006 11:37:07 PM

As much as i love AMD, i have to say that Intel is catching up. It is no surprise considering AMD has been in the lead for so long...but AMD is doing an excellent job keeping up with Intel's 65nm CPU's while still using 90nm.

More about : amd intel long

February 18, 2006 11:38:52 PM

So true, all good things must come to an end. We'll see how good the new Intel chips are. Should be interesting.
February 19, 2006 1:02:28 AM

It took Intel 2-3 years to catch up, thats sad. I still doubt Intel will even beat AMD in performance, and performance/value. We'll find out in time.
Related resources
February 19, 2006 1:47:20 AM

I am sure that AMD is working on thier new cpu's also
February 19, 2006 1:57:14 AM

Cant really say anything untill we see how there AM2 works out. But i think AMD is going to gain more of a lead in gaming from it though. They need to work on there Athlon 64's for mainstream users. As i do love AMD cant deny the fact that pentium 4's are just better at encoding.
February 19, 2006 2:06:39 AM

Let's take a look at how long Intel has dominated, then we can say that. :lol: 
February 19, 2006 2:29:48 AM

you wanna know my unbiased opinion? well here it goes i think that intel will have the lead over am2 when conroe comes out but i think amd will catch up shortly there after and it should be an even war for a few years until one side makes an innovation that the other cannot match
February 19, 2006 2:44:09 AM

i think i have to agree with dvdpiddy, something tells me intel is gonna be a leader for a while (maybe for few months) than amd will catch up.

this competition reminds of good old days back in 2000, you guys remember the 1ghz war.
February 19, 2006 2:53:26 AM

Quote:
As i do love AMD cant deny the fact that pentium 4's are just better at encoding

Say what? The X2s are on par with the 800/900 series for video encoding, but intel just hasn't been able to keep up at audio since the first A64s.
February 19, 2006 3:05:14 AM

ya i remember thats when i first thought about getting into comps but didnt for 2 years till i saw a trade show man it was awesome p3's at 1.5 ghz oced a p4 at 1.8 and last but not least the athlon xp :D 
February 19, 2006 4:00:26 AM

Well single core vs single core (P4 vs athlon)
February 19, 2006 4:22:15 AM

That was 2 years ago. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
February 19, 2006 5:03:46 AM

There are some problems here.
Well, we currently don't know how DDR2 will affect performance. Higher bandwich at the cost of latency. I knew AMD prefers low latencies on it will be problematic.
Secondly we don't know much about Intel's champion. The 20% over AMD might be true though it also may be a way to advertise their product.
As it's now,we are sure that Conroe will be at least equal to AMD clock per clock wise, in fact i think it will be better because as comparison it was used a Core Duo CPU that is meant for laptop and has restriction.

As it stands now,i think Intel will have the edge 'till the second half of 2007 . At first they'll release these Conroe beasts then the Conroe XE at 3.3GHZ(and probably one clocked at 2.9-3). After that they'll release the first chip to enhance 45 mn technology. By the time Intel does that AMD has just implemented 65 mn techno in their chips so Intel will at least have a performance per watt lead.
Now,if Intel goofs around after succes,they'll end up being beaten by AMD at the end of 2007.

If Intel doesn't waste time and remains active AMD will have a tough job probably even too much for them to handle.
February 19, 2006 5:11:58 AM

Did you know that DDR2/667 @ 4,4,4, 12 has lower latency than DDR400 @ 3,3,3,10.
As to the rest, well, we can all cheer, when the newest fastest chip comes out.
February 19, 2006 5:17:22 AM

No were near 2-2-2-3 some people are getting with their memory.
February 19, 2006 7:03:55 AM

Wow a ras of 3? I've never heard of that.
February 19, 2006 7:26:31 AM

Oh, by the way, Jonah has a 12 stage pipeline, conroe has 14.
If we set up 14 stages in a row, you may be able to run through all of them faster than you can run through the first 12, but I doubt it.
February 19, 2006 10:05:15 AM

Quote:
Wow a ras of 3? I've never heard of that.

Remember the 3DMark05 world record of 17.433? The timings were 2.0-2-2-2
February 19, 2006 11:01:11 AM

Well, after reading the The 65 nm Pentium D 900's Coming Out Party article, I think Intel will take some time to utilize the full benefits of the 65 nm process. Sure they are already working on 45 nm also. I am still waiting for Intel to come out with something truly better than AMD. :) 

I do hope AMD continues to bring out good alternatives to Intel's offerings so consumers win. :) 
February 19, 2006 12:27:49 PM

There are even lower. :lol: 
February 19, 2006 12:43:28 PM

How low? Just curious. I know theres also CAS 1.5 but Ive only seen normal timings with that CAS (1.5-2-2-5).
February 19, 2006 12:48:45 PM

Quote:
Wow a ras of 3? I've never heard of that.

Remember the 3DMark05 world record of 17.433? The timings were 2.0-2-2-2
tRAS 10 is better that 2 when it comes to AMD64...
February 19, 2006 12:55:11 PM

Yep there are some sites where you can see these killers.
One stick was made to run at 1.5-2-2-5 , 200 mhz. Not bad really since my crappy memory has CL 2.5!
February 19, 2006 12:56:28 PM

No, its not. The RAS of 10 is an old story and it doesnt work anymore with the new steppings.
February 19, 2006 1:23:23 PM

Quote:
How low? Just curious. I know theres also CAS 1.5 but Ive only seen normal timings with that CAS (1.5-2-2-5).
cas 1.5 is only on ddr ram if it was on ddr 2 oh man imagine the performance holy crap 8O btw ycon i think i have met you before do you live in new york area?
February 19, 2006 1:25:24 PM

no
February 19, 2006 5:25:20 PM

Quote:
As much as i love AMD, i have to say that Intel is catching up. It is no surprise considering AMD has been in the lead for so long...but AMD is doing an excellent job keeping up with Intel's 65nm CPU's while still using 90nm.


as someone else said, Intel has not hardly even started to realize the potential of 65nm. They are still using an outdated architecture, namely, Netburst. The new architecture of Conroe... comebined with 65nm, I think we will see a drastic performance increase. AMD will have a very hard time keeping up.
February 19, 2006 5:40:25 PM

history has shown that intel brags and brags in press release after press release. AmD just does their work and lets everyone know it. I wouldnt count AMD out just because intel is more vocal about what they are going to do, but havent done. a whole lotta market manipulation comes outta intel.
February 19, 2006 5:46:12 PM

I don't count AMD out. However, while right now I might buy an AMD for it's stock speed/price advantage over Intel, I'd buy an Intel right now because of the overclocking factor, because Intels overclock better than AMDs... and an overclocked Intel is faster than an overclocked AMD. In the future.. I'd buy an Intel, because Intel would be faster at stock than an AMD, and the Intel would have a better overclock potential. :)  Never do I say that AMD is bad, I would be very happy and satisfied if AMD were all I had, but I like Intel better. :) 
February 19, 2006 7:17:04 PM

Quote:
How low? Just curious. I know theres also CAS 1.5 but Ive only seen normal timings with that CAS (1.5-2-2-5).
cas 1.5 is only on ddr ram if it was on ddr 2 oh man imagine the performance holy crap 8O btw ycon i think i have met you before do you live in new york area?

Any winbond chips made in the last 3 years can hit 250mhz@1.5-2-2-2...including the chips im using right now XD
1.5 cas is hardly supported by AMD, as no programs can make any utilization of the extreme low latency. Also, if I really wanted to I could probably do a64 tweaker at 1 cas latency and do tests perhaps. btw, i read ddr2 gives a 10% performance increase at best, but hopefully AM2 will be a lot more than just new memory ><
February 19, 2006 7:39:47 PM

yeah ak btw i think that samsung is working on cas 1.5 ddr2 ram right now to sell to us amd fanboys :D 
February 19, 2006 7:54:14 PM

Quote:
yeah ak btw i think that samsung is working on cas 1.5 ddr2 ram right now to sell to us amd fanboys :D 


f*ck samsung. low latency > high frequency
my winbond chips don't go above 260...but thats fine with me seeing as how no samsung chip can hit even 2-2-2-6 past 230 :o 
February 19, 2006 8:12:34 PM

Quote:
All i can say is I HOPE TO GOD that in the future one of these companies never EVER gains such an advantage over the other that one goes out of business. If there is only one company left to make CPUs we're all screwed. This ain't gonna happen anytime soon, but anything's possible 10 or so years down the road. The only reason Intel is improving their line is because AMD lit a fire under their ass, the same way Firefox lit a fire under Microsoft's ass to improve IE. Without AMD, Intel would have kept pumping crap out because most of the uneducated public doesn't know better. Hell, I didn't until I started reading reviews from independent sites. Thank god for the internet.


That's the beauty of capitalism. :D 

BTW nothing against AMD, but i've always preffered intel in terms of quality. As people have said intel chips overclock more than AMD, that shows you that intel makes a good product.

There's also another rule in capitalism, if you haven't noticed.
This is why American brands are known around the world. It's called Marketing.

You can tell someone all you want to get an AMD because its faster and cheaper.
But, that's the equivalent of telling some one who drinks pepsi/coke to try safeway select cola.
You see, intel has an image in most people's heads. Just like pepsi or coca cola.
They did this through clever advertising, and making a dependable product.
So whenever i see intel i see a good product and it makes me feel better. understand?
This is something those tech nerds at amd have yet to realize.

It's a matter of personal choice.
Some people prefer a brand, because they grew up with it.
That's the reason you have fan boys.

BTW i think it was a really stupid idea on intel's part to abandon the pentium name.

After all,
"It's all about the Pentiums." 8)

Peace.
February 19, 2006 8:17:36 PM

Bad idea? It has killed Intel's name brand. It was outperformed by AMD time and time again...they need to start fresh.
February 19, 2006 8:21:03 PM

Yes, for a couple of tech nerds that actually read online reviews like us.
Go to a store, and you won't find one person who knows what they're talking about.

That's the general segment of the population. Like it or not, that's reality.
February 19, 2006 8:23:54 PM

No, there are a boatload of customers who have lost trust in intel because of that. Even though you might think the only people who know jackshit about CPU's are nerds in their basement, you fail to realize the public is catching onto some of the performance benifits of AMD as AMD gains more and more market share. The surprising thing is that they will keep the Xeon series, which is getting pounded by the Opterons, and dropping the Pentium M's which actually hold their own.
February 19, 2006 8:26:05 PM

My dad is a network administrator, and he is a die hard Xeon fan. :roll:
He wouldn't ever buy an AMD for his company. Because intel is reliable.
February 19, 2006 8:30:40 PM

Frankly, i've never heard of AMD before i went to a tech school.
Even all our computers in our labs are... guess what? INTEL P4s.

Most people get a Dell, dell doesn't sell amd. capish?
Its all rigged. but thats the way the world works.
The hero doesn't always win, as much as Hollywood would like you to believe.
February 19, 2006 8:48:37 PM

dell could be selling AMD before long. Enough people complain and they will, just as what happened with Nvidia and Dell.
February 20, 2006 12:03:11 AM

Quote:
I don't count AMD out. However, while right now I might buy an AMD for it's stock speed/price advantage over Intel, I'd buy an Intel right now because of the overclocking factor, because Intels overclock better than AMDs... and an overclocked Intel is faster than an overclocked AMD. In the future.. I'd buy an Intel, because Intel would be faster at stock than an AMD, and the Intel would have a better overclock potential. :)  Never do I say that AMD is bad, I would be very happy and satisfied if AMD were all I had, but I like Intel better. :) 


I totally dissagree with that statement. You pit any athlon X2 overclocked to 3Ghz and it will BEAT any PD at 4Ghz. Have you not seen the Opteron 165's that people have overclocked to 3GHz?? (thats a 1.2GHz overclock) What do you mean Pentium D's overclock better?

What do you mean Intel will be clocked faster? ONLY IF AMD stops upping processor speed. When 65nm comes around we'll see speeds of 3-3.7GHz for AMD, along with DDR800. Intel MAY have a slight lead in performance for a SHORT time, until AMD releases their 65nm. [/b]

Just my $0.02
February 20, 2006 2:02:04 AM

currently, take a PD and overclock to 4.5 (which you can do very easily, and can go a lot higher) and it will beat a AMD at 3Ghz, good luck getting an AMD to that speed tho 8)
February 20, 2006 2:21:25 AM

To get a PD to 4.5ghz youneed a lot of luck, and a water cooler. To get a DC opteron to 3ghz, you need a lot of luck, and water cooling.
At those speeds, the chips are generally fairly even, unless you include gaming benchmarks. Then the opteron would just destroy the P4.
Since games are the only thing I do that is cpu intensive (well I do F@H a little), I'm not all that interested in the newest hottest chip.
February 20, 2006 3:01:46 AM

Quote:
history has shown that intel brags and brags in press release after press release. AmD just does their work and lets everyone know it. I wouldnt count AMD out just because intel is more vocal about what they are going to do, but havent done. a whole lotta market manipulation comes outta intel.


The last so call promise I recall was that Core duo would have the same battery life as Pentium M. As it turns out, it's longer.

Even if it's less than quoted 20%, it's nearly half the TDP and half the price of same clocked AMD cpus.
Intel needs to compete on new levels. The old ones are geting closed by AMD's law suite. :?
February 20, 2006 3:06:56 AM

Short memory/ all that was heard for months about 3 years ago was "the hammer" which was pushed back for months.
February 20, 2006 3:22:01 AM

You have to admit though, Intel's engineering does not keep up with its marketing! Look at what they are saying about Conroe...3 times or more powerful than prescott? ARE YOU JOKING ME? They have horribly disappointed with Pentium 4 and Prescott way back when too, so would you really be surprised to find that Intel has yet again slacked off to our expectations?
Since AMD's marketing consists of funding bicycle races and commercials at 4 in the morning, they always astound us ! AMD advertises in subtle ways...such as having their exec's talk shit about Intel products in public :D 
February 20, 2006 3:43:01 AM

Quote:
My dad is a network administrator, and he is a die hard Xeon fan. :roll:
He wouldn't ever buy an AMD for his company. Because intel is reliable.
what!!!!!!!! intel is reliable dude all procs are reliable there is no difference in realability for all procs amd intel via ibm and any others.he's just saying that just cause he is an intel fanboy and doesnt want to admit that hes wrong :evil: 
February 20, 2006 3:47:25 AM

TheMaster's father is probably following the outdated belief that because Intel can make their own motherboards and chipsets (which they do and require ALL THE TIME for upgrades) that they somehow have a "reliability" difference over AMD. Stupidest thing I've ever heard, as AMD's will run 100% fine on even a via chipset. Also, once you add up multiple systems/systems, the heat and power consumption of Netburst starts to catch up with you...very, very fast.
AMD is kicking ass in the server market for a reason. Where Intel holds a chance on the desktop market and does well in the laptop market, they get absolutely pounded in the ass when it comes to servers.
February 20, 2006 4:52:31 AM

the disadvantage of amd is wall street
no the processors, how many of us fall in the mhz as a criteria for buying decission?
second, even when amd release the opteron which was the first dual core processor intel retain the major market share
rigth now I prefer amd
not to be so oc (less mhz)
I think if amd give room and let intel catch them everybody of us will suffer so I suggest keep choosing amd and let intel fry in their own grease

and pray god amd became a private company
February 20, 2006 4:59:21 AM

I am speechless.
!