Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Article: AMD vs Intel : Current architecture comparison

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 23, 2007 3:59:45 PM

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/cpus/index.x?pg=1

Quote:
Conclusions
The fact that Intel retains the overall performance crown comes as no surprise. As we said at the outset, AMD has no real answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 among its dual-core processors. Also, Intel's quad-core CPUs tend to scale better than AMD's Quad FX platform, especially for typical desktop-class applications. Our move to Windows Vista x64 has done little to alter this dynamic. At the same time, Core 2 processors tend to draw less power and to be more energy efficient—sometimes markedly so—than Athlon 64s. Right now, Intel has the magic combination of a superior processor microarchitecture and a more mature, fully realized 65nm manufacturing capability working together on its side.

This one-two punch has allowed Intel to maintain a performance edge at most price points, despite standing pat through AMD's aggressive pricing moves and new model introductions. AMD's current weaknesses manifest themselves most fully in its high-end models, like the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which draws more power at peak than the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 yet is often outperformed by the less expensive Core 2 Duo E6600. The Athlon 64 looks more competitive in its lower-end incarnations like the X2 5000+ and 4400+, which match up better on both performance and power characteristics against the Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400. These processors have the benefit of being available in 65nm form, and I'd say the minor performance penalty one pays in performance at 65nm (due to the slower L2 cache) is worth it for the reduced power draw.

...


New thread as last one was hijacked ...
March 23, 2007 4:20:59 PM

Quote:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/cpus/index.x?pg=1

Conclusions
The fact that Intel retains the overall performance crown comes as no surprise. As we said at the outset, AMD has no real answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 among its dual-core processors. Also, Intel's quad-core CPUs tend to scale better than AMD's Quad FX platform, especially for typical desktop-class applications. Our move to Windows Vista x64 has done little to alter this dynamic. At the same time, Core 2 processors tend to draw less power and to be more energy efficient—sometimes markedly so—than Athlon 64s. Right now, Intel has the magic combination of a superior processor microarchitecture and a more mature, fully realized 65nm manufacturing capability working together on its side.

This one-two punch has allowed Intel to maintain a performance edge at most price points, despite standing pat through AMD's aggressive pricing moves and new model introductions. AMD's current weaknesses manifest themselves most fully in its high-end models, like the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which draws more power at peak than the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 yet is often outperformed by the less expensive Core 2 Duo E6600. The Athlon 64 looks more competitive in its lower-end incarnations like the X2 5000+ and 4400+, which match up better on both performance and power characteristics against the Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400. These processors have the benefit of being available in 65nm form, and I'd say the minor performance penalty one pays in performance at 65nm (due to the slower L2 cache) is worth it for the reduced power draw.

...


New thread as last one was hijacked ...


But how abou that rap album? It's pretty hot, huhn? and ey Intel had YoY drops of 39%, while AMD has more than doubled their revenue since 2004. That's a killing. As far as the dancing, maybe you'll hear of something incredible around August.
March 23, 2007 4:55:55 PM

Why is old hardware compared with new?
Is the older hardware supposed to be better?
Related resources
March 23, 2007 4:57:55 PM

Quote:
Why is old hardware compared with new?
Is the older hardware supposed to be better?


This isn't comparing old hardware with new, this is comparing current hardware with current. With that said, I still don't see the point of this thread any more than I did the last because it's just another thread arguing about the same thing we've been arguing about for weeks. But I'll leave this one alone. :p 
March 23, 2007 4:59:36 PM

Why do you keep saying that? Can we get a macro here?

If BaronMatrix post contains "Intel YoY 39%"
Then
Post "Intel still made a large profit Q4 2006 and AMD actually lost money. Also, AMD's GPM dropped much farther than Intel's"
End
March 23, 2007 5:03:23 PM

Current hardware but old architecture, you dumbbutt. Great topic and reply
March 23, 2007 5:09:46 PM

Nice article, all there said is the holy truth about the current and curent-perspective view of desktops (AMD will have no answer to the XE6800 yet etc) but,... the ultimate truth, is that with the actual and especially April's price cuts, desktop performance is going 100% to the then $400-600 and up quad cores or even higher so at the end, AMD does not even need to beat the XE6800 with another dual core :D  . At that time it will be as stupid as if Intel was releasing a single core, to beat the FX-57 after they released the XE6800.
March 23, 2007 5:51:12 PM

Quote:
Why do you keep saying that? Can we get a macro here?

If BaronMatrix post contains "Intel YoY 39%"
Then
Post "Intel still made a large profit Q4 2006 and AMD actually lost money. Also, AMD's GPM dropped much farther than Intel's"
End



Yes they did but trends are always something to look at. And if I'm not mistaken, the loss was almost TOTALLY due to the ATi costs. Of course the price war didn't help. But how much is 39% of $39B vs 39% of $7B?

War is HELL! That's why I don't advocate it, but the Brood is a war-like race with little concern for peripheral damage.

As is clearly eveidenced from this lok AMD still plays every game very well even a process node behind. And only the 3GHz 90nm chips are crankng out lots of power, but the article also said that FX70 is the most efficient AMD processor( something I tried to explain but was ridiculed).

So all in all I'd say AMD is still very much in the ballgame. The vicarious nature of the Brood causes them to attach themselves to the largest entity so their blood-sucking was don't kill the host too quickly.

It is still the case that you can only do as much as your resources will allow. Sure AMD could have spent time and resources on an MCM and that would have helped but hindsight is and always will be 20/20.

Now if Core 2 magically meant my 4400+ can't run 1280 UHQ Q4, I'd be worried about their competitiveness, but lo and behold the site even says things like "all of these chips can play Oblivion."

So you aren't harping on speed increases just on OCing cheapness. That's not a bad thing unless it incites the Brood to riot which will make this forum more unbearable than before.

oh, BTW


ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY!!!!!
March 23, 2007 6:22:41 PM

:arrow: Its really not important as to whom has the best product currently or in the past or the future,they need each other to keep each other honest,if there was only Intel or AMD,we would be paying through the nose for an inferior product.
March 23, 2007 6:40:27 PM

Quote:
:arrow: Its really not important as to whom has the best product currently or in the past or the future,they need each other to keep each other honest,if there was only Intel or AMD,we would be paying through the nose for an inferior product.


I think you should tell the others that. According to them if C2D wins by even 10%, K8 is "underperforming" and "not worth buying."


ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY!!!
March 23, 2007 6:43:32 PM

Holy Shet Batman 8O Intel has a better line of processors than AMD. This won't be news to anyone but Baron Matrix. :wink:

Here's the real news flash, for all the talk about how great the K10 will be It will still lose out to Penryn. Yet all we hear is Barcelona yada yada yada. AMD is talking the talk while Intel is preparing to walk the walk.

HK MG FTW!!!! And I read my P965 chipset will be compatible with it. Plug and Play baybeee.

I am skipping Barcelona and going straight to getting excited about Penryn. :p 
March 23, 2007 6:46:37 PM

Quote:
Holy Shet Batman 8O Intel has a better line of processors than AMD. This won't be news to anyone but Baron Matrix. :wink:

Here's the real news flash, for all the talk about how great the K10 will be It will still lose out to Penryn. Yet all we hear is Barcelona yada yada yada. AMD is talking the talk while Intel is preparing to walk the walk.

HK MG FTW!!!! And I read my P965 chipset will be compatible with it. Plug and Play baybeee.

I am skipping Barcelona and going straight to getting excited about Penryn. :p 


What was that about making performance claims before benchmarks come out?

Physician heal thyself.

Better is a subjective term because rendering and FP belong to AMD, not to mention HPC and SQL. It is faster at a lot of things but not ALL so a nice boost in efficiency will give them back the gaming crown.
March 23, 2007 6:49:31 PM

Quote:
Holy Shet Batman 8O Intel has a better line of processors than AMD. This won't be news to anyone but Baron Matrix. :wink:

Here's the real news flash, for all the talk about how great the K10 will be It will still lose out to Penryn. Yet all we hear is Barcelona yada yada yada. AMD is talking the talk while Intel is preparing to walk the walk.

HK MG FTW!!!! And I read my P965 chipset will be compatible with it. Plug and Play baybeee.

I am skipping Barcelona and going straight to getting excited about Penryn. :p 
:arrow: I here you,Penryn sounds good,If its the top dog when its released and affordable I,ll buy one,BUT down the road if AMD has the better(price/performance) chip,I,ll buy that.
March 23, 2007 6:50:19 PM

Quote:
Holy Shet Batman 8O Intel has a better line of processors than AMD. This won't be news to anyone but Baron Matrix. :wink:

Here's the real news flash, for all the talk about how great the K10 will be It will still lose out to Penryn. Yet all we hear is Barcelona yada yada yada. AMD is talking the talk while Intel is preparing to walk the walk.

HK MG FTW!!!! And I read my P965 chipset will be compatible with it. Plug and Play baybeee.

I am skipping Barcelona and going straight to getting excited about Penryn. :p 


What was that about making performance claims before benchmarks come out?

Physician heal thyself.

Better is a subjective term because rendering and FP belong to AMD, not to mention HPC and SQL. It is faster at a lot of things but not ALL so a nice boost in efficiency will give them back the gaming crown.

I have C2D benchmarks. Next they will be running 2x the Cache, @ 4 gig, with 45nm HK MG, and have a much higher FSB.

Sooooo, what do you got on the Barcelona so we can compare?

As far as:

"Better is a subjective term because rendering and FP belong to AMD, not to mention HPC and SQL. It is faster at a lot of things but not ALL so a nice boost in efficiency will give them back the gaming crown."

I am sure a 1993 dodge neon gets better gas mileage than a new Ferrari, but I'm not stupid so I'll say that the Ferrari is better. :roll:
March 23, 2007 7:01:03 PM

Quote:
Holy Shet Batman 8O Intel has a better line of processors than AMD. This won't be news to anyone but Baron Matrix. :wink:

Here's the real news flash, for all the talk about how great the K10 will be It will still lose out to Penryn. Yet all we hear is Barcelona yada yada yada. AMD is talking the talk while Intel is preparing to walk the walk.

HK MG FTW!!!! And I read my P965 chipset will be compatible with it. Plug and Play baybeee.

I am skipping Barcelona and going straight to getting excited about Penryn. :p 


What was that about making performance claims before benchmarks come out?

Physician heal thyself.

Better is a subjective term because rendering and FP belong to AMD, not to mention HPC and SQL. It is faster at a lot of things but not ALL so a nice boost in efficiency will give them back the gaming crown.

I have C2D benchmarks. Next they will be running 2x the Cache, @ 4 gig, with 45nm HK MG, and have a much higher FSB.

Sooooo, what do you got on the Barcelona so we can compare?

As far as:

"Better is a subjective term because rendering and FP belong to AMD, not to mention HPC and SQL. It is faster at a lot of things but not ALL so a nice boost in efficiency will give them back the gaming crown."

I am sure a 1993 dodge neon gets better gas mileage than a new Ferrari, but I'm not stupid so I'll say that the Ferrari is better. :roll:


I'm talking about Penryn. There are no benches for it so you can't say it's faster than anything. Unless that only counts when talking about AMD chips.
March 23, 2007 7:11:50 PM

I'll go out on a limb with this one. :lol: 
March 23, 2007 7:18:19 PM

Quote:
I'll go out on a limb with this one. :lol: 



Barcelona is a MONSTER. Move over. I guess this limb will hol dus both. Plus someoe posted benches of the higher FSB C2Ds and it was about 7% and the cache may add another 10%. And according to all the roadmaps I've seen Penryn will not be at 4GHz.
March 23, 2007 7:30:12 PM

Quote:
I'll go out on a limb with this one. :lol: 



Barcelona is a MONSTER. Move over. I guess this limb will hol dus both. Plus someoe posted benches of the higher FSB C2Ds and it was about 7% and the cache may add another 10%. And according to all the roadmaps I've seen Penryn will not be at 4GHz.

Have you seen Penryn roadmaps?? show me.. bet it's the Q3 Core 2 65nm plans you have seen.
March 23, 2007 7:32:18 PM

Quote:
I'll go out on a limb with this one. :lol: 



Barcelona is a MONSTER. Move over. I guess this limb will hol dus both. Plus someoe posted benches of the higher FSB C2Ds and it was about 7% and the cache may add another 10%. And according to all the roadmaps I've seen Penryn will not be at 4GHz.

Have you seen Penryn roadmaps?? show me.. bet it's the Q3 Core 2 65nm plans you have seen.

I'll se if I can find them. I'm pretty sure it was Penryn. I believe it was when they were first announced for Q3-Q4.
March 23, 2007 7:32:33 PM

Quote:
I'll go out on a limb with this one. :lol: 



Barcelona is a MONSTER. Move over. I guess this limb will hol dus both. Plus someoe posted benches of the higher FSB C2Ds and it was about 7% and the cache may add another 10%. And according to all the roadmaps I've seen Penryn will not be at 4GHz.

Whoa there, did YOU just say that the C2D had a performance increase with a bigger cache and higher FSB????

Damn, who'd of thunk. So just maybe Penryn will be faster than the 65nm C2D. OMG That would make it even faster than any product AMD has released to date and even faster than every processor they have released benchmarks on to date!!!! :D 

Wowsers, and without a single benchmark.

Edit: Ok, Bacelona could be better than Penryn. Just seems far fetched and this point, but yeah it is all speculation.
March 23, 2007 7:36:21 PM

Quote:
I'll go out on a limb with this one. :lol: 



Barcelona is a MONSTER. Move over. I guess this limb will hol dus both. Plus someoe posted benches of the higher FSB C2Ds and it was about 7% and the cache may add another 10%. And according to all the roadmaps I've seen Penryn will not be at 4GHz.

Whoa there, did YOU just say that the C2D had a performance increase with a bigger cache and higher FSB????

Damn, who'd of thunk. So just maybe Penryn will be faster than the 65nm C2D. OMG That would make it even faster than any product AMD has released to date and even faster than every processor they have released benchmarks on to date!!!! :D 

Wowsers, and without a single benchmark.


Obviously I'm not a CPU zombie and don't spread FUD. I always try to base speculation on actualities and not a desire to be right about it.
March 23, 2007 7:38:56 PM

Yeah, I edited my post while you were posting.

I just like getting you worked up because you make good insults.
March 23, 2007 7:41:47 PM

this topic is dead..... theres no need to compare since we know amd's current architecture is sqaushed by intel's current architecture
March 23, 2007 7:49:45 PM

Quote:



Obviously I'm not a CPU zombie and don't spread FUD.


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
March 23, 2007 8:06:59 PM

Quote:

I always try to base speculation on actualities and not a desire to be right about it.


Another pearl of wisdom from Baron who definitely has no desire to be right. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
March 24, 2007 1:13:13 AM

Quote:
New thread as last one was hijacked ...


Perhaps there was a reason that the last one was hijacked...... :lol: 
March 24, 2007 1:49:35 AM

Well this thread was pretty pathetic.
!