Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Comparing Intel's and AMD's architectures

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 16, 2009 1:35:37 AM

whats the difference between Intel chips and AMD chips, i mean on some Cpu's both have almost the exact same thing but having intel going above in benchmarks.

for example, the

-------------------AMD Phenom II 965 Black Edition

Clockspeed: 3.4GHz

Cache: 64kB x4 for L1 4 x 512KB for L2 and 6MB for L3

Number of cores: 4

FSB/Hyper Transports:4000MHz

Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm

-------------------Intel Core i5

ClockSpeed: 2.6 (3.2 with turbo boost)

Cache: 64kB x4 for L1 256KB x4 for L2 and 8mb for L3

number of cores: 4

FSB: 2.5 GT/s DMI

Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm


you see, everything is about the same, same cores same manufacturing tech non support hyperthreading And AMD have higher Clock speed, just a little difference in cache, AMD has more cahce in L2 while Core i5 has more in L3.

so what makes them both different in speed even though both have almost the same specs, is it the Pipelines inside them and the way each one of them reads and writes data is different? or something els.
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2009 2:02:40 AM

Holy cow there are entire technical publications written on this subject, websites abundant, and more information about this on the Web than there are grains of sand on Pismo Beach.

Let me give you a hand......go ahead and click the link to learn all you need to know.
http://tinyurl.com/pjuys8
Score
0
September 16, 2009 4:36:14 AM

Its like asking why Brad Pitt left Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie although both have 2 eyes, one nose and one mouth :D 
Score
0
Related resources
September 16, 2009 6:34:37 AM

jitpublisher: if you have the knowledge then post, if not then just ignore the topic, i prefer to post and get an answer from an expert rather than searching hours to get an answer, you might be different however.

k lets break this down.

Amd uses less stages at a lower clock speed, while Intel uses more stages at higher clock speed, that's how it used to be before in the old P4 processors, where an Amd clocked at 2.4 out performers intel's clocked at 2.8 for example, that is because more work is done per clock for amd rather than having less work with more stages for intel.

but that was in the past, as for the new cpus, i see it going the other way around having intel's lower clocked cpus out performing amd's higher clocked cpuz.

so did intel use a new technology with using less stages than breaking each unit to 20 stages and have more work done, or there is something els behind this.
Score
0
September 16, 2009 6:52:27 AM

just get the i5. seriously a high end amd chip? lol
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
September 16, 2009 7:17:20 AM

toxic_trance said:
Its like asking why Brad Pitt left Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie although both have 2 eyes, one nose and one mouth :D 
You've got MY vote for best answer! :wahoo: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2009 7:38:03 AM

surda said:
jitpublisher: if you have the knowledge then post, if not then just ignore the topic, i prefer to post and get an answer from an expert rather than searching hours to get an answer, you might be different however.

k lets break this down.

Amd uses less stages at a lower clock speed, while Intel uses more stages at higher clock speed, that's how it used to be before in the old P4 processors, where an Amd clocked at 2.4 out performers intel's clocked at 2.8 for example, that is because more work is done per clock for amd rather than having less work with more stages for intel.

but that was in the past, as for the new cpus, i see it going the other way around having intel's lower clocked cpus out performing amd's higher clocked cpuz.

so did intel use a new technology with using less stages than breaking each unit to 20 stages and have more work done, or there is something els behind this.


I wish I could tell you it was that simple, but it's not. The only "experts" as you call them that could give you a definitive answer would be the people that designed the hardware. And even then, the answer would be several pages long. Hardware in general and CPU's in particular have become too complex to reduce the answer to a simple "A is better than B because of X".
Score
0
September 16, 2009 9:07:25 AM

While it may not be the direct cause, do a research on instruction sets, SSE4.
Score
0
a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
September 16, 2009 10:44:47 AM

surda said:
jitpublisher: if you have the knowledge then post, if not then just ignore the topic, i prefer to post and get an answer from an expert rather than searching hours to get an answer, you might be different however.

That tells us that you are a little lazy. Most of us regulars have done a lot of our own research. You remind me a lot of my Saudi coworkers. I figure that one part of my job is to teach them how to find the answers. They think that I am there to provide the answers.

surda said:

Amd uses less stages at a lower clock speed, while Intel uses more stages at higher clock speed, that's how it used to be before in the old P4 processors, where an Amd clocked at 2.4 out performers intel's clocked at 2.8 for example, that is because more work is done per clock for amd rather than having less work with more stages for intel.

That's a gross oversimplification. Intel's approach is faster, until you need to flush the pipeline. Google something called "branch prediction".
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2009 11:51:12 AM

jsc thats more a netburst thing, not a P6 thing :D 

Score
0
September 16, 2009 2:05:10 PM

F#@k Intel. I use to be an Intel fan untill I worked out they were bribing people like Tom's to rig comparison results so people would buy there crap. If a manufacturer is corrupt and resort to underhanded tactics to fool it's customers then you really shouldn't be buying anything from them. Ok there not as bad as Apple at screwing there customers but it's still a fair point why not to buy Intel.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2009 2:33:55 PM

surda said:
jitpublisher: if you have the knowledge then post, if not then just ignore the topic, i prefer to post and get an answer from an expert rather than searching hours to get an answer, you might be different however.


I am not kidding, if you really want to know why they perform differently, start with the P4 architecture:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel,264.html

Here's about hyper-threading:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hyperthreading-thre...

About Prescott and its long pipeline:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel,751.html

About the Athlon 64 architecture:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/hammer-pre...

Here's about the AMD's K10 (latest) architecture:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/480


I ain't kidding, it is really hard to explain the complete architecture of an intel or an AMD processor. There are already a ton of articles about these and trying to explain these in a forum post would be ludicrous.

After or if you read those, then you could comfortably read Tom's article about the i7 and then you'd understand why the fundamental changes that were made to it were actually quite beneficial.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2009 2:41:15 PM

Malcolmk said:
F#@k Intel. I use to be an Intel fan untill I worked out they were bribing people like Tom's to rig comparison results so people would buy there crap. If a manufacturer is corrupt and resort to underhanded tactics to fool it's customers then you really shouldn't be buying anything from them. Ok there not as bad as Apple at screwing there customers but it's still a fair point why not to buy Intel.


Intel is a business, businesses are run by money. AMD shafted people during the Athlon X2 vs P4-HT era, the prices of X2's were through the roof back then. AMD may not be as bad, but it is still also a business at the end of the day.

I doubt that AMD wouldn't be doing the same thing if they had all that money, and they saw that a smaller company was trying to take profits from them.

As for the consumer, the consumer always buys the cheapest thing around (which intel and amd have a lot of). The informed consumer either buys intel due to price/performance ratio, or amd due to a definite upgrade path and usually cheaper price.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
September 16, 2009 4:28:54 PM

amnotanoobie said:
I ain't kidding, it is really hard to explain the complete architecture of an intel or an AMD processor.
He's right, it is a complex subject. And frankly, even if you were a CPU designer and had the microarchitectures laid out before you, you still wouldn't be able to confidently say which one was "better" or how they would compare in specific situations, at least not beyond generalities. Not only are the microarchitectures themselves complex, but they behave differently according to the characteristics of the instructions they're running. So benchmarks are really the only way to draw definitive conclusions.

And even benchmarks aren't necessarily conclusive because each processor has strengths and weaknesses (including cost), and so what works best for one person in one system doesn't always work best for another.

I really do think toxic_trance hit it on the head when he likened the question to comparing two women... :pt1cable: 
Score
0
September 16, 2009 9:51:52 PM

Well charging extra for a premium product is a little different to paying third parties to write false literature to fool people into buying there stuff. Besides if I suggested to someone to upgrade there hard drive setup to give them a real world performance improvement in Photoshop and other apps of 50%-100% people would comment on here, Oh I wouldn't bother doing that because it doesn't make any noticable difference. Ok a real world difference of 50%-100% doesn't make a noticable difference so why are people buying Intel because it's a few percent faster in benchmarks. The average cpu usage even in programs like Photoshop is only 5%-10% so the real world difference between AMD and Intel is 0%.
Score
0
September 16, 2009 10:34:26 PM

I agree with Malcolm K , I think , a few years back the average cpu sometimes struggled with the software , such as after effects or photoshop etc , but now , the average dual core cpu is generally well up to even the more demanding apps , and unless you sit there counting the benchmarks an AMD chip of £50 or an Intel chip for that matter is easily good enough for the majority of folks .I think we are now in a situation where the software is lagging behind the hardware
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 12:46:08 AM

surda said:
jitpublisher: if you have the knowledge then post, if not then just ignore the topic, i prefer to post and get an answer from an expert rather than searching hours to get an answer, you might be different however.

k lets break this down.

Amd uses less stages at a lower clock speed, while Intel uses more stages at higher clock speed, that's how it used to be before in the old P4 processors, where an Amd clocked at 2.4 out performers intel's clocked at 2.8 for example, that is because more work is done per clock for amd rather than having less work with more stages for intel.

but that was in the past, as for the new cpus, i see it going the other way around having intel's lower clocked cpus out performing amd's higher clocked cpuz.

so did intel use a new technology with using less stages than breaking each unit to 20 stages and have more work done, or there is something els behind this.



I just gave you a link to read all you could ever want to know about the question you asked.
If you are too damn lazy to even follow the links I set up for you, then I guarentee you will remain ignorant, about this subject at least, for the rest of your life.
There is no short easy answer to your question, processor technology, and the differences in the way 2 brands work is an in depth study.
Score
0
September 17, 2009 3:00:10 AM

jitpublisher said:
I just gave you a link to read all you could ever want to know about the question you asked.
If you are too damn lazy to even follow the links I set up for you, then I guarentee you will remain ignorant, about this subject at least, for the rest of your life.
There is no short easy answer to your question, processor technology, and the differences in the way 2 brands work is an in depth study.


i know there is no short answer, im working on that atm.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 5:41:12 AM

toxic_trance said:
Its like asking why Brad Pitt left Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie although both have 2 eyes, one nose and one mouth :D 


Well that is easy, he left her cause Angelina is more naughty :whistle: 

The answer to that question is really not that hard, Intels architecture is faster and more efficient than AMD's... Regardless of both chips having many things in common, Intels technology is superior to AMD's ..... ;) 
Score
0
September 17, 2009 9:21:50 PM

surda said:
whats the difference between Intel chips and AMD chips, i mean on some Cpu's both have almost the exact same thing but having intel going above in benchmarks.

for example, the

-------------------AMD Phenom II 965 Black Edition

Clockspeed: 3.4GHz

Cache: 64kB x4 for L1 4 x 512KB for L2 and 6MB for L3

Number of cores: 4

FSB/Hyper Transports:4000MHz

Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm

-------------------Intel Core i5

ClockSpeed: 2.6 (3.2 with turbo boost)

Cache: 64kB x4 for L1 256KB x4 for L2 and 8mb for L3

number of cores: 4

FSB: 2.5 GT/s DMI

Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm


you see, everything is about the same, same cores same manufacturing tech non support hyperthreading And AMD have higher Clock speed, just a little difference in cache, AMD has more cahce in L2 while Core i5 has more in L3.

so what makes them both different in speed even though both have almost the same specs, is it the Pipelines inside them and the way each one of them reads and writes data is different? or something els.


The microarchitecture is vastly different. CPU is not just about caches, interconnect, and process node. That's like asking why BMW M3 and Ford GT500 performs vastly different, although they have similar size of the fuel tank, run on four wheels, and only have one steering wheel.

If you're brave enough, you can read David Kanter's explanation on Nehalem's architecture:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT0402...

For instance:
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 12:00:23 AM

OvrClkr said:
The answer to that question is really not that hard, Intels architecture is faster and more efficient than AMD's... Regardless of both chips having many things in common, Intels technology is superior to AMD's ..... ;) 


So how come AMD's quads overclock to 7ghz+ while intels quads only overclock to 6ghz?
Score
0
September 18, 2009 12:10:16 AM

yomamafor1 said:
The microarchitecture is vastly different. CPU is not just about caches, interconnect, and process node. That's like asking why BMW M3 and Ford GT500 performs vastly different, although they have similar size of the fuel tank, run on four wheels, and only have one steering wheel.

If you're brave enough, you can read David Kanter's explanation on Nehalem's architecture:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT0402...

For instance:
http://www.realworldtech.com/includes/images/articles/Nehalem-3.gif


thank you that helps.

and whats going on over here, all this non sens talk, badge intelx ovrclkr take this somewhere els.
Score
0
September 18, 2009 12:51:58 AM

jennyh said:
So how come AMD's quads overclock to 7ghz+ while intels quads only overclock to 6ghz?


Because Core i7 is more complicated.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 12:53:06 AM

jennyh said:
So how come AMD's quads overclock to 7ghz+ while intels quads only overclock to 6ghz?

In part because Intel specifically designed theirs for better efficiency and performance at normal power and thermal limits, at the cost of some capability in maximum clock speed. The P4 is an example of the opposite effect - it was designed for maximum clocking capability, with very little regard for thermal limits or efficiency (and it is still the only CPU to clock to 8+ GHz)
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 1:01:49 AM

Malcolmk said:
F#@k Intel. I use to be an Intel fan untill I worked out they were bribing people like Tom's to rig comparison results so people would buy there crap.

Thanks for letting us know that we should ignore your posts in the future. It's clear now that you're one of those people who jump on every bandwagon that passes without sufficient evidence to back up their claims. Congratulations on your failure.

Title of the thread has been changed to deter the fanboys somewhat.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 1:05:40 AM

jennyh said:
So how come AMD's quads overclock to 7ghz+ while intels quads only overclock to 6ghz?


Thats cause Intel's Quads are not designed to run at such high clocks, at stock clocks if you compare both manufacturers you will see that Intel would rather focus on making a CPU capable of performing common tasks at the highest speed possible (stock), while AMD would rather sell a Quad that cannot compete with Intel at stock speeds but yet achieve a higher overclock. It's kinda hard to explain in a nutshell..... Another thing you should ask your self is why does the P4 (Intel) have the world record (8.1Ghz) on Ln2 and heli, some chips just overclock better than others, that does not mean that one is better than the other... just cause AMD's 955 hit 7.1Ghz does not mean that AMD has a better chip compared to anything Intel has to offer.... Get the point?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 1:10:14 AM

Intel needs to sell a Core i7 TWKR. High leakage Core i7 :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 2:11:02 AM

OvrClkr said:
Thats cause Intel's Quads are not designed to run at such high clocks, at stock clocks if you compare both manufacturers you will see that Intel would rather focus on making a CPU capable of performing common tasks at the highest speed possible (stock), while AMD would rather sell a Quad that cannot compete with Intel at stock speeds but yet achieve a higher overclock. It's kinda hard to explain in a nutshell..... Another thing you should ask your self is why does the P4 (Intel) have the world record (8.1Ghz) on Ln2 and heli, some chips just overclock better than others, that does not mean that one is better than the other... just cause AMD's 955 hit 7.1Ghz does not mean that AMD has a better chip compared to anything Intel has to offer.... Get the point?


Yes, the point is you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. All I see is you talking about 'intel has better technology' etc when you actually have no idea about what is involved.

Who told you that intels quads aren't designed to run at high clock speeds? Do you actually believe that intel made some decision to disallow extreme clock speeds?

What are you talking about highest possible stock speeds? I think it's pretty clear that the highest stock quad you can buy is the 965 BE. You do know what 'stock' means, right?

That P4 at 8ghz btw, almost nothing is known about it. There have been multiple increases on the record from Phenom II, a real quad core capable of 7ghz while intels best barely reaches 6ghz.

Don't start throwing around garbage about intel having better technology until you have some proof of it. All the proof points to AMD having a better cpu architecture, and years of AMD competing against a far bigger company is proof that AMD engineers are far superior than intels.

What intel have is a better process for creating silicon, but AMD have a better architecture. Get your facts straight before talking about 'better technology'.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 2:14:15 AM

Yes, actually, Intel did make some design decisions that make extreme clockspeeds unlikely at best.

I may dig up some links later, if I have time.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 2:15:31 AM

yomamafor1 said:
Because Core i7 is more complicated.


So a first generation pentium will reach 10ghz?


Next!
Score
0
September 18, 2009 2:23:17 AM

lol intelx that was good points out there.

thanks for the video btw

jennyh said:
Yes, the point is you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. All I see is you talking about 'intel has better technology' etc when you actually have no idea about what is involved.

Who told you that intels quads aren't designed to run at high clock speeds? Do you actually believe that intel made some decision to disallow extreme clock speeds?

What are you talking about highest possible stock speeds? I think it's pretty clear that the highest stock quad you can buy is the 965 BE. You do know what 'stock' means, right?

That P4 at 8ghz btw, almost nothing is known about it. There have been multiple increases on the record from Phenom II, a real quad core capable of 7ghz while intels best barely reaches 6ghz.

Don't start throwing around garbage about intel having better technology until you have some proof of it. All the proof points to AMD having a better cpu architecture, and years of AMD competing against a far bigger company is proof that AMD engineers are far superior than intels.

What intel have is a better process for creating silicon, but AMD have a better architecture. Get your facts straight before talking about 'better technology'.


lol well explained.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 2:24:42 AM

intelx, if I have to edit or delete another one of your defamatory posts don't expect to be posting in this section again today. Badge, stop replying to him, it's just more posts for me to delete.
Score
0
September 18, 2009 4:00:58 AM

Basically the answer is quite simple, clock speed means nothing when comparing two CPU's from two different processor families. Even though the 965BE is rated at 3.4Ghz and the Intel Core i7 920 is rated at 2.66Ghz the Intel Core i7 920 kills it on pretty much every single bench mark.

Now for another example of how much more efficient Intel's CPU's currently are lets compare the Intel core i7 920 OCED to 3.4Ghz against a Phenom 965BE OC'D to 4.0Ghz the Intel core i7 920 would eat it alive literally. So like I said it really just comes down to the fact that AMD's CPU's are not as high Tech.

Although I am praying that Bulldozer And Fuzion are VERY fast when AMD releases them. Because I have always liked AMD since day one. So I'm really pulling for them.
Score
0
September 18, 2009 4:12:26 AM

one of the reasons why i want AMD to go 1-1 with intel is because if intel stays like this, then its prices will pretty much go much higher.
Score
0
September 18, 2009 4:13:49 AM

jennyh said:
So a first generation pentium will reach 10ghz?


Next!




Score
0
September 18, 2009 4:30:13 AM

jennyh said:
Who told you that intels quads aren't designed to run at high clock speeds? Do you actually believe that intel made some decision to disallow extreme clock speeds?


Intel builds chips to run at their design clock speed. They don't give a crap about how well they run at 8GHz with liquid nitrogen cooling, because there's no market for that.

Maximum clock speed with exotic cooling is utterly irrelevant to CPU architecture quality.

Quote:
What are you talking about highest possible stock speeds? I think it's pretty clear that the highest stock quad you can buy is the 965 BE.


P4s were much 'higher stock' than Athlons, but the Athlon generally beat the P4 at a much lower clock speed; clock speed is also irrelevant to most people, who care about, you know, actual performance. You could probably build an 8086 that clocked at 10GHz, but it would totally suck ass.
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 18, 2009 4:35:47 AM

jennyh said:
So how come AMD's quads overclock to 7ghz+ while intels quads only overclock to 6ghz?


Not really any one answer. Its also like asking why Phenom I couldn't go above 2.6GHz before becoming completely unstable (first stepping B2, not B3) but a C2Q 9650 could easily hit 4GHz on air without any problems.

Plus high end clock speeds like that have shown to amount to pretty much nothing because to go well over 4GHz you need beyond watter cooling, even with a C2Q or Core i7. Most people with a Phenom on air can hit 4GHz but beyond need better cooling such as peltier or water. Same goes for Core i7.

Besides if it meant that much then Intel wouldn't have given up the clock speed race for the IPC/core race that we currently see.

jennyh said:
What intel have is a better process for creating silicon, but AMD have a better architecture. Get your facts straight before talking about 'better technology'.


A better arch? I thought that was defined in better performance ACROSS the board, not just even performance in one section. Then again I am crazy.

If anything AMDs engineers are good. I don't think they are better than Intels if AMD has to rely on buying tech (DEC-Alpha = IMC) or relying on IBM to produce their next process node. While Barcelonas core system is quite amazing, when all you have to do is design the chip and not worry about the process node it would seem like its "superior". but remember, Intel does everything on their own. They design the core, research new ways to make it efficient (HK/MG), design the process node and as well design the technologies that go into it (IMC/QPI).

If you look at the whole picture I would say that intels engineers are pretty damn hard to beat considering everything they do in such a short amount of time with no help. And also consider they might be pulled aside to help on the various non-CPU aspects such as Intels SSDs, NAND, USB, SATA or many of the other various technologies we enjoy being worked on and improved by Intel.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 4:38:38 AM

surda said:
one of the reasons why i want AMD to go 1-1 with intel is because if intel stays like this, then its prices will pretty much go much higher.

AMD will never be 1:1 with Intel. They'd need some massive influx of money and alot of time. The OEMs don't really care who has the best technology, they care about who can provide the capacity, hence why Pentium 4 and Pentium D still sold well.
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 18, 2009 4:54:52 AM

randomizer said:
AMD will never be 1:1 with Intel. They'd need some massive influx of money and alot of time. The OEMs don't really care who has the best technology, they care about who can provide the capacity, hence why Pentium 4 and Pentium D still sold well.


Bingo. Plus Intels ability to massivley produce a CPU is unchallenged. Not even IBM could produce as many CPUs at once time as Intel could.

Volume = market share.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 5:06:26 AM

jennyh said:
Yes, the point is you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. All I see is you talking about 'intel has better technology' etc when you actually have no idea about what is involved.

Who told you that intels quads aren't designed to run at high clock speeds? Do you actually believe that intel made some decision to disallow extreme clock speeds?

What are you talking about highest possible stock speeds? I think it's pretty clear that the highest stock quad you can buy is the 965 BE. You do know what 'stock' means, right?

That P4 at 8ghz btw, almost nothing is known about it. There have been multiple increases on the record from Phenom II, a real quad core capable of 7ghz while intels best barely reaches 6ghz.

Don't start throwing around garbage about intel having better technology until you have some proof of it. All the proof points to AMD having a better cpu architecture, and years of AMD competing against a far bigger company is proof that AMD engineers are far superior than intels.

What intel have is a better process for creating silicon, but AMD have a better architecture. Get your facts straight before talking about 'better technology'.


First of all before you bust out with your smart ass remarks read.........

What I meant at "HIGHER SPEEDS" is the fact that if you take the 965 (3.4Ghz) vs. the i7 860 (2.8Ghz) you will notice that the 965 is clocked 600Mhz faster than the 860 but yet still doesn't stand a chance in any benchmark regardless of the clock... BTW, i used the 860 as an example, i could have gone with Gulftown but that would have been even worse for your argument ;) 

Second if you don't know ANYTHING about old-school records (8.1Ghz) that is due to the fact that you are a child and can care less. That record is yet to be broken and until that happens Intel will retain the crown. I guess you are soo stuck up into the AMD fanboy'ism that you really cannot face reality and you look for an excuse to talk trash just for the hell of it. I can care less if the 955 hit 7.1Ghz.... The p4 hit 8.1Ghz... AMD had single core CPU's as well.... why cant AMD beat that record? Please give me an explanation to that question other than Intel having better "silicon".......

Third, if you think that AMD really has a better ARCH then INTEL then that makes you even more un-educated..... This is common sense and yet you have the nuts to post such comment.

here is a list of the top overclocks... look, read and educate yourself, BTW Intel holds 72% of all records :

http://hwbot.org/hallOfFame.do?type=result&applicationI...

We know that you love AMD, it shows in all your posts, you look for the first opportunity to start an argument... let it go dude..... Intel is superior and that is a fact.. ...... You broke? then go ahead and build yourself a nice AMD rig, but don't get upset just cause one is better than the other....
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
September 18, 2009 6:28:04 AM

intelx said:
anyways, back on topic, surda i found some videos that might help you, here

http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/...
That's a nice presentation that discusses several features of the microarchitecture. But I'd just like to point out to viewers that it's discussing the Core microarchitecture, which is the generation prior to Nehalem - so the "improvements" they're referring to are NOT Nehalem improvements (or at least, they're not NEW to Nehalem).
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 10:23:02 AM

yomamafor1 said:
The microarchitecture is vastly different. CPU is not just about caches, interconnect, and process node. That's like asking why BMW M3 and Ford GT500 performs vastly different, although they have similar size of the fuel tank, run on four wheels, and only have one steering wheel.

If you're brave enough, you can read David Kanter's explanation on Nehalem's architecture:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT0402...

For instance:
http://www.realworldtech.com/includes/images/articles/Nehalem-3.gif

It is interesting to note that the Nehalem is really just an improved C2. The barcelona on the other hand takes off in another direction, and unfortunately real world use/benchmarks favor the C2.

Now for another example of how much more efficient Intel's CPU's currently are lets compare the Intel core i7 920 OCED to 3.4Ghz against a Phenom 965BE OC'D to 4.0Ghz the Intel core i7 920 would eat it alive literally. So like I said it really just comes down to the fact that AMD's CPU's are not as high Tech.

Although I am praying that Bulldozer And Fuzion are VERY fast when AMD releases them. Because I have always liked AMD since day one. So I'm really pulling for them. said:
Now for another example of how much more efficient Intel's CPU's currently are lets compare the Intel core i7 920 OCED to 3.4Ghz against a Phenom 965BE OC'D to 4.0Ghz the Intel core i7 920 would eat it alive literally. So like I said it really just comes down to the fact that AMD's CPU's are not as high Tech.

Although I am praying that Bulldozer And Fuzion are VERY fast when AMD releases them. Because I have always liked AMD since day one. So I'm really pulling for them.

The Nehalem is a highly optimized Core 2 variation, so it is no wonder that the Phenom II is killed by it.

jimmysmitty said:

If anything AMDs engineers are good. I don't think they are better than Intels if AMD has to rely on buying tech (DEC-Alpha = IMC) or relying on IBM to produce their next process node. While Barcelonas core system is quite amazing, when all you have to do is design the chip and not worry about the process node it would seem like its "superior". but remember, Intel does everything on their own. They design the core, research new ways to make it efficient (HK/MG), design the process node and as well design the technologies that go into it (IMC/QPI).

If you look at the whole picture I would say that intels engineers are pretty damn hard to beat considering everything they do in such a short amount of time with no help. And also consider they might be pulled aside to help on the various non-CPU aspects such as Intels SSDs, NAND, USB, SATA or many of the other various technologies we enjoy being worked on and improved by Intel.

The money also is a big thing that comes to play. There would be probably at least 2:1 ratio on intel to amd engineers and designers. What is interesting is that even though AMD's staff is always much smaller, they could somehow manage to keep up with intel.

* I challenge those fanboys that think AMD is now a dead duck, to try and run a company that earns and is worth less than half of its competitor to try and create products that could even remotely catch up.
Score
0
September 18, 2009 11:53:38 AM

amnotanoobie said:
It is interesting to note that the Nehalem is really just an improved C2. The barcelona on the other hand takes off in another direction, and unfortunately real world use/benchmarks favor the C2.


lol... a new direction you said?

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT0516...



I...think not.
Score
0
September 18, 2009 4:20:11 PM

amnotanoobie said:



The money also is a big thing that comes to play. There would be probably at least 2:1 ratio on intel to amd engineers and designers. What is interesting is that even though AMD's staff is always much smaller, they could somehow manage to keep up with intel.



I'm sure it's more like 6:1, although I don't have any facts to back that up.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 19, 2009 12:28:47 AM

jennyh said:
So how come AMD's quads overclock to 7ghz+ while intels quads only overclock to 6ghz?


AMD's quads don't get anywhere near 7GHz on a 64-bit OS - try well under 5 :D 

And how about Intel's 6 core/12 thread Westmere i9 clocking to 6.3GHz? LINK . And 4.7GHz on air cooling?

Wasn't it you who predicted Intel's 32nm would suck eggs? Looks like it is you with the egg on your face :D .

Lessee now, Intel releases the i5/i7-8xx series that makes AMD's top of the line DT CPU overpriced & outdated, AMD responds with a $100 no-cache bottom feeder, then Intel comes out with a 32nm 6-core H-bomb that puts AMD even further behind. AMD's response - yep, the predictable P2 975 at 3.6GHz, out in Q1 of next year.

Now who has the better engineers, again?? :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 19, 2009 12:39:15 AM

jennyh said:
Yes, the point is you I haven't got a clue what you're talking about, nor what I'm talking about either. All I see is you talking about 'intel has better technology' etc when you I actually have no idea about what is involved.
...
Don't start throwing around garbage about intel having better technology until you have some proof of it. All the proof points to AMD having a better cpu architecture, and years of AMD competing against a far bigger company is proof that AMD engineers are far superior than intels.

What intel have is a better process for creating silicon, but AMD have a better architecture. Please, Get your my facts straight before talking about 'better technology'.


Fixed it for ya! :D 

If AMD's engineers & products are so superior, then why did AMD lose yet more marketshare last quarter? Hint - take a look a the latest iSuppli numbers.

If AMD's engineers & products are so superior, why are they copying Intel's MCM approach with Magny-Cours, hyperthreading & Turbo-boost???

If AMD's engineers & products are so superior, why is it that the P2 IPC is lower than that of Core2 after 3 years of trying??

AMD has a one-trick pony - they can bump up their clock speed to that 140watt TDP with next to zero margin for overclocking, on air anyway, and it's only on the super-leaky, not-for-sale overclocking special editions consuming kilowatts of power & LN2 cooling that they set the record for quad cores. However, I believe Intel has already set the record for hexa cores...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 19, 2009 12:42:18 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Not really any one answer. Its also like asking why Phenom I couldn't go above 2.6GHz before becoming completely unstable (first stepping B2, not B3) but a C2Q 9650 could easily hit 4GHz on air without any problems.


LOL - yep, jennyh conveniently forgot how 'superior' the AMD engineers were with Barf-alona when it first debuted. Probably too busy 'dancing' in the aisles :D .
Score
0
!