Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which CPU is the best?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2010 9:43:22 PM

I know that Intel is the top dog CPU and AMD is its competition. I have heard that there are other CPU makers out there, were does AMD place in the best CPUs? I would assume that AMD is in second place for making the best CPUs because Intel is the best. If any one knows what the other CPU makers are and were Intel and AMD place that would be great! :) 

More about : cpu

a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 14, 2010 10:29:05 PM

There is only one other CPU manufacturer with an x86 license and that is VIA and the only CPUs they make are low powered solutions competing with the intel atom. They only have the x86 license for 10 years or something.

Really, the only thing keeping intel from having a monopoly is the cross licensing agreement they have with AMD about AMD's x86-64 and some monopoly laws the US has.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2010 11:33:44 PM

What is a cross licensing agreement with AMD and there 64-bit CPUs? Doesn't Intel have 64-bit CPUs? Wouldn't AMD stay in buisness because they sell there CPUs at such a low price and they own ATI?
Related resources
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 15, 2010 12:25:22 AM

HostileDonut said:
What is a cross licensing agreement with AMD and there 64-bit CPUs?

Intel implemented the x86 arch first and copyrighted it or whatever. Anyone who produces x86 compatible (also known as IBM compatible) processors is using Intel's technology and therefore has to pay for the license to do so.
AMD implemented the x86-64 (64-bit processors) first and copyrighted it or whatever. Intel had to purchase that license from AMD.

Basically, Intel holds the rights to x86 and AMD holds the rights to x86-64. If Intel decided to not let AMD continue to use the x86 license, AMD wouldn't let Intel use their x86 license. All current lines of processors rely on both. Both companies would have to stop their current production and create new processors.

HostileDonut said:
Doesn't Intel have 64-bit CPUs?

Yes. After AMD introduced the Athlon 64, Intel got a license and started producing 64-bit processors also.

HostileDonut said:
Wouldn't AMD stay in buisness because they sell there CPUs at such a low price and they own ATI?

I'm fairly sure their quarterly reports include the money made by their Graphics card division. Especially now that the ATI brand has been retired and everything is AMD. This puts AMD at a net loss every quarter for quite a while now. But I don't know too much about business and how the company works and stuff like that so I can't say anything more.

I forgot to answer:
were does AMD place in the best CPUs?
I guess because you guessed right yourself.
Currently, most processors up to $300 are pretty well worth their price. Anything higher is just because it is the best. So intel has the best processors. Not twice as fast, but still 25%-50% faster depending on the application:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=203

AMD's current architecture (K10) is on it's last legs. Not much more can be improved in the architecture, seemingly. Intel on the other hand has been coming out with better architectures since. Both have an upcoming architecture aswell, so we'll see what happens. AMD bulldozer next summer and intel sandy bridge early this coming year.
Last time AMD was "top dog" was when they came out with their Athlon 64 processors. Faster and more efficient than anything Intel had at the time (about 2004-2005). Even so, AMD didn't even manage to get half the marketshare. Then Intel introduced their first generation "core" processors to replace the netburst architecture (included pentium 4's). Intel is still working on the same basic architecture though, improving it greatly. Netburst hit a dead end when intel realized that they could not increase the speeds enough while still maintaining a low TDP.
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2010 12:58:01 AM

Gee, thanks for all the help. I like AMD so I hope that AMD Bulldozer kicks Sandy-Bridge's back-side.
a b à CPUs
a c 114 À AMD
a b å Intel
December 15, 2010 1:18:22 AM

I look at it this way...

Intel has the performance crown, there is no denying that. I may hate Intel for what they have done but I cannot say that they don't have a fantastic product because they do. Having said that, AMD is by far the leader in value which means that at every price point where AMD competes with Intel, AMD has the superior processor. AMD is incapable at competing at price levels above the Phenom II X6 1100T because they have nothing else. That CPU is $265USD so therefore, if you plan on spending $265 or less, AMD is the superior product because as stated, if you pick a specific price point, Intel will have a CPU there and AMD will have a CPU there that is superior to Intel's. Intel is alone at the upper end but that upper end is completely useless to 95% of home users. Even high-end gamers like me have no use whatsoever for an i7 CPU. It's just money flushed down the toilet. How do you think all those Intel fanbois who bought the Core2Extreme Q9770 for over $1000USD felt when Intel released the i7-920 for about $500 which had similar performance? I bet they had some posterior pain that is usually reserved for the tax office and prison cells...lol I had Intel since I was 8 years old with an original IBM PC. I did my first build at age 12 with a 286-16. I've since had 386, 486, Pentium-I, II, III, IV and Core2Duo. I decided I wanted a Quad-Core but the Q9400 I was looking at was $400 at the time. On the other hand, AMD had just released the Phenom II X4 920 and 940 CPUs and after reading Anand's review (if AnandTech says anything good about non-Intel parts, you better perk up and listen...lol) I decided that I wanted the 940 which had similar performance to the Q9400 but cost over $100 less. I used that extra money to get an MSI K9A2 Platinum motherboard because I love the x90FX northbridge and the K9A2 Platinum allowed me to Crossfire up to 4 Radeons. I worked at Tiger Direct at the time and did a TON of online review reading and I realised that AMD was the way that 95% of the world should go as far as CPUs and GPUs were concerned. I got my 940 and an HD 4870 and I was so satisfied with them that I bought an AMD-based laptop and another HD 4870 when newegg had their sale. I've never looked back at Intel or nVidia since then and I probably never will. AMD has proven themselves to me and that was not an easy thing to do. After hearing about Intel and nVidia's "questionable" business practices, AMD-based products became my preference. Not because I think AMD loves me or anything, just because I developed a healthy hatred of Intel and nVidia. :sol: 
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2010 2:20:40 PM

i5 - 750: $199.99 on Newegg.com

1100T: $275.99 on Newegg.com

Benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=109

Looks like they trade blows but the 750 is better for gaming...

In short, it's pretty silly to make blanket statements like Avro's "AMD is by far the leader in value which means that at every price point where AMD competes with Intel, AMD has the superior processor. AMD is incapable at competing at price levels above the Phenom II X6 1100T because they have nothing else. That CPU is $265USD so therefore, if you plan on spending $265 or less, AMD is the superior product because as stated, if you pick a specific price point, Intel will have a CPU there and AMD will have a CPU there that is superior to Intel's."

It depends on what you're going to use the CPU for. Then you decide on how much you wanna spend, and start doing your research. When you have been blinded by "a healthy hatred of Intel and nVidia.", you are cutting yourself off from half the available choices. We are enthusiasts here, not political activists..
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2010 2:37:20 PM

Quote:
TBH, it should be like this.
Price/performance comparison should be like this

AMD Phenom II x6 vs Intel 970/980= multitasking (only for AMD to stand a chance)
AMD Phenom II x4 vs core i5 =Gaming
AMD Athlon II x4, x3 vs Intel core i3= lower class gaming
AMD Athon II x2 vs core2duo =Low End chips


True, but I was responding to Avro's blanket statement that at every price point, the AMD CPU is the superior value.

Personally I wouldn't buy any current Intel or AMD CPU, since Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer are just around the corner..
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2010 2:55:40 PM

Quote:
I'm thinking Llano Laptop next year, wanna guess how well the GPU will perform ?


All I've seen so far is AMD's demo where the CPU ran fully loaded and the GPU ran some demo. Didn't look astounding at the time. But supposedly the GPU is equivalent to 480 shaders. If you're going to be playing games at high or max settings on the laptop, then you'd probably want a discrete GPU anyway.

I'm hoping there are mobile SB reviews out on Jan. 5th as I'm in the market for a new laptop myself. I wouldn't mind a mobile version of the 2600K and a high-end GPU for gaming combo :) . The onboard GPU will be more than adequate for web-browsing, HD video, etc and thus conserve battery life, and the discrete good for gaming when there's a power socket handy.

But straight-up comparison of mobile SB with Llano: SB should handily win the CPU benchmarks and Llano the GPU benchies. So once again, for low-end laptops, it depends on what you want to use it for.
a b à CPUs
a c 114 À AMD
a b å Intel
December 15, 2010 3:45:15 PM

Quote:
Quote:
healthy hatred of Intel and nVidia


Dont worry, Nvidia will die out from the Graphics market anyway, at least from what im seeing,
they dont have a x86 or x86-64 license to manufacture desktop CPUs, they can only make Tegras.

They lost their chipset business.........

Their discrete graphics are great, but considering the performance achievable with Intel's SB IGp and AMD's Fusion, they wont really be able to sell their low end GPUs as well, and their high ends are practically overpriced .
The upcoming HD 6970 is at USD 360 on newegg, with the GX580 at 500++USD...........
And their Powerful Teslas aren't exactly consumer parts............
And if the monopoly law stands in AMD's way, they could always argue with the fact that Intel owns 50% of the graphics market, hence with Nvidia gone, the world will still have 2 main graphics manufacturers

To be honest with you, because of their integrated graphics in laptops and desktops, Intel actually owns more than half of the market even as it stands right now, even though their GMA family is absolute garbage.
fazers_on_stun said:
i5 - 750: $199.99 on Newegg.com
1100T: $275.99 on Newegg.com
Benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=109
Looks like they trade blows but the 750 is better for gaming...
In short, it's pretty silly to make blanket statements like Avro's "AMD is by far the leader in value which means that at every price point where AMD competes with Intel, AMD has the superior processor. AMD is incapable at competing at price levels above the Phenom II X6 1100T because they have nothing else. That CPU is $265USD so therefore, if you plan on spending $265 or less, AMD is the superior product because as stated, if you pick a specific price point, Intel will have a CPU there and AMD will have a CPU there that is superior to Intel's."
It depends on what you're going to use the CPU for. Then you decide on how much you wanna spend, and start doing your research. When you have been blinded by "a healthy hatred of Intel and nVidia.", you are cutting yourself off from half the available choices. We are enthusiasts here, not political activists..

Ok, so you've shown me the exception that proves the rule. AMD is by far the leader in value and they have to be in order to survive. The fact is, I'm perfectly happy with the performance of AMD and ATi products so I can have a little political activism in me if I want to. I'm not the only one who is pissed off at Intel and nVidia, believe me. I still use an "old" Phenom II X4 940 and I haven't even yet felt the need to overclock it. Its performance is still fantastic as far as I'm concerned and that tells me that for the most part, any CPU with 3 or more cores is perfect for 90% of the population. I would have purchased a tri-core myself but at the time, Deneb only came in X4 configuration and there was no way I was going to buy a Phenom I. My Phenom II X4 940 was my first EVER AMD CPU and previous to that I owned a total of 9 Intel CPUs from the 8088 to the Core2Duo. I was so satisfied with my Phenom II that I went and bought an AMD-based laptop (which I'm using right now). I already knew from the value standpoint that I'd be buying AMD CPUs but I still liked Intel and hoped that they would put their prices more in line with AMD so that I could justify buying their products again. That's when the anti-trust bomb was dropped and I felt like the company I had known, liked and used for decades had betrayed us all. That's when I started to hate Intel. Their products are top-quality, I won't say otherwise because I'd be lying but I hate the corporation that makes said products and I will not support them anymore unless, like with Microsoft, I have no real alternative (Yes I hate Microsoft too but Linux isn't really viable to a gamer like me yet and I don't feel like getting poked in the posterior by Apple). I used ATi products but switched to nVidia because ATi was too expensive at the time. I had a VANTA, FX 5200, 6200 and 8500 GT. When I saw the performance/price difference between the GTX 260 and the HD 4870, I made the decision to go back to ATi after over a decade of nVidia use. Then the scandals about relabeling parts came out and i said "the hell with that, I'm not buying nVidia anymore, if I can help it.) Again, I'll concede that nVidia makes top-quality products (except the Gen-I Fermi barbecue grills) but just like with Intel, since I have a viable alternative that is at least equal to nVidia, I will use that instead. What really solidified it for me though was AMD setting up that lovely AM2/AM2+/AM3 upgrade path. They didn't have to do that, they could have just done what Intel did and soaked consumers for everything they could but they didn't and I do appreciate that as a consumer. To me, that's good customer service and it's rare to see from such a large corporation these days. I think that's something worth supporting, don't you? :sol: 
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2010 4:42:23 PM

Avro Arrow said:
To be honest with you, because of their integrated graphics in laptops and desktops, Intel actually owns more than half of the market even as it stands right now, even though their GMA family is absolute garbage.

Ok, so you've shown me the exception that proves the rule. AMD is by far the leader in value and they have to be in order to survive. The fact is, I'm perfectly happy with the performance of AMD and ATi products so I can have a little political activism in me if I want to. I'm not the only one who is pissed off at Intel and nVidia, believe me. I still use an "old" Phenom II X4 940 and I haven't even yet felt the need to overclock it. Its performance is still fantastic as far as I'm concerned and that tells me that for the most part, any CPU with 3 or more cores is perfect for 90% of the population. I would have purchased a tri-core myself but at the time, Deneb only came in X4 configuration and there was no way I was going to buy a Phenom I. My Phenom II X4 940 was my first EVER AMD CPU and previous to that I owned a total of 9 Intel CPUs from the 8088 to the Core2Duo. I was so satisfied with my Phenom II that I went and bought an AMD-based laptop (which I'm using right now). I already knew from the value standpoint that I'd be buying AMD CPUs but I still liked Intel and hoped that they would put their prices more in line with AMD so that I could justify buying their products again. That's when the anti-trust bomb was dropped and I felt like the company I had known, liked and used for decades had betrayed us all. That's when I started to hate Intel. Their products are top-quality, I won't say otherwise because I'd be lying but I hate the corporation that makes said products and I will not support them anymore unless, like with Microsoft, I have no real alternative (Yes I hate Microsoft too but Linux isn't really viable to a gamer like me yet and I don't feel like getting poked in the posterior by Apple). I used ATi products but switched to nVidia because ATi was too expensive at the time. I had a VANTA, FX 5200, 6200 and 8500 GT. When I saw the performance/price difference between the GTX 260 and the HD 4870, I made the decision to go back to ATi after over a decade of nVidia use. Then the scandals about relabeling parts came out and i said "the hell with that, I'm not buying nVidia anymore, if I can help it.) Again, I'll concede that nVidia makes top-quality products (except the Gen-I Fermi barbecue grills) but just like with Intel, since I have a viable alternative that is at least equal to nVidia, I will use that instead. What really solidified it for me though was AMD setting up that lovely AM2/AM2+/AM3 upgrade path. They didn't have to do that, they could have just done what Intel did and soaked consumers for everything they could but they didn't and I do appreciate that as a consumer. To me, that's good customer service and it's rare to see from such a large corporation these days. I think that's something worth supporting, don't you? :sol: 

You said that Intel also did the same thing like Nvidia, what did they do? I never heard about it.
a b à CPUs
a c 114 À AMD
a b å Intel
December 15, 2010 7:54:25 PM

HostileDonut said:
You said that Intel also did the same thing like Nvidia, what did they do? I never heard about it.

No, Intel had illegal rebates and penalties imposed upon OEMs like HP and Dell to use exclusively Intel products. They even paid HP a large amount of money to delay the release of one of their laptop lines by 6 months because they were AMD-based. That landed Intel in a ton of hot water with South Korea and the European Union. They were fined $1.44 billion by the EU and were successfully sued by AMD for $1.25 billion. Here's the specifics:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30717099/ns/business-world_...
What nVidia did was constantly relabel their 8800 series as other cards such as the 9800 GT, 9800GTX, 9800GTX+ and finally the GTS 250. All those cards have the same graphics chip on them but nVidia tried to keep it quiet. They also threatened review sites with refusing to send parts for testing if the sites didn't use only games that were optimized for nVidia and if they didn't always try to put a positive spin on nVidia and a negative spin on ATi. Here's the specifics on that:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1016502/nvidia...
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1051123/nvidia...
The head of nvidia also lied at a conference, holding up a card that he claimed was a Fermi but wasn't even a real card of any kind. This was way before the GTX 470 and 480 were released. Intel is crooked and nVidia lies to everyone. That's why it says next to my name:

"Intel is SATAN and nVidia sits by Intel's left." (Satan's little helper)

:sol: 
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2010 11:41:14 PM

Yeah, I almost bought an Nvidia GTX 460, but when I saw the AMD Radeon hd6850 by sapphire which had a PCI-E 2.0 slot (It really wasn't a 2.0 slot it was 2.1, Newegg said it was 2.0) I was so happy because I do not like Nvidia very mcuh either to tell you the truth. I am UBER happy with my hd6850.
a b à CPUs
a c 114 À AMD
a b å Intel
December 16, 2010 2:50:34 AM

HostileDonut said:
Yeah, I almost bought an Nvidia GTX 460, but when I saw the AMD Radeon hd6850 by sapphire which had a PCI-E 2.0 slot (It really wasn't a 2.0 slot it was 2.1, Newegg said it was 2.0) I was so happy because I do not like Nvidia very mcuh either to tell you the truth. I am UBER happy with my hd6850.

I believe you. I'm also UBER happy with my 2 XFX Radeon HD 4870 1GB in Crossfire. I was going to get four altogether but then sanity set in! That's what I get for having a 790FX motherboard and a 1kW PSU, lots and lots of temptation! I realised that although my motherboard and PSU would support it, I would need a much bigger case and those cost an arm and a leg! :sol: 
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2010 4:19:30 AM

I didn't think that hd4870 go in quad SLI.
a b à CPUs
a c 114 À AMD
a b å Intel
December 16, 2010 2:30:40 PM

HostileDonut said:
I didn't think that hd4870 go in quad SLI.

Oh yes they do. Any discrete single-GPU cards from the HD series can. :sol: 
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 16, 2010 4:36:37 PM

Avro Arrow said:
Oh yes they do. Any discrete single-GPU cards from the HD series can. :sol: 

lawlz
a b à CPUs
a c 114 À AMD
a b å Intel
December 17, 2010 1:55:13 AM

I'll change that.. the 6800 series can't for some weird reason. :sol: 
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2011 8:04:52 PM

^ I think the other posters are laughing because ATI/AMD uses Crossfire, not SLI :p 
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2011 8:39:01 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
^ I think the other posters are laughing because ATI/AMD uses Crossfire, not SLI :p 

Ha Ha! I meant to say CF/XF. sorry
January 4, 2011 9:29:24 PM

Quote:
After hearing about Intel and nVidia's "questionable" business practices, AMD-based products became my preference.


I wasn't aware of Nvidia doing this but it's the reason why I support AMD CPU's, intel already owns 70%+ of the CPU market yet they're still pushing for a monopoly which just isn't fair or right.
a b à CPUs
a c 114 À AMD
a b å Intel
January 6, 2011 1:42:58 PM

Quote:
so your saying a company with thousands of employees and who strive to make profits and to pay their employees and have a goal of producing quality aswell as top performing product after spending millions on research and millions of hours of designs, hard work and testing are a big bully?

No, we're saying that a company that intentionally breaks international business laws that were put in place to protect us from things like that doesn't deserve our business and we will do whatever we can to kick them in the face so we buy AMD instead. If AMD was more powerful than they are, this couldn't have happened because the OEMs would have told Intel to take a long walk off of a short pier. Did you conveniently forget that Intel did this or have you been living under a rock? I don't like getting abused by big corporations and so unlike you, I don't try to ignore it and make excuses for them I honestly don't know why you do.
Quote:
be glad you didn't waste your money doing it. Amd cards scaling are terrible once you go past the two gpu barrier thanks to their stupid drivers.

Oh I'm glad alright. I figured "Eh, I now have 2 cards running at full x16 so I can use the two x8 slots for SSDs for when my Phenom II X4 940 has been overclocked to the max and still feels slow." Adding SSDs in the two x8 slots will make the computer feel twice as fast so I think I'll be able to keep what I have for a looooong time. (I do want to get a Thuban someday though...lol) :sol: 
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2011 4:43:53 PM

Quote:
We'll just have to wait until AMD becomes a larger company than Intel, and we'll have a AMD bashing thread like how we bash Intel now, eh ?.. :lol: 

Quote:
I do want to get a Thuban someday though...

How about a Opteron, I think there are some models that fit into AM3s instead of G32s

Why would you want an Opteron over a Thuban? Opteron is "old". The only Ops. I would buy would be a 8 or 12 core. Thubans would probably even win in most senerios anyway.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2011 5:19:07 PM

Gotta admit, that ain't cool, but they still are not as bad as Intel. Lesser of two evils if you will.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2011 5:21:05 PM

Although I do not have any problem with my AMD based system. I will not buy from Intel.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2011 5:51:09 PM

Yes, I do agree that we do, indeed, NEED both of them. But, if your pieces were damaged just ask for a refund. Intel and Nvidia are both kinda sketchy, AMD seems to be the only one I can trust to get a good product for a good price, with out supporting the devil. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
a c 114 À AMD
a b å Intel
January 7, 2011 7:42:07 PM

Quote:
No they dont brake any rules.

First im a small time compiler myself and owns my own computer shop.
Intel send a Rep to your business. Amd dont
Even after you received the order the rep phones you up and ask if everything is in order and such. They even come to look up on you later and keep in contact with their clients.
Amd dont do that at all. You got to run after them for orders.

Now is that good business or bullying?

What do you mean "No they don't brake (break) any rules."? So the $1.45billion fine that they had to pay the EU and the $1.25billion they paid AMD in a civil suit were out of the kindness of their hearts? If you can really think that, I don't know how you stay in business selling computers when you're not even watching the ebb and flow of the market. If you want to say that they don't break rules, I'll give you the proof that they have:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/13/intel-fined-1-45-bil...
Just in case you don't trust the single source, here's more:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30717099/ns/business-world_...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8047546.stm
http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/13/intel-fined-over-e1-bi...
Now, if after reading all that you still don't understand why Intel was fined, CNN will explain it for you. You can go argue with them.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/05/13/intel.fine.e...
And you say Intel treats you so well, I have news for you, if Intel was the only game in town, you'd be out of business because a tiny account like yours wouldn't be worth their time. That's what Intel tried to do and that's why they had to pay out major cash. The bullying they did was towards OEMs like HP, Dell and Acer, telling them that they would be penalized for using non-Intel products but that they'd get HUGE rebates if they used 100% Intel. You're not even a blip on their radar, you're just a customer who is lucky enough to have a good sales rep. If that rep switched to AMD, you'd be singing AMD's praises. You're not a consumer, you're a seller and that seriously compromises your ethics on the matter. There is what is good for the consumer (which we want, and that is AMD right now) and there is what is good for the seller which is you and that's Intel. Sure, Intel's overpriced and profit margins are percentages so you get a small piece of the "Intel milks the consumers" pie. The more you try to promote Intel, the closer you move us towards that future we don't want in which AMD closes its doors and Intel ruins the industry so they can milk us for bigger profits. It's not that bad though, this forum is chock-full of people who know better and a post like the one I just quoted only makes them shake their heads and ruins your credibility. Read the links, then tell me Intel did nothing wrong (And for that matter, also tell me how you didn't know about this). :sol: 
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2011 8:06:01 PM

Yup. Hey what is the name of your business? It would be cool If I could buy something in the future from a fellow Toms guy. ;) 
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2011 8:33:01 PM

Quote:
Can I vote VIA already ?

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA! Good one! :lol: 
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2011 8:47:24 PM

Hmm, and here I thought this thread was about which CPU is the best, not "which CPU company is the most ethical"...
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2011 11:03:25 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Hmm, and here I thought this thread was about which CPU is the best, not "which CPU company is the most ethical"...

It was, but now it changed. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2011 12:21:23 AM

What is the name of your business?
a c 96 à CPUs
January 8, 2011 12:55:05 AM

enzo matrix said:
There is only one other CPU manufacturer with an x86 license and that is VIA and the only CPUs they make are low powered solutions competing with the intel atom. They only have the x86 license for 10 years or something.


There are other manufacturers making x86 CPUs other than Intel, AMD, and VIA. However, they are all embedded designs and apparently all are i486/i586-class or earlier, even though the best of them are ~1 GHz single-cores and use DDR2 memory. I am not sure of the license issues with those parts, but it appears they may not need a license because they are using technology that is no longer under patent- which is maybe why they are all based on ~20-year-old i486/i586 or older technology?

VIA's x86 license situation is that they have a few patents that Intel needs for its chips. Intel grudgingly lets VIA have a license for a handful of years in return for not being sued. They renegotiate every so often, I think the last time was about 5-7 years ago.

Quote:
Really, the only thing keeping intel from having a monopoly is the cross licensing agreement they have with AMD about AMD's x86-64 and some monopoly laws the US has.


The only thing that keeps Intel in the kind of situation where they are a major shot-caller for the consumer CPU market is the near-monopoly x86 Windows has on desktop and laptop machines. If x86 Windows went away, you can bet your bottom dollar you'd see multi-core, multi-GHz ARM, MIPS, and other non-x86 chips pop up in a New York minute to challenge Intel and AMD.

enzo matrix said:
Intel implemented the x86 arch first and copyrighted it or whatever. Anyone who produces x86 compatible (also known as IBM compatible) processors is using Intel's technology and therefore has to pay for the license to do so.
AMD implemented the x86-64 (64-bit processors) first and copyrighted it or whatever. Intel had to purchase that license from AMD.

Basically, Intel holds the rights to x86 and AMD holds the rights to x86-64. If Intel decided to not let AMD continue to use the x86 license, AMD wouldn't let Intel use their x86 license. All current lines of processors rely on both. Both companies would have to stop their current production and create new processors.


The Intel-AMD license agreement stretches back to the early 1990s. Intel had to have at least one other maker fabricate its chips in order for IBM to be willing to buy their 80386. They told IBM that they'd have AMD also make them as AMD had made other Intel CPUs before, and Intel got the deal. Intel then wanted to back out and be the sole source of 386 CPUs and AMD cried foul over breach of contract. A court eventually granted AMD a perpetual royalty-free license to 386 and 486 (it was being developed at both AMD and Intel at the time) technology. The two makers eventually decided to let each other use the their combined x86 patent pool royalty-free since they each held patents the other needed. That's why Intel wanted to move to Itanium so badly as IA64 was not x86 and would cut AMD out of the major desktop and laptop business. That's also why AMD's amd64 ISA being the choice for the most common 64-bit ISA didn't cut Intel off- Intel used AMD's ISA since it was part of the shared royalty-free license pool.

Quote:
I'm fairly sure their quarterly reports include the money made by their Graphics card division. Especially now that the ATI brand has been retired and everything is AMD. This puts AMD at a net loss every quarter for quite a while now. But I don't know too much about business and how the company works and stuff like that so I can't say anything more.


I am pretty sure any information you want is available on AMD's investor relations page and in the recordings of the quarterly conference calls. They're a publicly-traded company so the SEC makes them disclose that information.

Quote:
I forgot to answer:
were does AMD place in the best CPUs?
I guess because you guessed right yourself.
Currently, most processors up to $300 are pretty well worth their price. Anything higher is just because it is the best. So intel has the best processors. Not twice as fast, but still 25%-50% faster depending on the application:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=203


AMD's place in the consumer market is that they dominate the low and midrange segment. Intel's best chips are moderately faster than AMD's best, so they have the high end. Intel does make some midrange and low-end chips, but their low-end chips are pretty much garbage. Their midrange ones battle against AMD's higher-end ones and sometimes hold their own, sometimes not so much.

Quote:
AMD's current architecture (K10) is on it's last legs. Not much more can be improved in the architecture, seemingly. Intel on the other hand has been coming out with better architectures since. Both have an upcoming architecture aswell, so we'll see what happens. AMD bulldozer next summer and intel sandy bridge early this coming year.


Intel keeps improving its current architectures since the last two attempts to create all-new microarchitectures failed miserably. Sandy Bridge traces its lineage back to 1995's P6 Pentium Pro. Intel created two completely new microarchitectures since then, the P7 (IA64 Itanium) and NetBurst (Pentium 4/Pentium D.) They initially intended for NetBurst to be their last x86 microarchitecture as IA64 was going to replace it after Intel trickled it down to 2P serves and eventually client desktops and laptops from its initial starting place as an HP PA-RISC replacement in big-iron RISC servers. Itanium didn't even break into the x86 server market, let alone the client market, and it's only got a modest following in the big-iron space despite Intel and HP pouring billions in cash into the project. NetBurst flamed out and Intel's Israeli team pulled their fat out of the fire by resurrecting the old P6 into the Pentium M and Core, which later became the Core 2, Nehalem, and Sandy Bridge. Also, the Atom has a lot of P5 Pentium in its DNA.

Quote:
Last time AMD was "top dog" was when they came out with their Athlon 64 processors. Faster and more efficient than anything Intel had at the time (about 2004-2005). Even so, AMD didn't even manage to get half the marketshare. Then Intel introduced their first generation "core" processors to replace the netburst architecture (included pentium 4's). Intel is still working on the same basic architecture though, improving it greatly. Netburst hit a dead end when intel realized that they could not increase the speeds enough while still maintaining a low TDP.


The question as to why AMD didn't pick up more market share during the A64 days pretty much got answered when Intel paid $1.25 billion to AMD and giving them some other concessions in return for AMD dropping their antitrust case- and many analysts thought Intel got off easy.

Quote:
From what I understand, Intel has more performance per core,
AMD has more cores per cost,
and what AMD plans to do with the Bullozer is, to implement a reverse of hyperthreading.
Having 2 cores act as one in single threaded apps to keep up with Intel's faster per core performance. ( BD only, Llano......Not yet)


Bulldozer will NOT implement a "reverse hyperthreading." There is no such thing as reverse hyperthreading, where two cores "team up" to execute one thread. What Bulldozer does is share a few pieces of common hardware between two integer cores, namely a hugely-wide and splittable FPU, an L2 cache, and front-end decoders. The two cores work independently on different threads. If AMD's cores are faster, it's because they are simply faster cores.


Quote:
We'll just have to wait until AMD becomes a larger company than Intel, and we'll have a AMD bashing thread like how we bash Intel now, eh ?.. :lol: 

Quote:
I do want to get a Thuban someday though...

How about a Opteron, I think there are some models that fit into AM3s instead of G32s


The AM3 Opterons are basically identical to the Phenom II X4s. They are just rated to run at higher loads for longer periods of time.

HostileDonut said:
Why would you want an Opteron over a Thuban? Opteron is "old". The only Ops. I would buy would be a 8 or 12 core. Thubans would probably even win in most senerios anyway.


If you are running a workstation or a server, C32 and G34 Opterons have quite a few advantages. The G34 ones have a lot more cores. You're guaranteed ECC support no matter what board you buy (ECC on AM3 is a crapshoot. The CPUs all support it, but few boards do.) You can use multiple CPUs on one board. You can use a lot more RAM than you can with a desktop board.

If you are a gamer, get a Thuban. I have a pair of 2.0 GHz 8-core Opterons and they are NOT gaming chips due to their low clock speed. That's fine with me as I don't game much and they fly on video encoding and code compilation. The best ones for gaming are the Opteron 6140s, which are 2.6 GHz 8-cores and cost a grand apiece. A Thuban will be much faster than them in games, and for a quarter of the price.

Quote:
Now few years ago Amd had the big heatsinks with their systems. Shipping them was a nightmare it damaged the cpu with that HS knocking down on it. So we use to avoid Amd for that reason aswell. Its not cost effective.


The most-damaged CPU I had was a pair of Intel Xeons back in the NetBurst days. Intel shipped massive solid copper heatsinks with the Xeons that weighed about a kilogram each. It was fine if you got a retail unit as Intel shipped them in a huge blister pack that practically took a cutting torch to open. If you bought them used, you didn't get the chips hermetically sealed in the blister pack and the great big old heatsinks had a tendency to rattle around in the box and bash the chips when the shipper decided your package was the one he was going to drop or kick today. I spent several hours with a magnifying glass, an 0.3 mm mechanical pencil, an exacto knife, and a pair of teeny tiny Adson's forceps straightening out CPU pins after that debacle.
January 8, 2011 1:17:19 AM

MU_Engineer said:
spent several hours with a magnifying glass, an 0.3 mm mechanical pencil, an exacto knife, and a pair of teeny tiny Adson's forceps straightening out CPU pins after that debacle.
:kaola: 

Talk about overwork, how long did that take? and did you get them working again? :lol: 
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2011 2:59:36 AM

Wait a second. I am not too techy about the internals of a CPU. So what does the Bulldozer do with the two cores? BTW, thank you for the loads of information you sent on many of the posts.
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 8, 2011 4:36:23 AM

HostileDonut said:
Wait a second. I am not too techy about the internals of a CPU. So what does the Bulldozer do with the two cores?

Processes instructions?

I don't follow what you are asking.
a c 96 à CPUs
January 8, 2011 1:16:41 PM

CsG_kieran_2 said:
:kaola: 

Talk about overwork, how long did that take? and did you get them working again? :lol: 


^^ Several hours. ;)  Those pins are very picky about being perfectly straight. I was able to get them from bent to visibly straight pretty quickly, but getting them to be perfectly straight took a lot longer. I ended up having to very carefully angle the CPU into the socket and then wiggle it a bit at the end to get the pins to go in properly. The Socket 603/604 design with the pin grid being surrounded by a half-inch of PCB at the edge makes it much more difficult to work on than say, Socket 939, A, or 370 CPUs where the pins went all the way out to the outer edge of the CPU package.

They do work and they are currently being used on an old Intel E7501 dual Socket 604 motherboard in my file server.
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2011 6:11:51 PM

enzo matrix said:
Processes instructions?

I don't follow what you are asking.

Someone said that the new Bulldozer will do a reverse HT. Them someone said that is not what it does. What does it do?
a c 96 à CPUs
January 8, 2011 6:52:49 PM

HostileDonut said:
Someone said that the new Bulldozer will do a reverse HT. Them someone said that is not what it does. What does it do?


It acts like any other multicore CPU that does not have SMT (HyperThreading). Each core works on an independent thread.
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2011 6:56:49 PM

From what I've read, Bulldozer's "HT" will be a little more hardware driven.

Each core [or module in this case] will have double interger resources, but share (half) FP resources.

So their 4-core(module) CPUs will be advertised [from what I've read] as 8-core CPUs [due to double interger resources per core(module), however they will only have the power of 4-core in FPU processing.

*add*
Oh, and windows/software will see 8 cores.
a c 96 à CPUs
January 8, 2011 8:39:06 PM

Raidur said:
From what I've read, Bulldozer's "HT" will be a little more hardware driven.

Each core [or module in this case] will have double interger resources, but share (half) FP resources.

So their 4-core(module) CPUs will be advertised [from what I've read] as 8-core CPUs [due to double interger resources per core(module), however they will only have the power of 4-core in FPU processing.


No. Intel's HyperThreading is simultaneous multithreading, where there is one complete set of core hardware and two threads run on it. Bulldozer is much different as the only resources shared between cores are the frontend decoders, FPU hardware, and the L2 cache. The FPU is 256 bits wide, twice as wide as their existing FPU. It can be used as two separate 128-bit FPUs as well. The only situations where the 8-core Bulldozer will only be able to execute four FPU instructions per cycle is if they are all working on 256-bit AVX instructions at the same time.

You might want to see what AMD has to say about Bulldozer's FPU as they have a reasonably decent explanation, although it reads somewhat like an advertisement (as it is one.)

Quote:
*add*
Oh, and windows/software will see 8 cores.


Windows sees the number of threads the CPU presents to the OS as cores, so an 8-core Beckton Xeon with HyperThreading turned off, a 4+4-core Magny-Cours Opteron, a quad-core i7 with HyperThreading on, and a dual Xeon E5506 all show up as 8-core machines, despite being physically very different. Windows will tell that the E5506s are two separate CPUs as it will only have one of them be used if that version of Windows isn't licensed for two or more CPU sockets.
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2011 10:25:04 PM

MU_Engineer said:
No. Intel's HyperThreading is simultaneous multithreading, where there is one complete set of core hardware and two threads run on it. Bulldozer is much different as the only resources shared between cores are the frontend decoders, FPU hardware, and the L2 cache. The FPU is 256 bits wide, twice as wide as their existing FPU. It can be used as two separate 128-bit FPUs as well. The only situations where the 8-core Bulldozer will only be able to execute four FPU instructions per cycle is if they are all working on 256-bit AVX instructions at the same time.

You might want to see what AMD has to say about Bulldozer's FPU as they have a reasonably decent explanation, although it reads somewhat like an advertisement (as it is one.)

Quote:
*add*
Oh, and windows/software will see 8 cores.


Windows sees the number of threads the CPU presents to the OS as cores, so an 8-core Beckton Xeon with HyperThreading turned off, a 4+4-core Magny-Cours Opteron, a quad-core i7 with HyperThreading on, and a dual Xeon E5506 all show up as 8-core machines, despite being physically very different. Windows will tell that the E5506s are two separate CPUs as it will only have one of them be used if that version of Windows isn't licensed for two or more CPU sockets.


What did I say that you are correcting, or are you just adding information?

I do know BD is using nothing like HT, I just called it that so the person asking the question knew what I was talking about.

When referring to windows thread monitoring/recognition, core/thread are both used quite a bit and I didn't want to confuse the ask-er. (I do know thread is the 'proper' term, thanks)
a c 96 à CPUs
January 8, 2011 10:38:52 PM

Raidur said:
What did I say that you are correcting, or are you just adding information?


You said that an 8-core Bulldozer has four cores' worth of FPU (e.g. four FPU instructions per clock cycle) and that's not necessarily correct. That's when I added some information about Bulldozer's FPU.
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2011 11:40:23 PM

MU_Engineer said:
You said that an 8-core Bulldozer has four cores' worth of FPU (e.g. four FPU instructions per clock cycle) and that's not necessarily correct. That's when I added some information about Bulldozer's FPU.


Hehe, I actually thought about that a bit after I posted. :p 

I stand corrected.

:) 
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2011 11:54:59 PM

Quote:
L & R Computers

I can't find it, can you give me a link?
October 25, 2011 6:18:50 PM

Quote:
Quote:
healthy hatred of Intel and nVidia


Dont worry, Nvidia will die out from the Graphics market anyway, at least from what im seeing,
they dont have a x86 or x86-64 license to manufacture desktop CPUs, they can only make Tegras.

They lost their chipset business.........

Their discrete graphics are great, but considering the performance achievable with Intel's SB IGp and AMD's Fusion, they wont really be able to sell their low end GPUs as well, and their high ends are practically overpriced .
The upcoming HD 6970 is at USD 360 on newegg, with the GX580 at 500++USD...........

And their Powerful Teslas aren't exactly consumer parts............


And if the monopoly law stands in AMD's way, they could always argue with the fact that Intel owns 50% of the graphics market, hence with Nvidia gone, the world will still have 2 main graphics manufacturers


well i feel that ati/amd has better gameing options then nviia but i use intell cpu,s and my frien just built a cheap pc a single cor amd and his bios let him unlock the second core so he has a faster unit then mine
for less then half of what mine cost i feel that amd is going too hang in their with intel
i thought about switching to amd
!