Default AMD vs Intel Processors w/compatible MOBOS

[MSwhip]

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19

My System Specs


I need to clearly understand a few features and concepts:

1. Are there any particular motherboards that support both AMD and Intel processors?

If so which models?

2. I know that the Sandy and Ivy Bridge processors support Intel Smart Technology by which the Intel processor allows SSD to act as cache to accelerate the speed of HDD/s in same computers.
2.1 Is there any AMD processor offering a comparable feature? If so, what is the name of that feature and which is/are the AMD model/s that offers such a feature?


I am looking into a future build based on Intel's Ivy Bridge (tick + acording to Intel) or the version after that (which apparently will be a "toc(k)" progress.) So I am trying to understand my options.

Over the option between Intel and AMD processors it has been said that specially in the latest launches of processors, Intel is amply superior to AMD. As I am not finding the facts as to those reasons I am asking for directions to look for them.
I want to compare the efficiency and performance of those 2 brands of processors given my particular uses which can be detailed as: personal use contains NO GAMING whatsoever BUT intensive in Web Surfing (with over 50 web pages opened simultaneously), online chat, emailing, TV and Video streaming and watching over the PC via a HDTV two-tuner card, and business software programs.

3. Any good suggestion about who/where clearly explains such a comparison between processors of the same generation with similar features from Intel and AMD for the uses described in the paragraph above?

Thank you for any knowledgeable contributions

 

[vrumor]

1. No.
2. No.
3. Google is your friend, cause any answer you get from anyone here will be the direct result of them Googling your answer.

 

[MSwhip]

1. No.
2. No.
3. Google is your friend, cause any answer you get from anyone here will be the direct result of them Googling your answer.


To vrumor:

Thank you for responding.

I would have thought that people that read and write in these Forums IF and when they respond, they would be offering their personal knowledge not just go to google to find out first.
Haviing said this, now I would be curious to know from you, whether you Googled my questions yourself in Google before answering to me in here?

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

In his defense though, he's right on all accounts, although pretty much anyone around here could tell you the answers to your first two questions without doing a Google search... As for your third question, Google really IS your friend.

 

[vrumor]

Im sure that anyone with some knowledge wont have to Google most things, however, no one knows off the top of their head if AMD is gonna have something akin to SRT without doing some research and seeing if its even being hinted about. But on something like that, you have to Google it. 90% of the questions people ask can be Googled and take a heckuva lot less time then actually signing up for an account here just to post a question.

 

[InvalidError]

I want to compare the efficiency and performance of those 2 brands of processors given my particular uses which can be detailed as: personal use contains NO GAMING whatsoever BUT intensive in Web Surfing (with over 50 web pages opened simultaneously), online chat, emailing, TV and Video streaming and watching over the PC via a HDTV two-tuner card, and business software programs.

Right now, Intel owns the performance/watt crown in just about every performance tier and since none of your uses would be considered CPU-intensive by today's standards (unless you are transcoding live TV instead of recording the MPEG stream direct to HDD), even an i3 would hardly break a sweat unless you have something particularly heavy hidden in your "business software" category.

No hardware review sites bothers benchmarking "heavy web browsing", chat and mail since even the slowest systems today are already plenty fast for that, same for most forms of media playback/streaming that have also become trivial even for entry-level systems. Little attention is paid to media decoding efficiency beyond portable devices and even then, rarely beyond on-battery playback endurance.

As for where to look for them, you could start by reading Ivy Bridge reviews. Plenty of benchmarks pitting i5-3570 and i7-3770 against previous contenders including AMD's. The i5/i7-2xxx/3xxx are wiping the floor with AMD and with Intel's low-cost options, AMD has a hard time remaining competitive even on bang/buck.

 

[MSwhip]

To InvalidError:

My current computer system has the following components:
Dell Studio 540 Intel Q9550 2.83 Mhtz Quad Core, Windows Home Premium 64-bit, 6GB DDR2 RAM dual channel PC 6400 800 Mhz, nVidia GTS 240 1Gb Video Card - Hauppage 1250 single TV tuner card. Disk 0: Intel Series 320 Sata2 160GB, Disk 1: Western Digital Black Caviar 2TB 2001FASS.

Do I have to conclude then, that for the usage i have described earlier on in this thread, I should stop thinking in spending money in replacing my system which I purshased in late 2009?

I would be interested in requesting opinions of knowledgeable Forum members and would appreciate those contributions.


Thank you kindly.

 

[InvalidError]

Do I have to conclude then, that for the usage i have described earlier on in this thread, I should stop thinking in spending money in replacing my system which I purshased in late 2009?

Does anything you currently do feel sluggish on your C2Quad? From the vague list you provided, it does not seem like anything should. If not, then there is no much point in upgrading except for the better power-efficiency if that is important enough to you. If something feels slower than you think it should be, those would be the ones you need to list explicitly if you want specific recommendations for it.

As far as media playback is concerned, even my C2D-E8400 running at stock clock (3GHz) which I put together in 2008 can play two 1080p-hi10 videos encoded in h264 simultaneously so I have a hard time imagining how a quad-core would be struggling with media playback/streaming.

 

[MSwhip]

Does anything you currently do feel sluggish on your C2Quad? From the vague list you provided, it does not seem like anything should. If not, then there is no much point in upgrading except for the better power-efficiency if that is important enough to you. If something feels slower than you think it should be, those would be the ones you need to list explicitly if you want specific recommendations for it.

As far as media playback is concerned, even my C2D-E8400 running at stock clock (3GHz) which I put together in 2008 can play two 1080p-hi10 videos encoded in h264 simultaneously so I have a hard time imagining how a quad-core would be struggling with media playback/streaming.

In response to your contributions, nothing seems slower than it should...except maybe the Intel 320 Series SSD Sata II 160 GB whose readings are not what I had expected.


Read Write
Seq 250.1 Mb/s 171.2 Mb/s
512 K 129.7 172.0
4K 19.85 38.87
4KQD32 21.05 56.87


Those are the Crystal Mark readings.

Thanks for your opinions.

 

[amuffin]

Is the drive set on AHCI mode? Is Windows, set on AHCI mode?

 

[MSwhip]

Is the drive set on AHCI mode? Is Windows, set on AHCI mode?

I am unaware of it. I do not even know how to check, and if it is in IDE mode how to change it to AHCI mode.
I an running Windows 7 Home 64-bit. I thought i read the Win7 deals with T.R.I.M. automatically.
Do I stilll need to verify the status as AHCI mode in both Win and the drive?
I have used the Intel SSD Tools to "optimize" the disk (whatever that optimization meant and consisted of)

Could you help with finding out and making -if necessary- the corresponding changes.

Thank you kindly