AMD vs INTEL….?

pts.
Tags:
3Com
Availability
Avaya
Bandwidth
Billing and customer care
Billing Support Systems
Cabling
Career Development
Cisco
Dell
Development
Distribution/logistics applications
Enterasys
Foundry
Hardware
HEAT
Help Desk
Hewlett-Packard
Hubs
Interoperability
Microprocessors
Network management software
Network protocols
Networking
NIC
PeopleSoft
Printers
Routers
Software
Switches
Hi all, I`ve been a AMD fan as long as i know but i have a few questions for everyone! If INTEL`s chip specifies Pentium 4 3600(800FSB 1MB)LGA 775Pinn the we all know its 3.6GHZ! But Now WHY when we get to AMD specification of chipset : AMD Athlon64 ? 4000+ (PIB) 2.4GHZ, 939-Pin Processor (128 L1 + 512 L2 Cache) HyperTransport? , Its 4000+ but only actually 2.4GHZ, Can someone please explain this Theory to me? Is the AMD Chip then considered better or less performance than INTEL`s Pentium Chip!And if what makes the AMD Better? I`m still a AMD fan and will always be, i just need this information to get a clear picture of the situation! Thank You All Regards Riaan Rourke Tech Support

Answer Wiki

Thanks. We'll let you know when a new response is added.

AMD has no place in enterprise.

Discuss This Question: 16  Replies

 
There was an error processing your information. Please try again later.
Thanks. We'll let you know when a new response is added.
Send me notifications when members answer or reply to this question.

REGISTER or login:

Forgot Password?
By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy
  • Nephi1
    AMD a few years ago changed from stating raw CPU speed to equevelent Intel P3/4 speed So instead of saying the lastest AMD CPU is 2.8GHz and the lastest Intel CPU is 5GHz. AMD said lets says its the equal of a 5.6GHz Intel CPU. Another chip manufacturer that did this was Cyrix (and AMD was doing it as well) when they released their Pentium clones. The PR rating was meant to be the speed of the CPU if it was an Intel one. Also note that Intel has started not to state the real speed (as a selling point). If you really want to be predantic Intel is faster (raw CPU speed) but slower at thinking (raw processing speed), where as AMD is slower but faster at thinking.
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Sonotsky
    Depending on who you listen to, AMD uses this numbering/naming scheme in one of two ways: 1) as the previous poster mentions, to match AMD's benchmarked CPU speed, using whatever proprietary technologies they have to get a performance boost higher than just raw CPU speed, against an equivalent Intel core. So a 4000+ AMD CPU claims to run binary code as fast as a 4.0GHz Pentium CPU (but which Intel core they choose to compare to is up for debate); 2) it's all marketing. Case in point: Cyrix, prior to their Via buyout, had been trying to get more market share for a long, long time; the sales force at Cyrix, one day, decided that raw CPU power just isn't as sexy as a slick "performance rating" designation/name, and they didn't have a sleek brand name like "Pentium", so they stopped selling CPUs (only; other chips produced by Cyrix had their speeds downplayed) by the MHz and starting selling things like a "PR/166" - I have one, and it actually clocks in at about 158MHz. Of course, the marketing angle doesn't always help - look where it got Cyrix, and look where it's taking AMD. Not to bash anyone - I love an underdog, and the Cyrix chip I have is still in use as a DOS box for old games. I just feel that marketing strategies do more harm than good, and confuse the buyer as to their true performance. Hope all that made sense. Cheers
    695 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Byimw02
    You are wise to stay with AMD. I think AMD is taking the correct approach in 'numbers-marketing' campaign since the majority of users do not know what the numbers represent. Basically, a 64-bit processor will blow the doors off a 32-bit processor simply due to the 2x larger internal bandwidth. Simply comparing the GHz between these two chips is meaningless. The questions should be how the your software takes advantage of the chip bandwidth and your performance expectations. IMHO, AMD produces a quality product at a better price. Until Intel came up with their four-tone marketing, no one cared what was inside as long at it worked.
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Poppaman2
    Nephi1 explains it well, as an answer to your question. I beg to differ with Brutusbrighteyes, however... The days of AMD being a hobbyist chip or a gamer's platform are gone. With AMD's entry into the 64bit space (and remember, Intel dropped their own 64bit instruction set in favor of AMD's for most of their product line...), they are a true enterprise class player. There is no discernable difference in reliability to my knowledge and experience between AMD and Intel - I have seen both fail - and there may be some cost savings for the initial acquisition, or possibly more power for an equivalent expenditure if AMD is your platform of choice... HP and IBM (both 1st tier vendors) are manufacturing AMD based workstations and servers which work as well or better than their Intel counterparts. To make a statement that "AMD has no place in the enterprise" lacks awareness of the state of the processor world today.... Paul Ressler Ressler Technical Services A+, GSEC, GCWN, ACSP (I don't usually state my name in these posts, or rattle off certs, but felt that I needed to add some validity to my opinion here. Sorry if it comes off as a bit pompous)
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Astronomer
    With all of these modern chips, your milage will vary with the software you run. Starting with the 8086, CPU manufacturers have been doing optimizations that make predicting actual performance a more arcane art every year. Since different manufacturers use different optimizations, their performance will vary depending on the software they are running. This has been a big opportunity for marketing departments to intruduce FUD. The first question you should ask is whether you need bleeding edge performance with your system and how long will it matter. Remember how fast anything you buy today will be passed by. When I worked at Intel some of my co-workers were irritated by the fact that I proudly used home systems two generations behind the current technology. If a slower/less expensive system will do the job adequately for the predicted lifespan of the device, don't spend the extra money. On the other hand, if you need every ounce of performance from the system, you may want to evaluate both architectures to see which is fastest for your application. You may even want to look at multiple processors and load sharing clusters. This gets expensive fast. rt
    15 pointsBadges:
    report
  • DrillO
    Basically, the two processors cannot be compared fairly. One is 64bit and one is not. Selection of processor is largely dependant on what you are going to use it for. Each of the chip makers have their strong points. I wish it was as easy as all that to select a processor, I mean if the marketing means anything at all to us "in the business" then shame on us. Do lots of good research on the processor vs. the application of the processor and make your decision. Paul
    15 pointsBadges:
    report
  • TeslaGuy
    Okay, in response to the guy that says "AMD has no place in the Enterprise", you do realize that that comment will do nothing other than start a religious war. Especially when you have no facts (or even anything off the top of your head) to back that up, which you didn't. I have looked at all levels and manufacturers of processors for a couple decades now (going back to the 8088 vs. Nec V20 cpu). Here is what you'll notice: number one, when comparing CPU speeds, much of it is immaterial. The reason why is if you theoretically had a 1 GHz processor, and was able to take that out and replace it with a 2 GHz processor, you do not get even close to twice the speed. There are several aspects of a system that affect the "overall" speed of a computer. One is the Front-Side Bus. Although everything inside the CPU may be processing at 2 GHz, everthing coming in or leaving teh CPU to talk to everything else on your computer is gonig very slow. Also, the speed and type of RAM you have plays a huge factor, as well as quantity of RAM with today's OS's. The speed and type of your hard-disk subsystem (for instance, modern SCSI vs. SATA vs. PATA IDE -- and 5400 RPM vs. 7200 RPM vs 10k or even 15k). Most OS's used today are graphical, meaning your video subsystem will affect the performance. So if you do take that theoretical 1 GHz processor and replace it with a 2 GHz processor, and everything else remains totally equal, you'll be lucky to gain a few percentage points of noticable improvement. Of course, this all depends on what you're using the computers for. If you're using these computers primarily for Word and Excel, you wouldn't notice a difference at all. However, if you were doing lots of high-end number crunching (like 3D rendering, a lot of modern games, scientific computing, etc.) then the difference in performance will be a lot more noticable. A few years ago, when AMD really started becoming truly "popular" as an Intel replacement, their CPU's did have an overheating problem. So the money you saved on the CPU itself a lot of times was spent on a fancy heatsink/fan - much better than the standard "generic" ones that could easily be used on Intel ones. I can tell you from experience, however, that this is no longer a problem like it was. In fact, half of my machines at home are Intel-based computers, and half are AMD-based computers. I'm even using an AMD 64-bit cpu/mobo for one of my systems - in fact, my primary system. Mind you, this machine is NEVER turned off, and it never experiences a problem.
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Ve3ofa
    Raw speed in Mhz means nothing unless it is in context with something.. If you could get a 8086 to run at 500Mhz it would be dog slow compared to a P3-400 ... Comparing AMD to INTEL is almost like comparing apples and oranges.. maybe macintosh apples compared to granny smith apples.. one is better for apple pies and the other is better for eating.. AMD seems to be winning the CPU race at the moment.. Intel has a heat/power consumption problem that isn't going to go away.. Intel is lagging in the 64 bit race at the moment. Look for dual cores in addition to hyperthreading in the future.. the question is will your software mix make use of the new options?
    80 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Helbatza
    To sort of put this discussion to bed now, go and read up on the following web page - and take into consideration that this document is dated in 2003 already! http://www-1.ibm.com/grid/grid_press/pr_730.shtml Intel missed the boat with 64bit computing for desktops, and that probably cost them dearly - enough for AMD to catch up and surpass Intel in a lot of areas.
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Helbatza
    Earlier posters mentioned the fact that system performance can not be measured by processor speed - (Ghz), a case in point is the world's fastest system currently ranked number 1 - an IBM PowerPC440 with processors that run at 700Mhz... You can check out the specs and other good stuff at: http://www.top500.org
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Byimw02
    In response to Helbatza's post: The operative word is 'processors'. IBM's number 1 supercomputer utilizes parallel-processing architecture containing 65.5 thousand nodes with each computing node composed of 2-700MHz chips with 4MiB eDRAMs. This is a system with 131,072 CPUs!!
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • ItDefPat1
    There are various ways to compare processors. http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8800~72730,00.html http://www.intel.com/support/processors/pentium4/sb/cs-020861.htm These use CTP or MTOPS, which measure number of operations. (MTOPS is also used for export control). See Also the CPU buyers Guide: http://www.systemsmanagementpipeline.com/168601801?cid=RSSfeed (note this is a RSS feed) this discusses the differences between single- and dual-core processors, clock speed ("Note: Intel's and AMD's CPUs run at different clock speeds. This does not indicate faster or slower performance. "), etc. Note that comparisons can include differences in clock, cache, FSB, threading (HyperThreading), and controllers. Simple answer: no simple answer.
    15 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Wazzup
    Thanx all for your replies, i have the picture much more clearer than before!Isnt this forum the best? This race between AMD and Intel has been goin on for a long time and my opinion AMD is winning the race the the New AMD 64 Dual Core processors which is unbelievably powerfull! Is there any 3rd party Processors out there Like Cyrix still being made?Is fo why is there only 2 Processors Like AMD and Intel in the race? Thanks Riaan Rourke Technical Support
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Byimw02
    IBM is in the race with their POWER processor in many markets, i.e. gaming processors, systems. Note this article. http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh092605-story01-soltis.html
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • TedRizzi
    If my memory servers me well, AMD rates its chips based on the performance level of the chip and not the actual clock speed. so the 4000+ would indicate the machine performs at the same level as an intel p4 4 ghz chip. based on performance testing. AMD's reasoning is that there is much more to chip performance than clock speed. and clock speed alone is not the best indicator of processor performance
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Nephi1
    Cyrix CPUs are no longer made, however they were eventually brought out (after a few other companies) by VIA. Now VIA makes the C3 CPUs (which are low powered, low MHz/GHz but they have somewhat of an alright CPU performance IIRC). The Transmeta CPUs were out for a while, but are no longer made. These CPUs were ment to be just as good if not better (after their training period). As they would optimize themselves to the OS and the Apps. And anything legacy would been emulated. So if you really wanted to you could say the CPU race (x86 only) is between Intel and AMD, but there is at least 1 more CPU in the market and you could say in the race. But if you were counting the race for ALL system types, (RISC, CISC, SARP (spelling?), IA64, etc.) then there is quite a few manufacturers and CPUs.
    0 pointsBadges:
    report

Forgot Password

No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an e-mail containing your password.

Your password has been sent to:

To follow this tag...

There was an error processing your information. Please try again later.

REGISTER or login:

Forgot Password?
By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Thanks! We'll email you when relevant content is added and updated.

Following