Intel Vs AMD

RobA
RobA Posts: 151
edited June 2007 in The Crudcatcher
SO it the big question what is better, In single core processors and dual core processors, Why is the better one better and why, and what is better value for money?

Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of lifes problems!
Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of lifes problems!
«1

Comments

  • Fantastic Mr Fox
    Fantastic Mr Fox Posts: 848
    It changes all the time, Pentium 4's were shocking as they used a tonne of power and were not that efficient.
    Whilst AMD Athlon's were way way better.

    Now though id say that the duel core Intel's are the best.

    <hr noshade size="1"><font color="teal"><center><font size="2"><font face="Georgia">I'd rather not.</font id="Georgia"></font id="size2"></center></font id="teal">
    <hr noshade size="1"><font color="purple"><center><i><b><font size="2"><font face="Times New Roman"> "Boggis and Bunce and Bean. One fat, one short, one lean. These horrible crooks. So different in looks. Were none the less equally mean."</font id="Times New Roman"></b></font id="size2"></i></center></font id="purple">
  • Big Red S
    Big Red S Posts: 26,890
    Talking CPUs, my understanding currently is that AMD do good computing power for not much electrical power, and Intel do good computing power for not much money.

    I think.

    <hr noshade size="1"><font size="1">:) README
    [url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)</font id="size1">
    http://avi.co/doc/Forums.html
  • carey8
    carey8 Posts: 222
    At the moment, its Intel Dual Core, (conroe).
    If you're going to go with any, get an E6600, thats in my personal opinoin anyway.
    Although the new E6320, E6420 etc, still have the same 4MB cache, the E6600, has the higher multiplier.

    But if you really want performance, wait until July 22ND until intel make some Serious Price cuts and go Quad Core. [:)]

    <h6>EatMe</h6>
    <h6>EatMe</h6>
  • RobA
    RobA Posts: 151
    Why whats happening on the 22nd of July?

    Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of lifes problems!
    Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of lifes problems!
  • Shadow_Conspiracy
    Shadow_Conspiracy Posts: 1,403
    It's the day after my birthday? [:)]

    Quad core seems to be a waste of time for most things, as programs are just about being optimized for dual at the moment.

    <font size="3"><center><font color="red">Bike!</font id="red"></center></font id="size3">
    The Internet World Ended On 04/07/2007
  • carey8
    carey8 Posts: 222
    They will start optimizing it soon.
    As you say, most programs are just being optimized for Dual, but if you want to be future proofed, and if Quad core only costs a little more, then why not go for it.

    On 22nd of July, intel are making big price cuts, making their CPU's fall, bigtime.
    Quad cores (the Q6600, being one) will be well below œ300, well according to some other computer forums.

    <h6>EatMe</h6>
    <h6>EatMe</h6>
  • RobA
    RobA Posts: 151
    I'm not paying œ300 for a CPU.

    Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of lifes problems!
    Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of lifes problems!
  • jamiejim
    jamiejim Posts: 244
    you get what you pay for
    MBUK
  • RobA
    RobA Posts: 151
    I know, but still I haven't got that sort oof money and I could build up a lesser spec comp for that.

    Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of lifes problems!
    Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of lifes problems!
  • ride_whenever
    ride_whenever Posts: 13,279
    For ultra low budget buy socketA amd, because it is soooooooooooooooooooooooo cheap. But not at all future proof. After that buy dual core, the current intel crop wipes the floor with AMD. And before I'm accused of being an intel fanboy, I have several AMD cores, but for my next pc I'll have a conroe please.

    My Scott

    My Single Speed

    Always remember to pick your Uni according to the local trails or you'll be stuck with nowhere to ride for three years!
    Neeermad
    Carbon 456
    456 lefty
    Pompino
    White Inbred
  • HappyZZZCamper
    HappyZZZCamper Posts: 52
    At present the processor market is like this:

    Intel have the edge in terms of ultimate performance, and offer decent value. AMD have the edge in terms of low end entry level CPUs at present, as they offer slighlty lower prices for a given performance. Power consumption is similar, so no need to worry about that.

    What it really comes down to, is how much money you are willing to pay. Once you break the 150 quid mark, then you should probably go with intel cos they offer the best value. Below that, go with AMD who offer the best value at that end of the scale.

    <hr noshade size="1">Roads are the ideal terrain for MTBing.
    <hr noshade size="1">DH is for pussies. Bring on the Roadie!
    My Blog
  • Shadow_Conspiracy
    Shadow_Conspiracy Posts: 1,403
    Are the conroe processors socket LGA775?

    Also, if a C2D processor is labelled as , for example 2.0GHz, thats 2x 2.0GHz yeah?

    And would a new processor mean needing to change anything else whatsoever?

    <font size="3"><center><font color="red">Bike!</font id="red"></center></font id="size3">
    The Internet World Ended On 04/07/2007
  • jamiejim
    jamiejim Posts: 244
    I believe so.
    MBUK
  • Shadow_Conspiracy
    Shadow_Conspiracy Posts: 1,403
    You believe that they are 775?

    I edited just before your post, so i guess thats what you mean.

    <font size="3"><center><font color="red">Bike!</font id="red"></center></font id="size3">
    The Internet World Ended On 04/07/2007
  • jamiejim
    jamiejim Posts: 244
    yeah, think they are 775. And Im not sure about the cores. I think with C2D it is two physical processors, so double the power? But with a lot of the processors there are two cores but one physical processor, meaning the power isnt doubled. the extra core just takes care of some of the work
    MBUK
  • Big Red S
    Big Red S Posts: 26,890
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by carey8</i>

    They will start optimizing it soon.
    As you say, most programs are just being optimized for Dual, but if you want to be future proofed, and if Quad core only costs a little more, then why not go for it.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Yeah, they said that about x86-64...

    And recompiling for 64-bit is far, far simpler than rewriting for multiple cores.

    <hr noshade size="1"><font size="1">:) README
    [url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)</font id="size1">
    http://avi.co/doc/Forums.html
  • carey8
    carey8 Posts: 222
    But for power, while running mutli-tasks, Quad core will make a difference.
    If you're a Benchmarker etc, then Quadcore will make a difference.
    Although, for the average computer user, Dual Core, will in most cases, be more than enough power.

    <h6>EatMe</h6>
    <h6>EatMe</h6>
  • Big Red S
    Big Red S Posts: 26,890
    Yeah, and 64-bit makes a difference for a large proportion of applications. But MS decided that Windows users didn't need that until whenever it was they got round to compiling XP for it. 2005? And _still_ almost nothing is released for Win64.

    So long as the majority of PC users are stupid, it'll take ages for any Windows-based app to get round to using hardware effectively. Partly because the OS leaves so little for them to play with, and partly because it's easier to just tell people it already is. If you keep the code from them, how are they going to be able to tell?

    <hr noshade size="1"><font size="1">:) README
    [url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)</font id="size1">
    http://avi.co/doc/Forums.html
  • carey8
    carey8 Posts: 222
    So in a way, you're saying, other OS's (Linux etc) use their hardware more effectively?
    And
    That they will be able to use Quad Core sonner/more effectively?

    <h6>EatMe</h6>
    <h6>EatMe</h6>
  • Big Red S
    Big Red S Posts: 26,890
    When they released x86-64, we were told that to future proof ourselves, we should buy one of these new chips.
    Most of them were obsolete by the time MS got round to compiling XP on one of them, so any Windows users might as well have just bought another 686 chip. In fact, given that they'd paid extra for the 64b-bit-ness, they'd have done better to have bought a top-end 32-bit chip than a middling 64-bit one.

    So, given how recently multiple cores have hit the mainstream, i wouldn't hold my breath on anything windows-based really picking up on it for the life of these new chips.

    <hr noshade size="1"><font size="1">:) README
    [url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)</font id="size1">
    http://avi.co/doc/Forums.html
  • carey8
    carey8 Posts: 222
    Oh, i see now.
    So windows will never really optimize the usage of a Dual core.
    What about the programs that are run within windows?
    If they optimize the usage of more cores through windows, would they be using the cores effectively or would they not be able to through the restrictions of windows?

    <h6>EatMe</h6>
    <h6>EatMe</h6>
  • Big Red S
    Big Red S Posts: 26,890
    Windows already does, doesn't it? It's the apps that don't, and I reckon it'll be a while before any of the software houses bother rewriting for multiple cores. It's easier to recompile for Linux, probably. And it's not like they've anything to gain yet. Most people are stupid so won't care.

    I'm not sure if Windows has anything in it to 'help' optimise the apps in it. I'd presume there's something incredibly rudimentary that MS make a lot of noise about when someone asks...

    <hr noshade size="1"><font size="1">:) README
    [url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)</font id="size1">
    http://avi.co/doc/Forums.html
  • creepz
    creepz Posts: 11
    anybody read up on new amd cpu's soon to be released they are core 2 duo beaters just proves there no point in trying to always have best unless ya got deep deep pockets im happy with opty it works well plays all latest games and cheap as chips
  • carey8
    carey8 Posts: 222
    Ah ok.
    But certain games etc are suppose to use the multiple cores alot more effectively? Same as some Image Editing software (photoshop etc), I'm thinking that new Video Editing software would do as well.

    So certain software houses are optimizing it?

    <h6>EatMe</h6>
    <h6>EatMe</h6>
  • HappyZZZCamper
    HappyZZZCamper Posts: 52
    ^^^^
    Most application will benefit from an extra core because in the days before multi-core processors a 2 processors was the most programs would ever see (bar high end server applications) and so a lot of programs were written to be able to make use of more than one processor.

    However, now 4 core processors have been released with 8 core processors in the pipeline, and the performance gain will be a lot smaller for individual programs, because most will only use a core or 2. Also, as writing sofware for many processors is an entirely different concept to the one most programmers have got used to, it'll take a while before all software is optimised to really take advantage of multi core systems.

    With regards to 64bit systems. 64bit programs are few and far between for the desktop although less so on linux, because you can legally recompile programs using a 64bit compiler. 64bit systems won't start to make a real dent in the domestic computer market until the 2GB/application limit in windows becomes an issue.

    With regards to sockets. If your PC is more than 2 years old, a motherboard upgrade is a certainty, and you may well also need to upgrade your graphics card.

    <hr noshade size="1">Roads are the ideal terrain for MTBing.
    <hr noshade size="1">DH is for pussies. Bring on the Roadie!
    My Blog
  • carey8
    carey8 Posts: 222
    So, Multiple Cores, more so that 2 Cores, are effectivly useless.
    Unless you waznt to run stupid amount of programs at one given time, with windows sharing the load of the software between the cores.

    2GB windows Apllication Limit? Can a program not be bigger than 2Gb?

    Theres a new Mac out, that has 8 effective cores,well i think they were effective or, they were full proper cores.

    So really, in all applications you won't see a real performance gain, but with the amount of programs/applications open, you will see that the computer handles these better and keeps speed of the computer up?

    <h6>EatMe</h6>
    <h6>EatMe</h6>
  • Big Red S
    Big Red S Posts: 26,890
    Win32 has a limit of 2GB of RAM per applicaiton. Though I'm fairly certain you can change it with not _that_ much hacking. Presumably Win64 doesn't have the same problem.

    Yeah, multi-cored systems are pretty useless. Partly because they'll never see anything even approaching a taxing load: even running Vista, I'm not sure you'd notice a difference between a single-core 3GHz chip and a board that reckons it's got twelve of them. Also, nearly everything's yet to be rewritten for parallel programming. And, like I say, there's no real point for the vendors.

    The closest most computers come to taxing applications are when they're used for gaming, but it's not the CPU that's holding it back normally; it's the GPU.

    <hr noshade size="1"><font size="1">:) README
    [url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)</font id="size1">
    http://avi.co/doc/Forums.html
  • jamiejim
    jamiejim Posts: 244
    Does the PS3 make use of its 8 cores?
    MBUK
  • HappyZZZCamper
    HappyZZZCamper Posts: 52
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by carey8</i>
    Theres a new Mac out, that has 8 effective cores,well i think they were effective or, they were full proper cores.

    <h6>EatMe</h6>
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
    The Mac you are talking about is a bit different, as it's intended market is the cad/cam market, or possibly the server market where software has been written to take advantage of as many cores as possible for some time.

    <hr noshade size="1">Roads are the ideal terrain for MTBing.
    <hr noshade size="1">DH is for pussies. Bring on the Roadie!
    My Blog
  • Matt
    Matt Posts: 5,288
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by HappyZZZCamper</i>

    At present the processor market is like this:

    Intel have the edge in terms of ultimate performance, and offer decent value. AMD have the edge in terms of low end entry level CPUs at present, as they offer slighlty lower prices for a given performance. Power consumption is similar, so no need to worry about that.

    What it really comes down to, is how much money you are willing to pay. Once you break the 150 quid mark, then you should probably go with intel cos they offer the best value. Below that, go with AMD who offer the best value at that end of the scale.

    <hr noshade size="1">Roads are the ideal terrain for MTBing.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    I'd say that even at 100 quid you'd be best off going Intel. Or do you mean 150 RRP?

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Shadow_Conspiracy</i>

    Are the conroe processors socket LGA775?

    Also, if a C2D processor is labelled as , for example 2.0GHz, thats 2x 2.0GHz yeah?

    And would a new processor mean needing to change anything else whatsoever?

    <font size="3"><center><font color="red">Bike!</font id="red"></center></font id="size3">
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Yeah, C2D is LGA775. If you were going to get it though, you would need a new motherboard and RAM. Which isn't such a bad thing as DDR2 is a lot cheaper than DDR. If you're running an AGP graphics card, unless there's a C2D board floating around with AGP, you'll need a new one.

    <hr noshade size="1">
    Chaparral

Categories