AMD vs. Intel

Dom · Post by **Dom** » 27 Nov 2004, 11:43

Yeah, it's been said that DDR2 will only start to be quicker than existing DDR when it begins to scale above speeds of 650+ MHz...

A PCI-e 32 or 64 lane bus channel would work pretty well I imagine. x16 isn't really (at this point in time) showing the amazing speed boosts it was meant to.

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 27 Nov 2004, 11:46

dom wrote:Yeah, it's been said that DDR2 will only start to be quicker than existing DDR when it begins to scale above speeds of 650+ MHz...

A PCI-e 32 or 64 lane bus channel would work pretty well I imagine. x16 isn't really (at this point in time) showing the amazing speed boosts it was meant to.

To point out by that time we will have CPU's running at 4GHZ+ so in effect it will still be slow....

Dom · Post by **Dom** » 27 Nov 2004, 11:49

You're quite right... FSB 1066 is already on the cards for Intel chips, and AMD is moving towards 1GHz FSB too.

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 27 Nov 2004, 11:57

dom wrote:You're quite right... FSB 1066 is already on the cards for Intel chips, and AMD is moving towards 1GHz FSB too.

Well talking about speeds intel and AMD is spending so much time and money on building the best CPU...ect.When will the money be spent on the rest on the stuff that makes your PC tick.....sound cards have be stuck on speeds unknown to man....

Dom · Post by **Dom** » 27 Nov 2004, 12:01

Yup, devices like sound cards never really see much improvement these days. Reason being, is that it's not quite as intensive to play sounds\music as it is to render graphics I guess... With things like Audigy 4's, there's isn't a huge load to improve on I suppose.

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 27 Nov 2004, 12:10

dom wrote:Yup, devices like sound cards never really see much improvement these days. Reason being, is that it's not quite as intensive to play sounds\music as it is to render graphics I guess... With things like Audigy 4's, there's isn't a huge load to improve on I suppose.

S-ATA nothing special...firewire.....RJ45 even IDE hardware have seen better days...what is funny is that the "other" hardware is slowing down that ultra fast cpu to a stupified slow speed as it waits for the cdrom to spin up and read data and transfer at 8 mb/s compared to the 2.3 gig/s transfer rates DDR ...ect.

So they "will" have to look at upgrading the "others" sooner or later....

Dom · Post by **Dom** » 27 Nov 2004, 12:34

Exactly... what good is it if your CPU can process quadrillions of instructions per second, but the system's devices are still only sending data to said CPU at old legacy speeds?

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 27 Nov 2004, 12:39

dom wrote:Exactly... what good is it if your CPU can process quadrillions of instructions per second, but the system's devices are still only sending data to said CPU at old legacy speeds?

So when is the next bomb the intel HQ day....

Post by **maxxis** » 27 Nov 2004, 12:50

I agree wiz. At the moment the CPUs are stupidly fast only to get bottlenecked by the same technology that Noah powered the ark with.

I hope that SATA optical drives get introduced next.

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 27 Nov 2004, 12:55

maxxis wrote:I agree wiz. At the moment the CPUs are stupidly fast only to get bottlenecked by the same technology that Noah powered the ark with.

I hope that SATA optical drives get introduced next.

Wireless harddrives and cdroms will make me very very happy. 8)It would mean your cdrom and harddrive wouldn't even have to be in the same case 8O

Post by **maxxis** » 27 Nov 2004, 12:56

That would be cool. Leave them in the fridge to keep them cool.

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 27 Nov 2004, 13:01

maxxis wrote:That would be cool. Leave them in the fridge to keep them cool.

Thats taking it a little far but I guess the next step would be SATA......In the fridge of course....

Post by **neon_chameleon** » 17 Feb 2005, 11:10

This thread has now become a sticky, see page 1 of this topic for furthur details.

daBoss · Post by **daBoss** » 17 Feb 2005, 12:05

so do u guys think PCI-e is gonna die soon?
its got twice the Bandwidht than AGP?

Post by **Anakha56** » 17 Feb 2005, 12:09

nope PCI-E is the way forward even AMD is going to start using it, unlike RDRAM(think thats what it is/was) the way technology is going we are going to need it for the time being.

daBoss · Post by **daBoss** » 17 Feb 2005, 12:20

thx Anakha56, im buying a 6600GT

here in Cpt PCI-e is cheaper than AGP so i figured why not sell Board and chip and buy one time
PCI-e plus i gain a 200Mhz faster CPU.

Soap · Post by **Soap** » 19 Feb 2005, 18:54

The thing with DDR2 is, that it has some serious horrendous timings like 4-4-4-12. Back in the days when there was PC100 and PC133 (and the crappy RDRAM), PC100 sported CL2.0 while PC133 used CL3.0. So either you had a higher bandwidth and a higher latency, or a lower bandwidth and a lower latency. It was the same with DDR RAM, the Cas latencies increased with increasing speeds. While most PC2100 (DDR266) modules were all rated at CL2.0, PC2700 (DDR333) used CL2.5/3 mostly and DDR400 using the same. Sure there's the Crucial Ballistic RAM that supports DDR400 at CL2.0, but that's the exception. I can't really think of any application that will really make too much use of a high bandwidth and high latency memory subsystem. If you have a look at the PQI PC600, which is rated at CL2.5 and supports a 600 internal memory bus, you'll realise that DDR2 is pretty useless at the moment. At least the Intel 915P chipset supports the old DDR ram, but I still don't like it. There's a rumour going around that AMD would integrate support for memory, that is not supported by the JEDEC, into their CPUs. And even if DDR2 reaches speed at 667 or 800, the bad timings will still make a big difference. A lot of stuff was said to take over the world, RDRAM was one of it. Respect for the makers of RAMBUS, RDRAM was a complete failure in my oppinion. It had higher latencies than SDRAM, it got extremely hot, and it was as propritary as the Apple LISA. RAMBUS made a huge show about it that it was faster bla bla, but it wasn't really. the PC133 modules could provide peak bandwidth of 1064MB/s, while RDRAM PC800 could provide 1600MB/s, which wasn't as great, really. Then with the advent of DDR RAM PC2100, it was faster than RDRAM at a lower cost, lower heat dissipation, and a higher speed. After that it was so clear to me that PC1066 RDRAM, when it was introduced, would never be a hit. so nowadays, DDR provides better prices and better latencies. Yes, DDR2 runs on a 1.8V and uses less voltage, but as the chips run at higher speeds, the heat production is still not something to write home for. PCI-Express on the other hand is the future. The nForce4 supports it, Intel's 915P/G and the 925X(E), aswell as the VIA K8T890 and PT880 and PT894 (Pro). I am not the biggest friend of PCI-Express, as it requires one to upgrade the graphics card, and PCI-Express X1 peripheral cards are as unseen, as the legendary 'stolen' Unix code in Linux which SCO proclaims.

Post by **Iceblade** » 19 Feb 2005, 20:20

dBss wrote:so do u guys think PCI-e is gonna die soon?
its got twice the Bandwidht than AGP?

It will stay for now,
but a funny thing:
go to google and search for AGP 16x 8O

whipme · Post by **whipme** » 23 Feb 2005, 15:11

to get back on topic, AMD beats Intel at gaming, and displaying stuff
when you in something like 3Ds Max.
But Intel beats AMD when it comes to actual content creation.
a review i read yesterday about the intel 600series processors said that
the optimal use would be to have AMD64 machines for the designers
and then have intel clusters for the render farms.
this makes sense, because then everyone wins.

as for DDR2, boards are only supposed to support DDR2-533, but
Asus for example, has got native support for DDR2-711 on it's high end
boards, which allow you to do some serious overclocking and to actually
use the potential of your DDR2-667 and higher.
most reviews have said that that intel will show its true worth when using
these RAM speeds and overclocked FSBs.

As for Rambus, they did not have such a huge loss as everyone thinks
with RDRAM, for example, the playstation2 uses RDRAM, which is their
biggest sale to date, and the playstation3 will be using XDRAM, which
scales from 2.4ghz to 8ghz, which is HUGE! especially when coupled with
Sony's Cell processor.

AMD/Intel, its like comparing Gouda and Cheddar. some people like
gouda, others like cheddar, but they are both awesome in their own
special way.

solo · Post by **solo** » 23 Feb 2005, 15:50

whipme wrote:AMD/Intel, its like comparing Gouda and Cheddar. some people like
gouda, others like cheddar, but they are both awesome in their own
special way.

HAHA. That is a good way of looking at it. I must remember that. Too true.

whipme · Post by **whipme** » 24 Feb 2005, 18:49

just thought you might want to know....
SATA optical drives are available, just very difficult to find.
and SATA 300 is now available on Nforce4 mobos.

Soap · Post by **Soap** » 25 Feb 2005, 19:47

I think RDRAM was the biggest laugh of a memory technology that came to desktop computing. Back in the days of RDRAM PC600 and SDRAM PC133, SDRAM had better latencies, didn't generate more heat than a nuclear core, was cheaper, didn't need to be run in dual configuration, had a brighter future and that all for a maximum bandwidth of 10% less than PC600 RDRAM. RDRAM only ran on Intel's 820 chipset, was horrendously expensive and didn't *really* outperform SDRAM. When Intel introduced the 845G chipset after the contract with Rambus ended, this chipset was the first to support DDR333, and it was on the same niveau as RDRAM, at half the price and better latencies. RDRAM based motherboards were expensive too, so I guess it was a loss. And when you see that a Playstation costs R2500 (please correct me with this one) it's no wonder they use Rambus. Even though I am an active enemy of DDR2, as it isn't much of a revolution anyway (horrendous timings (4-4-4-12), price...), I do believe it will exceed the lousy XDR DRAM.

Rambus wrote:3.2 GHz XDR DRAM component provides up to 6.4 GB/sec bandwidth over the XDR Interconnect

So 6.4GB/s? That would be an equivalent of PC6400 in DDR specs. DDR2-533 already runs at 4200MB/s, couple that with a 128-bit dual channel interface, and you get an effective 8400MB/s throughoutput. Beats XDR DRAM. Now use dual channel DDR2-667 PC5400 to get a theoretical bandwidth and you get 10800MB/s. So does XDR DRAM still sound good? I don't really think so. Let's not even start with DDR2-800...

Post by **Iceblade** » 25 Feb 2005, 23:28

solo wrote:
whipme wrote:AMD/Intel, its like comparing Gouda and Cheddar. some people like
gouda, others like cheddar, but they are both awesome in their own
special way.

HAHA. That is a good way of looking at it. I must remember that. Too true.

Good one Whipme

mow Cancelled · Post by **mow Cancelled** » 09 Mar 2005, 08:01

this might have been asked - but cant find it.

when games start having requierments-spell- of let say 2.3 Ghz p4 or equal. will my 2.2Ghz AMD64 be able to run that ? - decently ?

i know the 64bit amd 2.2Hhz performs in the same class as the P4 3.4 but will it work once the regs are higher ?

cause if game reqs are currently on 1.7Ghz + then im in big trouble

Bio-Hazard · Post by **Bio-Hazard** » 09 Mar 2005, 08:37

I'll reply as soon as I've finishedd my coffee