AMD vs. Intel

mow Cancelled · Post by **mow Cancelled** » 09 Mar 2005, 10:47

why are all instances of amd and intel orange ?

Post by **Iceblade** » 09 Mar 2005, 21:16

mow wrote: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

Yes The AMD64 will run those games with ease

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 11 Mar 2005, 07:22

I would give my left arm to own a AMD64! Wouldn't mind having a FX-55 or a 64 4000+ sitting on my desktop. Heck, I'd even settle for a 64 2800+ if I had to.

Post by **wit_skapie** » 11 Mar 2005, 07:24

Mystical_Titan wrote:I would give my left arm to own a AMD64! Wouldn't mind having a FX-55 or a 64 4000+ sitting on my desktop. Heck, I'd even settle for a 64 2800+ if I had to.

ok... send me your left arm in an ice-box and i'll send you a AMD 64

ANGELUS · Post by **ANGELUS** » 11 Mar 2005, 07:31

I AM A HUGE AMD FAN.AMD WHIPS INTEL WHEN IT COMES TO GAMING.MOST PEOPLE THINK THAT THE P4 WITH HP IS GREAT.BUT WHAT THEY DONT KNOW THAT IT ACTUALY SLOWS TH PC DOWN BY 4% IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT.IF YOU WANT A POWER HOUSE MACHINE.ID SAY GO FOR THE AMD 64 BIT 3.2GHZ IT WILL WHIP THE INTEL ANYDAY.

Post by **wit_skapie** » 11 Mar 2005, 07:33

Dude... seriously - you need to turn of your Caps Lock...

VoodooProphetII · Post by **VoodooProphetII** » 11 Mar 2005, 07:59

I came, I saw and I got borred..... INTEL, AMD, INTEL, AMD.... Ooooh I like this one, and your's suck. Mine's better you pratt, nope mine is. Funny enough though. I don't see many Intel fists thrown back at AMD, yet every bloody AMD owner wants to rub it in, that Intel sucks. Yup it's life as we know it, even if it's true. What's saying it gonna do? As Whipme said not too many posts back..... It's like compairing Gouda, and Cheddar..... Do I need to add to that...... nope I don't think so.

Post by **wit_skapie** » 11 Mar 2005, 08:01

I've got a P4 3.0 Ghz Prescott with HT and 800MHz FSB...

.... AMD sucks....

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 11 Mar 2005, 08:03

wit_skapie wrote:
Mystical_Titan wrote:I would give my left arm to own a AMD64! Wouldn't mind having a FX-55 or a 64 4000+ sitting on my desktop. Heck, I'd even settle for a 64 2800+ if I had to.
ok... send me your left arm in an ice-box and i'll send you a AMD 64

For real? I would, you know!

VoodooProphetII · Post by **VoodooProphetII** » 11 Mar 2005, 08:04

wit_skapie wrote:I've got a P4 3.0 Ghz Prescott with HT and 800MHz FSB... .... AMD sucks....

Cool.........

Rayne · Post by **Rayne** » 18 Mar 2005, 20:54

Intel dual core may play games slower

It's 3.2 GHz only

CURRENT GAMES don't care much about multithreading and dual core processing. That's the biggest problem that Intel has to face now at the dawn of its dual core CPU generation.
Intel's soon to be announced Smithfield is going to work at 3.2 GHz only and even though it will have two cores it will eventually end up slower for gaming. Most of today's games engines don't have any kind of support for dual core processing and won't benefit much from the second core.

We strongly believe that Intel will work hard with game developers to ensure that future games will end up with support for dual core as we are sure that if you program it right you will be able to use the second core for some of the operations. I bet that Intel is pushing developers to take benefit of the second core as we speak.

Officially branded as the Pentium D, CPU codenamed Smithfield is 3.2 GHz CPU times two. You will end up with 3.2 GHz versus an existing 3.8 GHz single core CPU. We learned that existing single core CPUs, such as 570 and 670, both clocked at 3.8 GHz might end up much faster for current games and benchmarks.

The second problem comes for Intel's Extreme Edition, again clocked at 3.2GHz, but a dual core with its FSB down clocked to 800 MHz that has to compete against FSB 1066MHz 3.73GHz CPU.

It's going to be nasty but dual core is the path that Intel and AMD have both chosen. It may be difficult for the chip firms to explain why those CPUs are actually slower in games but for most of the other applications dual core CPUs are the right thing, and will boost multithreading applications big time. AMD, on the other hand, might not face such a big problem as it will start at 2.4GHz with its dual core chips which is the shipping speed of its flagship 4000+ now.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21930

SK33T3R · Post by **SK33T3R** » 23 Mar 2005, 23:22

So whats the actual difference in hyperthreading and Hypertransport.
Since switching from a P4 3.06 HP cpu to a AMD 64 bit 3500+,ive noticed in the device manager that with the Intel it showed 2 cpus,with the AMD it shows 1.
Wots actually the diffs?

AND ive also noticed theres alot more forums and different discussions regarding the AMD,Intel u sort of just plugged it in and that was it.

goku · Post by **goku** » 23 Mar 2005, 23:35

SK33T3R wrote:So whats the actual difference in hyperthreading and Hypertransport.
Since switching from a P4 3.06 HP cpu to a AMD 64 bit 3500+,ive noticed in the device manager that with the Intel it showed 2 cpus,with the AMD it shows 1.
Wots actually the diffs?

Coz the second cpu is due to hyperthreading enabled which is a virtual cpu.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong but Hypertransport is the memory controller that's build into the 64bit amd chips unlike the Intel that still uses the north bridge chip for controling the read/write to the ram.

Post by **Anakha56** » 24 Mar 2005, 06:52

Hypertransport is a memory controller built into the processor the only problem with it is that it give's hassles when going to huge amounts of like going over 2GB but there sorting out the problem, Intel is planning to use Hypertranspor in 2007 i think but i do know that there planning for it.

Hill · Post by **Hill** » 24 Mar 2005, 07:36

As far as I know Hypertransport is actually a BUS. And not a Dual Core CPU.

Ok I looked up some links.
http://www.plxtech.com/products/HT7520/default.asp
http://www.interfacebus.com/Design_Conn ... sport.html
http://www.hypertransport.org/tech/tech_faqs.cfm#7

Hope this helps.

Tolklein · Post by **Tolklein** » 01 Apr 2005, 23:01

As far as I can tell HT is the BUS.

But whats the difference between AMD's 754 and 939 Socket? The 939 is only slighlty more expensive. Does it run at a higher BUS?

Bobendren · Post by **Bobendren** » 02 Apr 2005, 00:18

185!

GreyWolf · Post by **GreyWolf** » 02 Apr 2005, 09:42

Tolklein wrote:As far as I can tell HT is the BUS.

But whats the difference between AMD's 754 and 939 Socket? The 939 is only slighlty more expensive. Does it run at a higher BUS?

the socket 939 can handle dual chanel memory, the 754 can not

Soap · Post by **Soap** » 02 Apr 2005, 15:03

HT is a Bus, it interconnects the CPU with the Northbridge and the south bridge. It is not some CPU, nor memory controller. Socket939 has more pins than Socket754 as it supports dual channel, and we all know that the Athlon64 has an integrated memory controller. Socket754 runs a 800MHz HT (200 * 4) while Socket939 runs a 1000MHz HT (250 * 4). Again, this demonstrates how much of a hype Hyperthreading is, as no-one really knows what it is. It's just a better utilization of idling stage pipelines which are filled by just emulating a second processor. HyperTransport was introduced in the nForce2 as a high-badnwidth link between the northbridge (nForce2-SPP) and the southbridge (nForce2 MCP(-T)). Now that the MCH has moved into the CPU, the HyperTransport BUS also connects CPU and NorthBridge. On Socket939, you'll then end up with a 2GHz Bus, as the effect of the DDR technology also effects the bus.

I have always predicted that Dual-core won't take off, firstly as only a handful of games are multithreaded, and secondly as the Intel Smithfield Dual-core CPU features an arbiter that regulates the bus, which means that both CPUs have to share the external bus. AMD's Dual-core on the other side, will be totally independant, and as the memory controller is integrated into the CPU, an arbiter is not requires which will boost the performance significantly.

Samaya · Post by **Samaya** » 18 Apr 2005, 09:31

Ok it sounds like I need to wait for AMD dual core to be released. I only want to upgrade next year and my P4 will do until then. As you can see I am going to change from Intel to AMD. I would like some advise as to which MOBO I should choose. I am guessing something with a nForce chipset on it. When I bought my Intel CPU, I ussaully get the Intel MOBO. So what do I get for AMD? 8O

Soap · Post by **Soap** » 23 Apr 2005, 20:36

Good news: You can get a Socket939 motherboard already with K8T800Pro/K8T890/nForce3/nForce4 chipset, as Dual-core will only require a BIOS update and not a completely new chipset like Smithfield. Any motherboard from Abit, MSI, Epox, DFI, Asus will do. AMD doesn't manufacture motherboards, only CPU and Flash memory. But then again, for what will you use it, that would warrant spending more money for little performance increase?

daBoss · Post by **daBoss** » 03 May 2005, 14:44

AMD announces the END OF SOCKET 754 ATHLON 64 with deadline

AMD Board send words that AMD announces the END OF SOCKET 754 ATHLON 64
with deadline

AMD has officially informed European resellers about the end of socket
754 Athlon 64. According to the chart published today at AMDboard.com,
orders will still be accepted until March 25 and June 15 for final
deliveries before September 25. AMD also encouraged resellers to push
socket 939 Athlon 64 instead, insisting on the larger bandwidth, lower
consumption and dual-core compatibility of the latter. Finally, Athlon
64 in 2800+ and 3400+ flavor will not be replaced with socket 939
equivalent, while socket 754 Athlon 64 3700+ will be available in new
Socket 939 version during second quarter of 2005.

http://www.amdboard.com/amdroadmap.html

:):):):)

daBoss · Post by **daBoss** » 11 May 2005, 08:28

Good News for AMD peeps, bad news for us Intel peeps.

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20 ... 70947.html

AMD's Athlon64 X2 trumps Intel's Pentium D

By Wolfgang Gruener, Senior Editor

May 9, 2005 - 17:09 EST

Westlake Village (CA) - The first review of AMD's dual-core desktop processor Athlon64 X2 is in. Test results show a solid performance lead of the AMD chip over Intel's dual-core Pentium D.

A few weeks ahead of the official launch of the AMD's and Intel's desktop-dual-core chips, users are getting a better idea how the chip strategies of the two companies unfold and which benefits and performance the first dual-cores will offer. While both processors will bring substantial improvements, especially for multimedia applications and multitasking, a first in-depth of Tom's Hardware Guide concludes that the Athlon64 X2 will hold the performance crown.

In a head-to-head comparison , the X2 chip dominated 20 out of 25 benchmark tests, evaluating both multitasking and pure performance disciplines. In contrast to the Pentium D, the X2 is also not slower than its single-core counterpart in most applications. The chip scales all the way to a clock speed of 2.4 GHz, the maximum value also offered by the currently fastest Athlon64 - leaving the FX part out of the picture. Power constraints forced Intel to limit the clock speed of the Pentium D at 3.2 GHz, while the fastest Pentium 4 is offered at up to 3.8 GHz. As a result, the Intel dual core chips will be somewhat slower under single-threaded environments in the near term.

The review also examined the power consumption of the chips which revealed a more efficient AMD architecture. While the complete Intel system consumed more than 350 watts, the AMD platform topped out at a more acceptable 235 watts.

Of course these two chips are debut processors and Intel may catch up with AMD's advantage in the coming months. Presler, which will carry the 900-series product name, will transition the dual-core to 65 nm early in 2006 and will bring visible improvements in power consumption. A completely new architecture is scheduled to be introduced for the end of 2006: Conroe will move away from the NetBurst architecture introduced back in 2000 and is expected to use take ideas from the Centrino platform to reduce power consumption.

Slasher · Post by **Slasher** » 11 May 2005, 09:01

Soap wrote: I have always predicted that Dual-core won't take off, firstly as only a handful of games are multithreaded, and secondly as the Intel Smithfield Dual-core CPU features an arbiter that regulates the bus, which means that both CPUs have to share the external bus. AMD's Dual-core on the other side, will be totally independant, and as the memory controller is integrated into the CPU, an arbiter is not requires which will boost the performance significantly.

O, ok... So now that AMD are releasing Dual Core your saying it would be great... The next best thing to Ice cream with Caramel Dip?

Funny how you suddenly swing your sayings... With Intel "No games would use Dual Core" ... It is a big mistake yada yada yada... Now along comes AMD, rushing their dual core (Was initially planned for end of year, now they rush it to counter Intel) and It will work beautifully...

Samaya · Post by **Samaya** » 13 May 2005, 10:28

The thing with Intel DC is they can only go up yo 3.2 Ghz with their Dual Core. Where AMD is planning to do a 4800+ DC CPU. So in effect their cores are running faster. Also the Intel DC CPU has a maximum power usage of 315W

8O

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005050 ... on-19.html

So add a graphics card or two (SLi) and you would need at least a 450W PSU just to have a semi stable system. Then you'd need to add watercooling or something better and then your power needs go up aswell :onfire: . With the AMD DC the maximum power is only 185W Max. :wow:

So guess what my next PC will be...