AMD v/s Intel

[preet]

While Intel is moving away with the Core 2 Duo and quad core, AMD is still trying to find something to halt this progress of Intel. Core 2 Duo might be the best around but what i think is AMD will surely come out with the killer move to haly Intel. And that would be very interesting. Till where they would go, no ones knows.

[jlreich]

All the new core names and such allude me right now, but AMD is not sitting down.

They say their upcoming quad core is better than Intel because it is a true quad core CPU. Meaning they are putting four cores on one piece of silicon. Intel's quad is really just two dual cores stuffed inside one package.

AMD has actually released a quad core but they did just as Intel did and stuffed two dual cores in one package. They did this to get by until they are ready for the true quad core to be released.

The Pentium D was two single cores stuffed in one package and the AMD X2's are true dual core, which is why the X2's stomped on the PD's.

Intel is still the better performer at this point, but time will tell how AMD's new quad will do.

Not to mention Intel is hard at work trying to get their own single-die quad to market as well.

The saga continues...

[rond36]

AMD has actually released a quad core but they did just as Intel did and stuffed two dual cores in one package.

That is not true, what AMD is marketing as a "quad-core processor" is two duel-core processors on a duel-socket F (1207FX) motherboard.

The Intel QX6700 on a single socket motherboard is faster then AMDs "quad-core" Consisting of two AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 Windsor 3.0GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket F (1207 FX) DSDC Architecture Processors on an ASUS L1N64-SLI WS Dual Socket L (Socket 1207FX) NVIDIA nForce 680a SLI MCP SSI CEB AMD Motherboard. If AMD can call two duel-core processors a quad-core processor. I assume Intel can call two Intel Xeon quad-core X5355 processors (8 cores) on a duel-socket LGA771 an octa-core processor and is twice as fast as AMDs "quad-core" solution. Just think if Intel would allow a duel-socket LGA775 motherboard.

AMDs futile attempt at "quad-core" demonstrates just how much slower AMD processors are then the Intel Core 2 processors. This looks very bad when you consider that two AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 Windsor 3.0GHz Processors are faster then two AMD Opteron 2220 2.8GHz server processors. It also shows that a single Intel desktop processor is faster than two of AMDs fastest workstation processors.

Then there is this:
"Intel's demonstration of a functional 45nm CPU underscores its process technology lead of more than a year over the rest of the semiconductor industry. The world's first working 45nm processors (next generation Intel® Core™2 family processors - codenamed "Penryn") are already running multiple operating systems (Windows* Vista*, Mac OS X*, Windows* XP and Linux*) and various applications. Intel is on track for 45nm production in the second half of 2007". You can bet "Penryn" will be a real quad-core processor!

I said this months ago and I will say it again. I think AMD is in serious trouble and if they don't do something real quick they will loose what little market share that they have. They are on the bottom in desktop processors, workstation/server processors, and now video cards.

[jlreich]

That is not true, what AMD is marketing as a "quad-core processor" is two duel-core processors on a duel-socket F (1207FX) motherboard.
Yes you are right, I guess I should have looked at the fine print a little better.

One good thing about this is AMD is saying this platform will natively support the quads when they come out. So those that have this platform will be ready for dual socket quads when they are released.

That's thinking ahead, as they did with the dual core. They planned on the dual cores long before they came out and gave support for them when they released s939. The only thing most mobo's needed was a BIOS update to support them. No new chipset or socket needed. That is the kind of thinking that has caused me to always favor AMD in some ways.

Don't get me wrong, the Core2 is still supreme by a large margin. If anyone asks me what is the best desktop processor, I will say without any doubt or hesitation it is the Core2.

I think AMD is in serious trouble and if they don't do something real quick they will loose what little market share that they have. They are on the bottom in desktop processors, workstation/server processors, and now video cards.
The pressure is on and they know it. But don't discount them. They have a lot going for them in the long run with the acquisition of ATI. Even if it takes a couple years I think they will come back strong.

They also have strong following now. After being on top for a few years many have come to favor AMD. People are biased by nature and are still building AMD machines right now, although misguided in their judgment. Right now you should be building Core2 machines for just about any purpose. The only thing that is really good about AM2 is it is cheaper. If you are on a tight low end budget it is hard to go with Core2. And no one can argue that AM2 in not sufficient for every day computing.

As I said before, the saga continues... :D

[olderthandirt]

My 2 cents is why or should I say who needs all this power.I know
technology must move forward.I think the average Joe or Jane
home user won't need this.Iam not trying to be negative here just
curious.

Olderthandirt

[jlreich]

You are right, the average user doesn't need a quad core.

But for the first time for several years we are in need of more processing power. There was a long stretch that a s478 P4 @ 2GHz was more than enough for the average internet browser and email. But times are changing.

Gamers, power users, workstations, and servers have always demanded more power. But the average user is wanting to do more and more these days. And more and more at the same time, and without any noticeable slowdown.

Most people are taking digital photos and want edit them with high end apps like Photoshop. Many are now loading home movies from their digital camcorder, and transferring old VHS onto the computer. All the while listening to music, playing WOW. Editing and encoding video takes alot of processing power. Unless of course you don't mind waiting overnight for an hours worth of video to finish encoding, and then wake up to find it had crashed sometime during the night. :p

With high speed internet connections becoming more and more common servers need more power to take on the increased load.

Now with the release of of Vista and other power hungry apps the bar has been raised even further.

I feel sorry for the people going out and buying new Vista loaded computers with 512MB ram, a Celeron M, and onboard video. That just doesn't cut it now. Even for the average user.

If all you want is to surf the internet and maybe some email, you are better off running a Linux live CD/DVD. No security or stability worries, just reboot if something goes wrong. And if you can save a few buck not buying windows, put it towards more ram, run a Linux live CD, use the toram boot option, and it will run faster than any OS running from a hard drive. ;)

[preet]

What i have experienced as a sales person(since 6months), is when people are trying to but a PC, they look for one that will last for a longer, time, that is they need one which, have not to be upgraded, which powerful also the latest. When we suggest the client core 2 duo, they say its too expensive, but in the end they choose it.

[HomeSA]

For some good while, gaming was driving the hardware technology. These days, besides gaming, the multimedia technology and its use in homes is what seems to be driving the hardware, as well as the gaming, as mentioned earlier.

[olderthandirt]

jlreich thanks for your input I forgot about all the things you
mentioned.You are on the money about all the things that need
the power.Thanks for your input.
olderthandirt

[rond36]

One good thing about this is AMD is saying this platform will natively support the quads when they come out. So those that have this platform will be ready for dual socket quads when they are released.

That's thinking ahead, as they did with the dual core. They planned on the dual cores long before they came out and gave support for them when they released s939. The only thing most mobo's needed was a BIOS update to support them. No new chipset or socket needed. That is the kind of thinking that has caused me to always favor AMD in some ways.

So you are saying the AMD quad-core will be socket 1207 which is a duel-processor workstation/server socket for Opteron processors. If so that makes socket AM2 dead and anyone that has a socket AM2 motherboard will need a new socket L 1207 motherboard. Yep that's thinking ahead!

How many people do you think will buy that Asus L1N64-SLI WS motherboard (the only socket 1207FX motherboard) for $350 knowing it only supports AMD Athlon 64 FX-70, FX-72, and FX-74 socket L 1207FX processors and doesn't support AMD Opteron DP socket 1207 processors. The AMD quad-core processors would need to be duel-processor enabled to be installed on that motherboard and that would make them Opteron DP workstation processors not desktop processors!



For some good while, gaming was driving the hardware technology. These days, besides gaming, the multimedia technology and its use in homes is what seems to be driving the hardware, as well as the gaming, as mentioned earlier.

Go to Newegg and look for an ATI All-In-Wonder video card, PCI TV tuner, or an ATI chipset video card that supports DX 10 and see what you find. All you will find is 2 PCI TV tuners, only 1 of which I would consider buying (TV Wonder 550PCI). Go to AMD.ATI.com and see if you can find Vista drivers for the TV and FM radio tuner (Multimedia Center) for my ATI All-In-Wonder X800XT card, my ATI HDTV Wonder PCI TV tuner card, or the All-In-Wonder X1900 cards. You won't find any!!!

Not only is AMD in serious trouble but they are dragging ATI down with them!!!

[rond36]

Oops
AMD socket 1207 is socket F not L.

Intel socket LGA775 is socket L.