Re: CPU questions...
- From: Chris Cox <ccox_nopenotthis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:13:53 -0500
Aragorn wrote:
General Schvantzkopf wrote:
Still, if you want my personal opinion, go for AMD. ;-) They are moreWhat year are you living in?
energy-efficient and more affordable than Intel - Intel's idea of
boosting performance is raising the clock speed while AMDs are simply
more efficiently structured - and ethically you'd be supporting a
company that's _not_ in league with The Evil Empire. (Intel and
Microsoft are involved in the Trusted Computing Platform, a DRM-ridden
monstrosity that could end up being the PC that you simply can't install
anything other than Windows on...)
The future, apparently... <eg>
The Penryn Core2 processors consume much less energy then AMDs current
processors.
I've stopped monitoring Intel a while ago, but the Opterons in my new server
use 68 Watt each at maximum load.
Uh.... pound for pound an Intel will perform better today and at a lower
wattage... even system wide. Sad but very, very true.
In addition the Core2s are faster on a clock for clock basis and they are
available at higher clock speeds.
It's not just the processor that counts, it's the entire architecture. Even
though I'm not monitoring Intel's latest news anymore, I've read that
future Intel processors will use an on-chip memory controller like AMD has
been doing for ages now, which will then allow Intel-based systems to have
NUMA performance in SMP systems.
However - and I do know this much - the current batch of Intels still use a
single memory controller on the motherboard, which forms a bottleneck in
SMP systems and operates either at lower speed than the memory controller
of an AMD system, _or_ it performs at the same speed due to Intel's
radically high motherboard frequencies. And those high motherboard
frequencies _also_ raise the temperature inside your machine. Likewise the
FB-DIMMs that Intel appears to be using now, and they are _very_
powerhungry.
While true, new Intel designs greatly outperform AMD not only
in raw CPU performance (even with the northbridge bottleneck), but
also in total SYSTEM watts. So AMD now loses under idle and load
conditions and most certainly loses in terms of performance.
I like AMD as well, but their "sleep" has had a costly if not
devastating consequence.
On top of that the Intel processors are much better overclockers.
That is something of which I have read that it has indeed changed, to
Intel's benefit. However, Opterons are highly overclockable. And another
however: don't overclock your system at all. But hey, it's _your_ money.
<grin>
Even overclocked, AMD's latest and greatest marginally compete
with Intel's mid-tier chips. This isn't looking like a fair fight.
Two years ago AMD was the better choice but not anymore.
AMD will *always* be the better choice, for those who look further than the
length of their nose. ;-)
Negative. At least not technologically. One could argue
that AMD is the "right" moral choice, but they are no lovers
of Linux. Their brief interlude with Linux aficionados was
entirely accidental. While their recent contributions of
specifications for ATI's technology (only SOME pieces btw),
it welcome, take a look at how much manpower Intel has
been putting forth with regards to Xorg and Linux.
I think if AMD were a true powerhouse, they might be able
to lend the manpower.... and indeed, they might be willing
to do so. But you have to admit, Intel seems to be
the winner with regards to actual work.
One thing AMD does well on is price. And THAT is probably what
will keep AMD in the race. The question is will that be enough
to keep them afloat until they come up with additional
technical innovation that might allow them to once again
capture 20% or so of the x86 market.... don't know...
Does everyone remember that AMD actually announced their
QUAD before Intel even had a dual core product? They took
a big swing at Intel and Intel stumbled. Instead of making
dual core the new basis... they slept and allowed Intel
to become the driver of that. Additionally, the extra
long sleep even allowed Intel to quickly prepare a quad
core part (obviously not as technically marvelous, but
who cares when you win EVERY benchmark). And during
the sleep, Intel went through at least 3 MAJOR
architectural changes.. painful for the end user, but
with each step, AMD became less and less relevant until
the 20% share AMD HAD, has returned back to the
single digit levels they had prior to their dual core
revolution.
Intel's roadmap shows no sign of slowing right now.
Technically, they will have onboard memory control
shortly, and by the time AMD has a competitive quad,
most will be looking at the 6 core Intel... but I
tell you the truth, Intel's been working on
MASSIVELY cored infrastructures... something AMD
would have learned from Sun, but instead they fell
asleep confident they had nothing to learn from
them. Sun no longer wants/needs AMD.... and Intel
is closer to fulfilling Sun's CPU vision. The
question is whether Intel can bring all of that
forward before Sun. I don't think Sun is asleep, but
they've delayed the release of their revolutionary
CPU beyond 2008 (bad move).
We'll see what happens... but right now it looks like
Intel is learning from Sun (if that's possible) and
Intel will be releasing CPU's that may have as many
as 80+ cores (well, actually, many cores with many
threads) within 5 years. Frankly I don't think
AMD has a clue...
.
- References:
- CPU questions...
- From: Alex
- Re: CPU questions...
- From: Aragorn
- Re: CPU questions...
- From: General Schvantzkopf
- Re: CPU questions...
- From: Aragorn
- CPU questions...
- Prev by Date: Re: external drive
- Next by Date: Nvidia driver
- Previous by thread: Re: CPU questions...
- Next by thread: IDE Controller Card for newer SATA Motherboard
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
