AMD Processors
29 Apr 2005 2:02:04 UTC
Topic 189067
(moderation:
Why is everyone talking about AMD processors? I've seen them for sale, and they are more expensive than Pentium processors, and they have less Ghz. I read in a computer magazine about this computer that had a 2.5 Ghz AMD, and they were describing it like it was something good. I know some people that use AMDs, and none of them are impressed by them. Some Pentium 4 processors have 4 Ghz. I don't see any AMDs that move that fast. In my opinion, the best processor I've used is the Intel Centrino in my notebook computer. It seems to move faster than my Pentium 4, and a lot faster than my Pentium II. Anyway, what is so good about AMDs?
AMD Processors
)
They may be comparing the 64 bit cpu with another 64 bit cpu, or a multi core cpu with a multicore cpu.
AMD released the 64 bit AMD cpu first.
Your 'fast' centrino may be using hyperthreading, which is a way of using one cpu to squish complementary instructions into the computing pipeline more efficiently.
They may be comparing the AMD 64 bit multicore CPU (now shipping) to the Intel multicore cpu (to be released)
http://www.intel.com/business/bss/products/server/xeon/index.htm
http://multicore.amd.com/
> Anyway, what is so good
)
> Anyway, what is so good about AMDs?
If number crunching figures anywhere in your mix of applications you want to run, AMD will give you much more bang for your buck. Particularly if you stay away from the top-of-the-range models and are prepared to do a little tweaking at the lower end.
Two years ago, I probably had much the same opinions as you are expressing now. Many people make the mistake of getting hung up on cpu speed. Having built many AMD boxes since then, with a keen eye on price and performance, there's no way I'd go back to Intel at the moment. Of course, things may change in the future....
Cheers,
Gary.
Pentium 4 was designed to
)
Pentium 4 was designed to increase performance in streaming data aplications (video and audio processing), using SSE2 instructions. And they sacrified the performance in floating point arithmetics. A Pentium 4 has a slower floating point processing unit than a Pentium III would have at the same clock speed.
Traditionally, Intel's CPUs used to have a better floating point unit than AMD's ones, but now this situation has changed: today's Athlon processors have a better FPU performance than the Pentium 4. And this is exactly the type of data processing that scientific applications like E@H do intensively.
And yes, AMD's processors run at lower clock speeds than Intel's ones, but this does not always mean they are slower in performance. It depends on internal architecture. A CPU can be designed to do more work per clock cycle than another CPU.
This is the reason why AMD has labeled Athlons not using the real clock speed, but the equivalent speed of a Intel processor with the same performance. My Athlon XP 2600+ runs at 2080 MHz.
And I agree with Gary, AMD's are very cost effective specially in medium or lower priced models, giving you a very good performance for the money.
And during the last years, Intel has moved several times towards the use of new types of components (memory, chipsets) that have rised the cost of Pentium based systems without a really big gain in performance. Decissions probably more based in commercial strategies, than in general users needs. And in the meantime, AMD's processors were using more common and cheap memory modules and motherboards, achieving a very good general performance at low cost.
> Why is everyone talking
)
> Why is everyone talking about AMD processors? I've seen them for sale, and
> they are more expensive than Pentium processors, and they have less Ghz. I
> read in a computer magazine about this computer that had a 2.5 Ghz AMD, and
> they were describing it like it was something good. I know some people that
> use AMDs, and none of them are impressed by them. Some Pentium 4 processors
> have 4 Ghz. I don't see any AMDs that move that fast. In my opinion, the
> best processor I've used is the Intel Centrino in my notebook computer. It
> seems to move faster than my Pentium 4, and a lot faster than my Pentium II.
> Anyway, what is so good about AMDs?
>
Intel P4 2.60ghz = 40,000sec. = $150.00
AMD XP-2400-M = 22,000sec. = $77.00
I consider my AMD XP2400 pretty good bang for the buck.
Just an Airhead,
Dominique
*I still know CRAP when I see it.
> > Anyway, what is so good
)
> > Anyway, what is so good about AMDs?
They usually offer higher performance at a lower price, that's basically it.
Don't be fooled by GHz btw., an AMD Duron 1800MHz could easily outrun a 2800MHz Celeron for example, while at the same time consumed less power and produced less heat and costing only a fraction of the Celeron.
intel chose Clockspeed (Advertising high GHz numbers) over efficiency with the introduction of the Pentium4, while AMD went for efficiency with the AthlonXP.
If the Athlon64 was to run at 4000MHz, it would roughly take a 7000MHz Pentium4 to just keep up with it more or less.
The only exeption intel made in their policy was the Pentium M, which turned out an excellent CPU but just lacks a bit of clock speed to take the performance crown.
Across the Border, and AMD CPUs give considerably more bang for the buck indeed since several years now (picture may vary depending on what Software you are running, of course)
> Why is everyone talking
)
> Why is everyone talking about AMD processors? I've seen them for sale, and
> they are more expensive than Pentium processors, and they have less Ghz. I
Congratulations to the guys who do the marketing for Intel :(
Team Linux Users Everywhere
> Congratulations to the guys
)
> Congratulations to the guys who do the marketing for Intel :(
Sounds like a phone company ;^)
BTW: Since you are a lonely cruncher, don't you want to join our team?
> The only exeption intel
)
> The only exeption intel made in their policy was the Pentium M, which turned out an excellent CPU but just lacks a bit of clock speed to take the performance crown.
Yes, that is what my Centrino notebook computer is. I think it runs much faster than my Pentium 4 with hyper threading. The whole "more bang for the buck" issue sounds a lot like what Intel is saying to advertise the Celeron (Dont confuse the Celeron with the Centrino!!!) I have never used a Celeron computer that I liked. The performance is terrible, and when it comes to computers getting the most bang for the buck is not that great of an idea. If you get a cheap computer, it won't be able to run the best programs a few years in the future. However, 8 years ago when I got my Pentium II, I paid about $3,000 for it and it was the best computer in the store. To this day, I have yet to find a program that won't run on it, even thought it is a little slow. I know someone who got a cheap computer years after I bought my Pentium II, then they had to upgrade it to run Windows XP!
> ... I know someone who got
)
> ... I know someone who got a cheap computer years after I bought my Pentium
> II, then they had to upgrade it to run Windows XP!
And you blame whom?
I'm just saying it would make
)
I'm just saying it would make more sense to buy an expensive computer than to buy a cheaper computer and have to buy more RAM and everything every few years. When I said they had to upgrade the computer to run Windows XP, I meant they had to buy more hardware inside the computer. I didn't mean to simply upgrade the operating system. Buying more hardware for a computer can be expensive. To upgrade my Pentium II into a great Pentium 4, I would need $700.00. This would be for the processor, motherboard, and a new case. I would like to know why "more bang for the buck" is such a great idea when it comes to computers. In a few years, everyone is going to be calling your computer obsolete.