PDA

View Full Version : Best Processor Brand



mouseboyx
March 24th, 2007, 04:26 AM
My opinion is that Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) makes the best processors. Just because thats all I use. One time i had a machine with similar specs but, Intel (It was slower) with the same FSB and multiplier.

maniacmusician
March 24th, 2007, 04:38 AM
It fluctuates. Sometimes AMD is better, sometimes Intel is better. I'll say this right up front; To be a fanboy about it and insist on using one, no matter what the facts say, is a pretty dumb move. I'm not saying that this applies to you, since you didn't say it outright...what I'm saying is that all the facts should be considered. (some people choose one over the other based on principles, which I don't really understand. Both seem to be equally open-source friendly at the moment)

Until Intel's Core 2 Duo processors came out, AMD did indeed have the upper hand with processors. They were excellent. However, at the moment, Intel's processors are better, hands down. AMD processors can't even compete on the dual-core level (unless you're talking Pentium D processors, which are, to be honest, pretty crappy).

I expect that over the next 4-5 years, there might be another power shift, and AMD may end up on top again. It's really unpredictable at the moment, since we dont have the exact details of what AMD is working on at the moment to trump Intel.

djf_jeff
March 24th, 2007, 04:38 AM
Oh, welcome to some flame! ;)

Seriously, I think for the moment, Intel with the Core 2 Duo is doing well. The performance is good, the heat and power consumption is good and for the first time with Intel, the price is good.

But, I like AMD and that's what I have. I find it perform well but if you give me the choice today between an AMD X2 and an Intel Core 2 Duo, I take the Intel.

dbbolton
March 24th, 2007, 04:40 AM
yay ! another contest !!!

izanbardprince
March 24th, 2007, 04:44 AM
It fluctuates. Sometimes AMD is better, sometimes Intel is better. I'll say this right up front; To be a fanboy about it and insist on using one, no matter what the facts say, is a pretty dumb move. I'm not saying that this applies to you, since you didn't say it outright...what I'm saying is that all the facts should be considered. (some people choose one over the other based on principles, which I don't really understand. Both seem to be equally open-source friendly at the moment)

Until Intel's Core 2 Duo processors came out, AMD did indeed have the upper hand with processors. They were excellent. However, at the moment, Intel's processors are better, hands down. AMD processors can't even compete on the dual-core level (unless you're talking Pentium D processors, which are, to be honest, pretty crappy).

I expect that over the next 4-5 years, there might be another power shift, and AMD may end up on top again. It's really unpredictable at the moment, since we dont have the exact details of what AMD is working on at the moment to trump Intel.


Those new Hafnium processors would really help AMD a lot, you're talking tripling or even quadrupaling the fastest CPU's on the market today.

mouseboyx
March 24th, 2007, 04:45 AM
Actually i would probably just use which ever one is doing better. I tried a Pentium D 820 which is the cheapest of the dual core generation and, it was considerably better at massive multitasking.

igknighted
March 24th, 2007, 05:26 AM
I've got one of the new AMD 65nm chips and if you take price vs. performance, it trumps intel. I got a biostar tForce mobo and this chip for $150... I couldn't get the cheapest core2duo for the price of the mobo and chip combined (and the intel-compatible mobo's are NOT cheap). Plus it runs at room temp and absolutely flies compared to my old p4 and athlon64. When intel drops the price soon on the c2d's they will be price vs. performance competitive, but right now AMD leads that category. Intels c2d is the fastest processor out though. Its expensive, but the best. If you need the very best, its intel now.

maniacmusician
March 24th, 2007, 05:34 AM
I've got one of the new AMD 65nm chips and if you take price vs. performance, it trumps intel. I got a biostar tForce mobo and this chip for $150... I couldn't get the cheapest core2duo for the price of the mobo and chip combined (and the intel-compatible mobo's are NOT cheap). Plus it runs at room temp and absolutely flies compared to my old p4 and athlon64. When intel drops the price soon on the c2d's they will be price vs. performance competitive, but right now AMD leads that category. Intels c2d is the fastest processor out though. Its expensive, but the best. If you need the very best, its intel now.
I believe April is when they are supposed to drop prices on the C2D's. Not sure though.

If you're a top-of-the-line person, I would not get the C2D's. The quad cores will be the hot thing in just 3-4 months. Core2Duos will become the processor of choice for the consumer, until AMD comes up with a better chip. It just goes back and forth.

qpieus
March 24th, 2007, 05:35 AM
maniacmusician said exactly what I was going to say :)
I've only ever bought AMD for the PCs I've built, so I'm pretty much an AMD fanboy. However, with the core 2 duos coming down in price now, I will likely buy one of these next for the next pc I build. Bottom line is at the moment both AMD and Intel have some good products. Go with whichever suits your needs and budget best.

Quillz
March 24th, 2007, 05:44 AM
I think Intel makes the best processors.

yigal.weinstein
March 24th, 2007, 05:58 AM
I am waiting for an open source CPU

SunnyRabbiera
March 24th, 2007, 06:34 AM
good luck on that.
anyhow for me I am an intel user, simply because most hardware and software dont take to AMD too well.
AMD is good though, most of the time more reliable then intel (in my experience) but AMD's got some major catching up to do.
But I also like Sun's sparc, limited but very sturdy in my opinion (several servers at work are sparcs, they perform pretty well)

prizrak
March 24th, 2007, 07:12 AM
I'll side with those that say it fluctuates. AMD was on top when it came out with the x86-64 instruction set that allowed for 32bit compatibility. Right now Intel is on top with the Core series of CPU's they are excellent pieces of engineering and even come in Quad Core now.

If we are talking mobility than Intel wins hands down. AMD just can't match the life/performance of the M CPU's (well now Core M).

Motoxrdude
March 24th, 2007, 07:19 AM
Amd dominates the consumer market, but Intel simply has the best processors. That and amd doesnt even have a quad-core processor out yet. O yeah, you can also OC the crap out of the 6300.

siimo
March 24th, 2007, 07:37 AM
Intel has AMD pwned at the moment. But AMD may be throwing a punch soon too.

yigal.weinstein
March 24th, 2007, 07:41 AM
good luck on that.


Don't need luck I have open source.

afljafa
March 24th, 2007, 10:48 AM
Probably much of a muchness nowadays. My supplier does AMD only so thats what I use.

Just built a new server on a Dual Core 65w AMD - performs admirably.

steven8
March 24th, 2007, 11:32 AM
good luck on that.
anyhow for me I am an intel user, simply because most hardware and software dont take to AMD too well.
AMD is good though, most of the time more reliable then intel (in my experience) but AMD's got some major catching up to do.
But I also like Sun's sparc, limited but very sturdy in my opinion (several servers at work are sparcs, they perform pretty well)

most hardware and software dont take to AMD too well???

I'm not sure where that comes from. I've never had any mismatches with my AMD processors.

I've had both AMD and Intel, and not been unhappy with either.

Mathiasdm
March 24th, 2007, 01:00 PM
My opinion is that Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) makes the best processors. Just because thats all I use. One time i had a machine with similar specs but, Intel (It was slower) with the same FSB and multiplier.

It depends from time to time. I have an AMD right now, because at the time, they were the only ones with 64-bit processors.

Right now, I'd go with Intel, for their C2D's.

argie
March 24th, 2007, 02:10 PM
Don't need luck I have open source.
Maybe this would help?
http://www.opensparc.net/

Out of curiosity, if you were waiting for an open source CPU, what are you using to post?

ixus_123
March 24th, 2007, 02:38 PM
I've alway been an AMD user. I currently run a sempron 2600+ (1.6Ghz) which was an easy & cool overclock to 2.1Ghz.

I was able to get a value cpu with a decent mobo & the overclock added value by taking hours off video transcoding.

As far as I can tell, for my main CPU intensive task, all I need is number crunching ability - not much memory or cpu cache. There was a thread here running some sort of Pi benchmark & core dou scores blew my machine out of the water!

I'm looking to build a new machine & intel looks attractive on so many levels. I can get a nvidia 680i chipset mother board & the cheapest core 2 duo & over clock it massively. The upgrade potential seems good to me too. I can sit on my bottom of the range core2 duo for a while & then upgrade to a quad core in 18 months or so when the price will have come down on those.

For me, intel is leaps and bounds ahead of anything at the moment & with the quads coming out I think they will provide a great base for me to build on with plenty of room to upgrade in the future.

yigal.weinstein
March 24th, 2007, 11:06 PM
The question is about the best processor. That is this thread has nothing to do with the kind of processor I have. I have a P4 1.7 and its fine for my purposes. If by best one means best performance, the real question is performance in what and this has a lot to do with software/hardware compatibility and what one is trying to process. I am also an environmentalist and therefore the amount of energy consumed/time is important to me when it comes to a computer set up.

If people are interested in some type of general bench mark then fine, but my purposes are usually very specific i.e. trying to execute a particular code etc.. I'm not sure about this Intel vs. AMD war thing Sparc, PPC should be considered as alternatives.


Maybe this would help?
http://www.opensparc.net/

Out of curiosity, if you were waiting for an open source CPU, what are you using to post?

Bartender
March 24th, 2007, 11:14 PM
I am also an environmentalist and therefore the amount of energy consumed/time is important to me when it comes to a computer set up.

The Intel ULV CPU's interest me but can't seem to find much info. Don't know if they're even available? If so, it sounds like most of them are going straight to HP and such...do you know anything about them?

mips
March 25th, 2007, 09:59 AM
good luck on that.
anyhow for me I am an intel user, simply because most hardware and software dont take to AMD too well.

That statement is full of nonsense. Wonder why Intel copied the AMD 64bit instructions if they AMD is so shite then ?

Tuna-Fish
March 25th, 2007, 12:04 PM
I expect that over the next 4-5 years, there might be another power shift, and AMD may end up on top again. It's really unpredictable at the moment, since we dont have the exact details of what AMD is working on at the moment to trump Intel.

Actually, we do know. AMD will double the width of it's SSE units (like intel did in Core 2), which will land the barcelona generation with double the FP power than A64, or ~40% more than core 2. So, come barcelona, AMD will retake the performance crown. The only question is for how long, or does intel have any good plans hatching?

sloggerkhan
March 25th, 2007, 12:14 PM
I agree intel currently outperforms if you buy expensive chips. But I think for chips under $200, especially under $150, AMD is still the way to go.

I also dislike the fact that most intel mobos seem to include loads of legacy ports.

jeffc313
March 25th, 2007, 01:54 PM
I dont reall care, I got my opteron 165 at the lowest price and i absolutely love it!

samjh
March 25th, 2007, 02:20 PM
I prefer Intel.

But for technical quality, the two companies compete in a strong duopoly. Sometimes one will be better than the other, and vice versa.

Perhaps IBM should consider making an Intel/AMD competitor. Their PowerPC was good, but the architectural difference was too big to compete in the PC market.

argie
March 25th, 2007, 03:10 PM
The question is about the best processor. That is this thread has nothing to do with the kind of processor I have. I have a P4 1.7 and its fine for my purposes. If by best one means best performance, the real question is performance in what and this has a lot to do with software/hardware compatibility and what one is trying to process. I am also an environmentalist and therefore the amount of energy consumed/time is important to me when it comes to a computer set up.

If people are interested in some type of general bench mark then fine, but my purposes are usually very specific i.e. trying to execute a particular code etc.. I'm not sure about this Intel vs. AMD war thing Sparc, PPC should be considered as alternatives.

AFAIK, The SPARC processors use much less power than either Intel or AMD. If you're crazy about your environmental issues and you change your mind about RISC processors, you might want to check out the Godson 3 when it comes out in 2008. They claim a power consumption of less than 10 watts and performance comparable to the processor you currently have. Yellow Sheep River sells an older version of this chip in a box that you need to connect a monitor, keyboard and mouse to that sells at 123 euro. It's Chinese though, if you have an objection to that.

I think we shouldn't limit ourselves to the x86 architecture. True that benchmarks are useless to you if a particular program you have runs slower than on something that benchmarked lower.

beefcurry
March 25th, 2007, 03:13 PM
I personally prefer Intel. Good experience with it (nightmares with AMD's). Good support with Linux, what more can i ask for. (Price reduction maybe? :P)

maniacmusician
March 25th, 2007, 04:49 PM
I am also an environmentalist and therefore the amount of energy consumed/time is important to me when it comes to a computer set up.


Then you shouldn't be using a P4 :p :D

SavantEdge
March 25th, 2007, 06:30 PM
When's the next gen of Intel coming out, and the next gen of AMD?

Bloodfen Razormaw
March 25th, 2007, 07:11 PM
AMD's next generation Opterons are going to be released in the summer. It will be the first x86 quad-core CPU to market (as opposed to the current dual dual-core CPUs marketed as quad-core) and if AMD's claims prove accurate it will outdo equivalent Core 2 Xeons by as much as Core 2 outdid K8. Intel's next generation Nehalem CPUs will debut in 2008, but they have not given details AFAIK.

lonce
March 25th, 2007, 08:42 PM
I have to go with Intel chips because I work for them and couldnt use AMD and sleep at night. It all depends on what you want to do and what type of system you want to setup.

SavantEdge
March 25th, 2007, 09:04 PM
Well, I suppose I should really be asking about laptop chips...will those quad-core Opterons have a laptop equivalent?


I have to go with Intel chips because I work for them...
Yes, well, that also makes you a little biased. :)
Would you like to use your insider connections to get me a core 2 duo in a centrino pro? :P

BuffaloX
March 25th, 2007, 09:57 PM
MOS Technology 6510 was a cool CPU.
But the best ever was Motorola 68000, 8 data and 8 address registers.
Still not beaten by any x86 CPU, which is why NO ONE cares to make decent assembler optimized code for the x86.

AMD has been by far the best x86 for many years now,
The original Athlon was amazing, and years ahead of anything Intel had.
Just recently Intel introduced Core-2 which gave them the performance crown for the x86 platform.

I still prefer AMD, because they are better for upgrades than Intel.
AMD doesn't artificially segment the market quite as badly as Intel does.

One of my great hopes about Linux, is to get rid of the x86 systems. So we can have better CPU's.
I don't remember any other CPU series that are as bad as x86.
The only reason it's so popular, is because the pin layout ( i8088 ) made it the cheapest solution, when IBM introduced the first PC, and so we have been stuck with it ever since for compatibility.

WalmartSniperLX
March 25th, 2007, 10:48 PM
My opinion is that Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) makes the best processors. Just because thats all I use. One time i had a machine with similar specs but, Intel (It was slower) with the same FSB and multiplier.

Actually this isnt far from the truth. ATM in the mainstream cpu world, intel is bringing in higher numbers, but AMD has been using the same architecture for many years and has proven superior to many other architectures, even those that arent within the mainstream computing category.

Intel's Core 2 (Conroe, Merom, Kentsfeild, etc) technology derived off the Core technology, made specifically for mobile cpus in the P4 stage. However the desktop cpus were made from netburst which at one time was believed to be MUCH better than Core, but look at it now :D Core technology is still alive and with a face lift, while netburst wont be seen in the near future (computers are still made by OEM today with the ol Pentium D here and there, and Pentium 4.. oh and Celeron D).

I think since AMD has stuck to one architecture for a long time, and as I know it, still are, I will go with AMD. Im not a fan boy of intel or AMD, I simply like whatever is better ATM. I liked AMD 4 years ago, now I like intel. But If you ask me which is "better" I will say AMD because theyre still on a role. :lolflag:

qpwoeiruty
March 25th, 2007, 11:19 PM
The question is about the best processor. That is this thread has nothing to do with the kind of processor I have. I have a P4 1.7 and its fine for my purposes. If by best one means best performance, the real question is performance in what and this has a lot to do with software/hardware compatibility and what one is trying to process. I am also an environmentalist and therefore the amount of energy consumed/time is important to me when it comes to a computer set up.

If people are interested in some type of general bench mark then fine, but my purposes are usually very specific i.e. trying to execute a particular code etc.. I'm not sure about this Intel vs. AMD war thing Sparc, PPC should be considered as alternatives.

Core Duo ULV ~10W
Core Solo ULV ~6W
Pentium M ULV ~5W (socket 478 or 479)
Geode NX1500 ~8W
VIA EPIA EN15000 ~50W (complete system load)

There's plenty of low-power x86 processors out there. Even with more power hungry processors, underclocking and undervolting have a huge impact on power draw.

I do like Intel right now for power consumption/heat reasons (fanless systems!). VIA is almost there in terms of acceptable performance and IMO is the low power leader as of right now. It's really hard to get your hands on any of Intel's ULV processors which is a shame...

For the record, I'm running an AthlonXP at a reduced voltage and slightly reduced clock speed. I lose 3-4% performance for about a 20W power reduction.

mips
March 26th, 2007, 09:24 AM
But the best ever was Motorola 68000, 8 data and 8 address registers.


Forgot to mention they were 32bits wide ;)

PartisanEntity
March 26th, 2007, 09:41 AM
It would also depend on which environment you want to run. I use mainly laptops, I currently have an AMD 1.6GHz Turion and am not impressed with heat issues. The fan is always on and will sometimes switch into higher gear when I am only surfing, very annoying, also the battery lasts a maximum of 3 hours.

On other hand the newer Turion X2's seem to be much better at heat management and are much quieter.

The Intel Core Duo's also seem to be very good at heat management based on my experience.

IMO it seems Intel processors generate less heat than AMD.

sloggerkhan
March 26th, 2007, 12:46 PM
You better thank your lucky stars you have a core2 or core duo, then. I can't tell you how many people I know on Pentium M machines who had overheating issues.

I personally have a single core turion and yeah, the fan is nearly always on at a slow speed, but at least the computer stays cool. Some of those old pentium M machines, I'd not want to touch the keyboard.

igknighted
March 26th, 2007, 02:49 PM
It would also depend on which environment you want to run. I use mainly laptops, I currently have an AMD 1.6GHz Turion and am not impressed with heat issues. The fan is always on and will sometimes switch into higher gear when I am only surfing, very annoying, also the battery lasts a maximum of 3 hours.

On other hand the newer Turion X2's seem to be much better at heat management and are much quieter.

The Intel Core Duo's also seem to be very good at heat management based on my experience.

IMO it seems Intel processors generate less heat than AMD.

The older turions and pentium Ms were really bad with heating issues. Overall Intel has been WAY behind AMD in this category until the c2d chips though. The pentium4 prescott chips were fireballs, while their rough equivelent from AMD was much cooler. My AMD chip now ran at room temp until I OC's it, and now its only 33 celsius.

mips
June 1st, 2007, 01:25 PM
...you might want to check out the Godson 3 when it comes out in 2008. They claim a power consumption of less than 10 watts and performance comparable to the processor you currently have. Yellow Sheep River sells an older version of this chip in a box that you need to connect a monitor, keyboard and mouse to that sells at 123 euro. It's Chinese though, if you have an objection to that.


Interesting document, http://jcste.ict.ac.cn/paper/hww_071.pdf