AMD and Intel cpus

[CaptainKirk]

Re: AMD and Intel cpus

I think he is saying that performance differences are not solely hinged upon the branding, but the model in particular and since Intel and AMD have traded the top spot over the years, you cannot definitively say that one is better than other other. (Right?)

I think it would be more universally accepted if the parties referenced model numbers and time periods when comparatively discussing the different companies.

[AlecJ32]

Re: AMD and Intel cpus

But you have backed your point up by comparing them to non 86 CPUs and medicine... whats the point in that?

Because apparently if I just go out and say it, you don't understand the point I'm trying to get across, and draw the wrong conclusions from it.

You wanna see proof then go look at benchmarks and read up on the differences in the architecture, its not hard to find this info and you seem to love knowing about it all...

I'm well aware of the differences in the physical hardware architecture. The problem is, those differences are not consistent from brand to brand. You can't link architectural design choices to one brand or another.

plus yourself and i have both proved they are not just a spin off (ie dualcore and 64bit) but also remember AMD where the first cosumer desktop CPU manufacturer to release native quadcore too - is that dependand ont he original x86 instructions? - no its not

64-bit is something a company as large and financially sound as Intel would have been able to reach on their own without any trouble.

Native dual and quad cores? Again, who cares. Multi-chip-modules and single dies don't show the end user any real difference. All you might see is slightly reduced heat and power consumption, and looking at the Phenom, you can't even really say that. 'Native' isn't really that big of a deal, since for the end user doesn't crack apart their CPU to check out how many chips are inside of it.

As far as being dependent on the original x86 instructions, yes, they are. x86-64 is not it's own new instruction set. It's just a 64-bit extension of the x86 architecture.

'Native' dual and quad cores are nice too, but they're not going to do you much good if you don't have anything to run on it. Since the majority of software out there for home use is i386 based, without the IA-32 architecture, there'd be nothing for those 'native' CPUs to run.

Soooo i7 is no better than phemon II? and Core2 is no better than AM2? 939 was the same as pentium 4?

That's not Intel vs AMD, though. That's Core 2 Duo vs Athlon X2, and Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4. Try and condense that down to saying "Intel is better than AMD" or "AMD is better than Intel" and I'm sure you'll soon realize that there just isn't a fair way to do it. Your computer isn't faster because you've got an Intel CPU instead of an AMD CPU in it, it's faster because you've got an i7 in it instead of a Phenom II. It has nothing to do with whether or not the CPU is an AMD or an Intel CPU, but more to do with which specific model the CPU is.

Some processors ARE better are certain tasks than other (again search the benchmarks)

Again, not really. When you're looking at IA-32 CPUs, the CPU that's better in one task is mostly often best all across the board.

Who the hell cares about all the other purpose built CPUs please will u shut up listing all these thing which are totally irrelevant to the topic... noone is impressed by your knowledge of electronics, especially me.

They're not irrelevant, though. I'm saying the differences between AMD and Intel's CPUs are minimal, and proving that by comparing them to other architectures in which the differences are vastly larger.

Abj, you're so wrong it's embarrassing. Sure, the X86 instruction set is the same, but you're implying that there is no performance difference between either AMD or Intel processors?

Of course that's not what I'm implying. If you'd actually read people's posts, instead of just saying things like "Oh no, they've started one of these threads!" maybe the point I've been repeating over and over would be a bit more obvious.

There is a performance difference between Intel and AMD's CPUs, however, it is extremely inconsistent and varies more from processor model to processor model than from processor brand to processor brand.

Brand doesn't matter in performance. The chip itself does. I don't care which company my CPU comes from as long as it performs well for a decent price.

Hasn't this been what was being said in this thread the entire time? This one post is just a nice "tl;dr" for everyone it seems like.

I think he is saying that performance differences are not solely hinged upon the branding, but the model in particular and since Intel and AMD have traded the top spot over the years, you cannot definitively say that one is better than other other. (Right?)

This is exactly what I've been saying the entire time. It's good to see at least some people get it, though it would have been nicer if everybody would have understood.

[[GCA]Tim270]

Re: AMD and Intel cpus

But is it wrong to say that Intel has the 'top' spot right now for a high end gaming CPU? I agree that you cant just give a blanket statement saying one company is better than the other, however I assume that the original post was intended to find the best gaming CPU.

[Busby, Paul (Bicci)]

Re: AMD and Intel cpus

Again i dont have the time or patience to continue picking apart the crap in your posts AJ

In the top end yes Intel i7 is the most powerful

Midrange and low is a toss up between C2 and Phenom II. Look at the prices (remembering to check the cost of the motherboard aswell as the CPU) and benchmarks related to what you will be doing.

If you are overclocking, intel tends to take the lead in all ranges.

[AlecJ32]

Re: AMD and Intel cpus

But is it wrong to say that Intel has the 'top' spot right now for a high end gaming CPU? I agree that you cant just give a blanket statement saying one company is better than the other, however I assume that the original post was intended to find the best gaming CPU.

You could say that for now....But what happens 6, 8, 12 months down the road, when something new comes out? In the long run, you'd have to re-evaluate the market again before saying which brand is the better buy.

At any one given snapshot of the market, you can make a clear statement as to which brand has the better products, but that changes with product generation to product generation.