AMD and Intel processors, the difference

[Bio_Terra]

Intel processors typically have a higher Ghz but everyone says AMD is better what is it exactly that makes them better?

[Verzili]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

higer fsb for a amd 64 i think pentiums are 800fsb but amd go up to 2000fsb. plus pentuims will get hotter as there runing a 3+ghz mad doesnt need these high clock speeds to give a better performance. amd has 64bit tec,cool "n" quite tec

[ACE4U]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

higer fsb for a amd 64 i think pentiums are 800fsb but amd go up to 2000fsb. plus pentuims will get hotter as there runing a 3+ghz mad doesnt need these high clock speeds to give a better performance. amd has 64bit tec,cool "n" quite tec

I like your sig, and true no more bunny hopping awards for you:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[LoD]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

I am not an engineer so I cant get totally technical, but i wil do my best.

The A64 chips have shorter pipelines (think assembly lines where work is done) AMD's do a little bit of work really fast on a short pipeline. The Pentium 4 has a really long pipeline, 31 stages with the latest (and curiously last iteration of the P4 before its discontinued), meaning it does a bitch load a work really slow. Its a super long assembly line that takes twice as long as the AMD to finish one work unit.

It boils down that AMD does less work faster, and Intel does more work slower.


In addition to that architectural difference, AMD has an onboard memory controller, which speeds things up quite a bit. Memory now directly connects to the CPU instead of going through the northbridge chipset and over the slow front side bus.

Those are pretty much the big (on the surface) non techy reasons the best i can understand them. Back before the Pentium 4, the P3 and Athlon were very competitive, and only with the introduction of the P4 has intel chased GHZ. Now that the P4 is being discontinued, Intel is going back to the P3/Bianas mobile design and has just this month started shipping new designs that are similar to AMD's short pipeline CPU's (though Intel does not yet have an onboard memory controller)

Over the next 18 months AMD and Intel will be releasing chips that are more and more similar, 2-3ghz, multicore, low heat .65nm chips.



Oh one more thing, when it comes to dual core CPU's AMD has a more elegant design, which compared to the Pentium D does all the communication within the chip, where as the Pentium D talks across the slow 800mhz FSB. The newest Intel chips for the mobiles and iMac now also have somkething similar to AMD and both cores communicate on the chip more or less.

[Eternal-Souljah]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

I am not an engineer so I cant get totally technical, but i wil do my best.

The A64 chips have shorter pipelines (think assembly lines where work is done) AMD's do a little bit of work really fast on a short pipeline. The Pentium 4 has a really long pipeline, 31 stages with the latest (and curiously last iteration of the P4 before its discontinued), meaning it does a bitch load a work really slow. Its a super long assembly line that takes twice as long as the AMD to finish one work unit.

It boils down that AMD does less work faster, and Intel does more work slower.


In addition to that architectural difference, AMD has an onboard memory controller, which speeds things up quite a bit. Memory now directly connects to the CPU instead of going through the northbridge chipset and over the slow front side bus.

Those are pretty much the big (on the surface) non techy reasons the best i can understand them. Back before the Pentium 4, the P3 and Athlon were very competitive, and only with the introduction of the P4 has intel chased GHZ. Now that the P4 is being discontinued, Intel is going back to the P3/Bianas mobile design and has just this month started shipping new designs that are similar to AMD's short pipeline CPU's (though Intel does not yet have an onboard memory controller)

Over the next 18 months AMD and Intel will be releasing chips that are more and more similar, 2-3ghz, multicore, low heat .65nm chips.



Oh one more thing, when it comes to dual core CPU's AMD has a more elegant design, which compared to the Pentium D does all the communication within the chip, where as the Pentium D talks across the slow 800mhz FSB. The newest Intel chips for the mobiles and iMac now also have somkething similar to AMD and both cores communicate on the chip more or less.

Just wondering, noob question probably, but does the processor play a big role in a gaming machine? meaning does it matter if you have a P4 3.0GHZ x2 or a AMD 4000+ X2 just using as examples.

[LoD]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

It does up to a point, any modern 3ghz P4 or 3000+ A64 or there about its adequate for most gamers. After you have a solid CPU as the foundation, it mostly up to the graphics card as the biggest performance part.

Thats not to say an FX-60 wont supply top performance, but the payout gives diminishing returns, its better for a gamer on a moderate budget to get a mid range CPU and a high end video card than the other way around.

Getting an FX-60 and a 6600GT makes baby jesus cry.

[redearedslider]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

It does up to a point, any modern 3ghz P4 or 3000+ A64 or there about its adequate for most gamers. After you have a solid CPU as the foundation, it mostly up to the graphics card as the biggest performance part.

Thats not to say an FX-60 wont supply top performance, but the payout gives diminishing returns, its better for a gamer on a moderate budget to get a mid range CPU and a high end video card than the other way around.

Getting an FX-60 and a 6600GT makes baby jesus cry.

amen

[lonegunm4n]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

like I saw in an earlier post, most games are more GPU dependent than CPU,

so, a med processor is enough if you have a really good graphics cards.

[BoloMarkXXX]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

I saw a comparison of procesors for gaming they used 2 test rigs 1 Intel the other AMD both used a SLI setup with 2 7800gt's & on both setups there was only a 3% difference between a cheap Celeron & P4 4.0 GHZ and +2800 & +4400 x2 64 on games like DOOM3 & FarCry. Sorry cant find the link now but more memory & better GPU will do far more than more CPU.

[Verzili]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

I like your sig, and true no more bunny hopping awards for you:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

hehe thanks it was for the noobs benifit,i only play sniper.

[imported_goya]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

Intel processors typically have a higher Ghz but everyone says AMD is better what is it exactly that makes them better?

simple, intel sucks, amd rocks... and it will save you money... that you can use to buy more memory, get a better video card.

[Sir. Shpox]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

Intel doesn't suck, it's just not as good as AMD, by far go for an AMD for gaming, and anything really. I made a mistake of getting an Intel PC and a Dual Core PD 3.4ghz Intel and I know for a fact AMD are cheaper and better in terms of performance.

[knghtwhosaysni]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

simple, intel sucks, amd rocks... and it will save you money... that you can use to buy more memory, get a better video card.

totally not true... intel has some great mobile processors
and my parents work at intel :)

[Flanker]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

I am not an engineer so I cant get totally technical, but i wil do my best.

The A64 chips have shorter pipelines (think assembly lines where work is done) AMD's do a little bit of work really fast on a short pipeline. The Pentium 4 has a really long pipeline, 31 stages with the latest (and curiously last iteration of the P4 before its discontinued), meaning it does a bitch load a work really slow. Its a super long assembly line that takes twice as long as the AMD to finish one work unit.

It boils down that AMD does less work faster, and Intel does more work slower.


In addition to that architectural difference, AMD has an onboard memory controller, which speeds things up quite a bit. Memory now directly connects to the CPU instead of going through the northbridge chipset and over the slow front side bus.

Those are pretty much the big (on the surface) non techy reasons the best i can understand them. Back before the Pentium 4, the P3 and Athlon were very competitive, and only with the introduction of the P4 has intel chased GHZ. Now that the P4 is being discontinued, Intel is going back to the P3/Bianas mobile design and has just this month started shipping new designs that are similar to AMD's short pipeline CPU's (though Intel does not yet have an onboard memory controller)

Over the next 18 months AMD and Intel will be releasing chips that are more and more similar, 2-3ghz, multicore, low heat .65nm chips.



Oh one more thing, when it comes to dual core CPU's AMD has a more elegant design, which compared to the Pentium D does all the communication within the chip, where as the Pentium D talks across the slow 800mhz FSB. The newest Intel chips for the mobiles and iMac now also have somkething similar to AMD and both cores communicate on the chip more or less.

Excellent explanation. I applaud you for your knowledge. I was going to post something similar to yours, but I guess I don't need to

[LoD]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

Excellent explanation. I applaud you for your knowledge. I was going to post something similar to yours, but I guess I don't need to

thx, happy to save you the time...