AMD and Intel processors, the difference

[redrider]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

Heh heh heh, What you dont know wont hurt you...... Intel chips have built in memory its called L2. Anyway thats just the first thing, off the top of my head. You can check out all the Pro-AMD sites you want to and all the Pro-intel sites. Each will tell you that theres is better. Currently its really the same as its always been they both get the job done its just a matter of do you want to drive a ford or chevy, they will both get you there, whats the difference. Not much.
Even on this forum, you can search and find that the big performance boosters are the video card, amount of ram, and connection speed. If BF2 was ran as fast as the processor could process it, AMD or P4, you couldnt keep up. A game that now takes 10 minutes ran at close to the max speed the processors could handle would last about 1 minute. So you see the one thing truely limiting your PC is you not your CPU its the human interface.
Let me put it another way. You can build equal PCs, One Intel and one AMD everything else the same. Set them side by side, running BF2, and you couldnt tell the difference, unless you looked inside and saw the markings on the CPU. Another thing did you notice that most AMD users say AMD rocks and most P4 users say Intel rocks. Its kinda like the weapons in BF2 one guy says the sniper rifle rocks and another sayes it stinks. The first one responds with you just dont know how to use it. See, an endless argument! . . . . .Red


Pretty pointless too. . . . . . .

[claevade]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

For the bottlenecking part.

You indeed better get a cheaper 3800+ X2 and combine it with a X1900XT, then buying a FX-60 and combine it with a X1800XL. The first example will be faster, since the 3800+ X2 won't bottleneck it.

A FX-60 with the same highend videocard will be around 1-2 FPS faster than the 3800+ X2. It's all demanding on the GPU instead of CPU these days.

[bloodbrood]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

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

That is fricking hilarious LMFAO and yet so true.

[Blak_Phoenix]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

Isn't it also to do with how mani instrustions they do?

Intels do 6 per clock so a 3Ghz Intel does 6*3 = 18
While a 3000+ AMD does 9 per clock 9*2 (as the 3000+ runs at about 2Ghz) = 18

Well thats what i had been told anyway.. not quite sure, but it seems to work out.

[LoD]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

Heh heh heh, What you dont know wont hurt you...... Intel chips have built in memory its called L2. Anyway thats just the first thing, off the top of my head. You can check out all the Pro-AMD sites you want to and all the Pro-intel sites. Each will tell you that theres is better. Currently its really the same as its always been they both get the job done its just a matter of do you want to drive a ford or chevy, they will both get you there, whats the difference. Not much.
Even on this forum, you can search and find that the big performance boosters are the video card, amount of ram, and connection speed. If BF2 was ran as fast as the processor could process it, AMD or P4, you couldnt keep up. A game that now takes 10 minutes ran at close to the max speed the processors could handle would last about 1 minute. So you see the one thing truely limiting your PC is you not your CPU its the human interface.
Let me put it another way. You can build equal PCs, One Intel and one AMD everything else the same. Set them side by side, running BF2, and you couldnt tell the difference, unless you looked inside and saw the markings on the CPU. Another thing did you notice that most AMD users say AMD rocks and most P4 users say Intel rocks. Its kinda like the weapons in BF2 one guy says the sniper rifle rocks and another sayes it stinks. The first one responds with you just dont know how to use it. See, an endless argument! . . . . .Red


Pretty pointless too. . . . . . .

Yes and no about the cache, all CPU's have a cache, its a little memory buffer where frequently used code/insturction etc.. are stored. Its not the same as a memory controler though.

But yes, in BF2 there may not be that big of a difference CPU wise, but in other games and in general on almost all benchmarks AMD has the lead in performance right now.

I am a supporter of whichever technology is better at the time its out, its ridiculous to be a fan boy about for all things, computer parts.... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I have had 3dFX, ATI and Nvidia cards, two Pentium 4's, 2 Athlon XP's, a Athlon 64 and i had a Centrino/Pentium M as my main computer for a year as well. (In recent times)

Its all about what is best at the time.

[Papi4baby]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

Intel ROCKSSSS lol. j/k just pick what you like, is all the same buddy

[CaptJordus]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

Heh heh heh, What you dont know wont hurt you...... Intel chips have built in memory its called L2. Anyway thats just the first thing, off the top of my head. You can check out all the Pro-AMD sites you want to and all the Pro-intel sites. Each will tell you that theres is better. Currently its really the same as its always been they both get the job done its just a matter of do you want to drive a ford or chevy, they will both get you there, whats the difference. Not much.
Even on this forum, you can search and find that the big performance boosters are the video card, amount of ram, and connection speed. If BF2 was ran as fast as the processor could process it, AMD or P4, you couldnt keep up. A game that now takes 10 minutes ran at close to the max speed the processors could handle would last about 1 minute. So you see the one thing truely limiting your PC is you not your CPU its the human interface.
Let me put it another way. You can build equal PCs, One Intel and one AMD everything else the same. Set them side by side, running BF2, and you couldnt tell the difference, unless you looked inside and saw the markings on the CPU. Another thing did you notice that most AMD users say AMD rocks and most P4 users say Intel rocks. Its kinda like the weapons in BF2 one guy says the sniper rifle rocks and another sayes it stinks. The first one responds with you just dont know how to use it. See, an endless argument! . . . . .Red


Pretty pointless too. . . . . . .

This is the most idiodic and uneducated post ive ever seen in the hardware forum.

Thanks for making us all dumber for having read your response.

Please, for the sake of the members, their PCs, and their children; do not post in the hardware section any more.

[SFR-MAINE]

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.

people that have no real knowledge about CPU's post things like this.

[imported_Wreck]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

At least Intel knows whos architechture is superior. That would be why Intel is basically taking the AMD road by decreasing it's pipelines, frequency, and going for a more efficient approch with Conroe.

The new Intels released later this year will be from 1.87 to 3.33Ghz in speed. They will operate with a fsb of 1066-1333mhz. Intel claims a 20% increase in ICP over current AMD 64 architechture.

[SFR-MAINE]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

At least Intel knows whos architechture is superior. That would be why Intel is basically taking the AMD road by decreasing it's pipelines, frequency, and going for a more efficient approch with Conroe.

The new Intels released later this year will be from 1.87 to 3.33Ghz in speed. They will operate with a fsb of 1066-1333mhz. Intel claims a 20% increase in ICP over current AMD 64 architechture.

yes that is true and about time, however my chipset will not support the new processors, so seems like a new mobo is the way to go.

[Blackhearted]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

people that have no real knowledge about CPU's post things like this.

LOL... yeah, youre right - that was pretty much a 'fanboy' statement.

on the other hand, im sure we can expect a totally unbiased opinion from someone who uses a giant intel badge as their avatar.

[Blackhearted]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

intel's current 64-bit processors use 64-bit extensions they have licensed from AMD. intel probably wouldnt even be producing vista-compatible processors if it werent for AMD.
that says it all in my book.

im not a fanboy, and i will purchase the processor that has the highest performance balanced by a fair price. i dont buy into marketing hype or elitism for a moment.
for the last 10 years or so its been AMD... and judging by the current lineup of processors thats not going to change anytime soon.

the only advantage intel has at the moment is hyperthreading.

[SFR-MAINE]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

LOL... yeah, youre right - that was pretty much a 'fanboy' statement.

on the other hand, im sure we can expect a totally unbiased opinion from someone who uses a giant intel badge as their avatar.

yea i have no reason to be ashamed, more people on these forums have AMD avatars.

[CaptJordus]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

the only advantage intel has at the moment is hyperthreading.

Isnt exactly an advantage...

one core pretending to be 2 cores is not going to be superior to a true dual-core processor.

[Blackhearted]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

Isnt exactly an advantage...

one core pretending to be 2 cores is not going to be superior to a true dual-core processor.

no, but you are forgetting the fact that intel dual cores have hyperthreading as well. its the only reason they pull ahead in some benchmarks vs the AMD dual cores.

i am an amd fan, but i will admit that hyperthreading gives intel an advantage in many applications. i hope AMD is working on a counterpart.