AMD and Intel processors, the difference

[LoD]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

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.

Only the EE editions, the vanilla Intels have dropped HT support. Also i read a while back that AMD actually invented hyperthreading, but because of the athlon design, decided not to implement it. Its apparent that Intel is sidelining HT and planning on eventually dropping it. The new P3 derived chips lack HT, and all the consumer dual cores lack HT. I think once netburst is gone, HT will disappear and get replaced by actual multicores.

[Blak_Phoenix]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

I think this should become a sitcky.. so much good info.

[Blackhearted]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

Only the EE editions, the vanilla Intels have dropped HT support. Also i read a while back that AMD actually invented hyperthreading, but because of the athlon design, decided not to implement it. Its apparent that Intel is sidelining HT and planning on eventually dropping it. The new P3 derived chips lack HT, and all the consumer dual cores lack HT. I think once netburst is gone, HT will disappear and get replaced by actual multicores.

why on earth would they drop it? it is the ONLY thing keeping intel even remotely competitive in the high-end dual core benchmarks.

it has no drawbacks, does it? is it so much more expensive to produce a processor with hyperthreading than without? i dont get why they would drop superior technology (in superior i mean as opposed to without).

[LoD]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

It doesnt help them much, the 800 and 900 series processors already lack HT. I think it boils down to wasted die space and higher power consumption as apposed to real multicore designs. We will see quad core CPU's in the next 2 -3+ years and once you start getting, 2-4+ CPU's it doesnt make any sense to have "virtual" ones any longer.


Just as a side note, the reason Intel has some speed advantages (read minimal) comes as you said from their HT multithreaded designs partly, but mostly from their long pipeline architecture, certain applications excell with their long assembly line design, thats why Intel can lose 75% of the benchmarks by a consistant margin, and all of the sudden win a Photoshop or media encoding test fairly decisively. Though now that AMD has dual cores most of the traditional benchmarks favor AMD or leave Intel with only a slight performance edge, and it is ever so slight.

Dual core on AMD actually acts as a Hypterthreading link, they are programmed to take advantage of the 4 years Intel marketed and pushed HT as a technology. Pretty nifty since AMd can get a free ride performance wise on all the money Intel pushed to make HT mainstream.

[Flanker]

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.

I agree, that post was ridiculously stupid.

[Sir. MatDef]

Re: AMD and Intel processors, the difference

I agree, that post was ridiculously stupid.

Yeah, my brain hurts now.