why is amd slower than intel?

[TechOutsider]

why? i'm just wondering why amd can't best intel now. in some applications, they are on par, however in others amd just lags behind. even before the i7 came out.

[Windchild]

-{ Quote: "why? i'm just wondering why amd can't best intel now. in some applications, they are on par, however in others amd just lags behind. even before the i7 came out." }-

Because Intel has the better technology right now. Shouldn't be surprising, really: bigger company, bigger budget, more engineers...

[cqpreson]

In my opinion,Intel has more experience than AMD.So Intel can take the best of this advantage to produce better produce.

[Raza0007]

Didn't AMD split into two companies a while back? I heard they were encountering financial difficulties.

[jonyjoe81]

Intel has been using a smaller 45nm cpu die for years and has more L2/L3 cache up to 8mb of L3 on the I7. The amd phenoms 11 are newcommers to the 45nm world, it is the first amd cpu to use the 45nm exclusively but have a smaller L3 cache of 6 mb. AMD is slowly catching up, but intel has the current lead on using the 45nm process of making cpu's and have perfected it with proven performance.
I prefer amd and have used intel also. From using both of them, I can't tell any difference in speed from the two in day to day use except in video encoding. Some people buy more power than they will ever use. Why pay the premium for an intel i7 if all you will be doing is play games?

Currently the true bottleneck in computer systems is the hard drive, right now the only SSD available that can handle this bottleneck are the intel x25-m ssd drives, those are going to revolutionize speed as we know it. Amd will eventually catch up with intel in cpu technolgy, but now intel will have the upper hand in SSD technolgy.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts/XviD-1.2.1,1383.html

[TechOutsider]

If performance is left at the hands of smaller architecture and cache, why can't AMD just increase the amount of cache and drop a couple sizes? But then, of course, experience counts.

[Keyboard_Commando]

From what I can remember AMD was nearly a goner, out of business. They united forces with ATI in 2006, a year later ATI overtook NVidia's gap in the gamer market for graphics cards. Maybe they threw all their eggs into one basket, at the time, create one world class performaing brand.

ATI/AMD are basically copying what Intel & Nvidia did about 5 or 6 years ago. It definitely benefitted them (Nvidia & Intel), so its likely in the long run AMD can catch Intel. Especially if you consider Nvidia and Intel have fallen out recently and they're in some huge battle over copyright infringements. Nvidia gaming architecture benefited Intel ... so where will they be without that close cooperation ?

[whitedragon551]

Intel 9 times out of 10 also has a larger L2 cache.

[Fly]

I've often read that Intel outperforms AMD.

However, I have read that AMD outperforms Intel on low end systems (cost AND performance).

[whitedragon551]

-{ Quote: "I've often read that Intel outperforms AMD.

However, I have read that AMD outperformes Intel on low end systems (cost AND performance)." }-

Ive never read that. The last 2 years or so Ive never seen AMD placed over Intel.

[TechOutsider]

-{ Quote: "From what I can remember AMD was nearly a goner, out of business. They united forces with ATI in 2006, a year later ATI overtook NVidia's gap in the gamer market for graphics cards. Maybe they threw all their eggs into one basket, at the time, create one world class performaing brand.

ATI/AMD are basically copying what Intel & Nvidia did about 5 or 6 years ago. It definitely benefitted them (Nvidia & Intel), so its likely in the long run AMD can catch Intel. Especially if you consider Nvidia and Intel have fallen out recently and they're in some huge battle over copyright infringements. Nvidia gaming architecture benefited Intel ... so where will they be without that close cooperation ?" }-

Wow. Like that answer. Any more theories?

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "Ive never read that. The last 2 years or so Ive never seen AMD placed over Intel." }-


Actually, I didn't read that. I got that information from a local trustworthy computer shop.

[bigc73542]

I have had many computers running AMD and Intel. Intel may be a bit faster but my amd's run a whole lot cooler.

[Sully]

Back in the day, intel vs. amd was based on the width of data of each processor. amd always used a 'rating' while intel used pure 'mhz'. The difference was pretty simple, amd bus was wider but slower, intel bus was narrow but faster. The end result was truly that an amd cpu, running at a slower speed, could do the same computations as a faster intel cpu.

The big difference came when the 1gb barrier was broke, by amd first. The first athlons. Intel and amd at that time were probably similar in performance, but the amd chips were way way way cheaper than intel chips. And they had really great scores in gaming situations.

The next big step, if everyone still remembers, was when the Athlon64 came out. It had 2 things going for it. First is was pretty much the only cpu that could run 64and 32 bit. Not that it was utilized much, but it could. But it's big adavantage was that it's memory controller was on the chip. That was huge. I most definately remember when the A64's absolutely owned the p4's in most every respect.

Now, Intel is in top position because they spent the time to learn from both amd's success and thier own mistakes in the p4. they have more resources, more experience, and a huge base of hardware other than just processors to work with. amd somehow blew thier lead, and have struggled since to gain anything that seriously competes.

I think of the 2, amd will have the most exciting road if they do what they have said they want to, especially considering they have ati in-house now. Intel is my current choise. And I will be honest, thanks to amd, the price of intel parts is still reasonable. Having built many computers using both brands, I must say I have been very happy in the last couple years with intel cpu's paired with intel motherboards. Used to be I would to enthusiast, Asus, gigabyte, msi, etc. I have not had such an easy time as with the last few generations of intel products.

Oh, and concerning speed, Intel flat moves data right now. But as someone else said, it is the hdd that is the bottleneck.

Sul.

[CircleGirl]

The business majors (here on campus) say that the company that is top dog has the best industrial espionage, including (dual salaried) spies that are top notch in what is otherwise called "poker face politics".

They are said to be otherwise loyal employees of the duped company except for anything that pertains to the recruiting and spying company. Could this be the reason for the upper hand in technology???

Perhaps they are just hyping up their reputations with unfounded rumors.

God knows that they will say or do anything to enhance their reputation!!!

EDIT: if one thinks that there is not a deep rooted culture of industrial espionage then one is hiding their heads into the soft sand.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "The business majors (here on campus) say that the company that is top dog has the best industrial espionage, including (dual salaried) spies that are top notch in what is otherwise called "poker face politics".

They are said to be otherwise loyal employees of the duped company except for anything that pertains to the recruiting and spying company. Could this be the reason for the upper hand in technology???

Perhaps they are just hyping up their reputations with unfounded rumors.

God knows that they will say or do anything to enhance their reputation!!!

EDIT: if one thinks that there is not a deep rooted culture of industrial espionage then one is hiding their heads into the soft sand." }-
Claim a conspiracy theory, and resort to accusations of naivety in the case that people don't believe you. That's always a time-honored, tried-and-true pastime of the horribly uninformed.

[JohnnyDollar]

Intel has had the upper hand the last few years but AMD has shown signs of closely tailing them lately with the phenom II. Over the years they have gone back and forth, one will be on top then surpassed by the other.

[daronpk]

-{ Quote: "why? i'm just wondering why amd can't best intel now. in some applications, they are on par, however in others amd just lags behind. even before the i7 came out." }-

AMD use to be faster before the Core2Duos came out, the Athlons were faster than P4's and the X2's were faster than the PentiumD's. But then the Intel core2duos came out in 45nm manufacturing process and blasted AMD away... not just in dual core but quad core aswell...AMD were lagging behind a bit until they released the Phenom II X4, which is maybe not quite as fast but AMD has closed the gap again to Intel...

I really like AMD I hope they find back to former glory and triumph over Intel :P Even though im running an Intel now :P

[whitedragon551]

Anyone serious about gaming also prefers AMD. Intel knows that. Intel runs way cooler than an AMD does and for that specific purpose is a huge advantage on top of the speed that Intel offers over AMDs comparable CPU.

[tipstir]

AMD for it overclocking features... Here is 1 laptop has AMD overclocked CPU the rest on Intel. Desktops are all AMD overclocked except the server is Intel and that's overclocked. Yes AMD do run hot you can use turbo fans in the desktop and server boxes. They last.

[whitedragon551]

AMD has nothing on Intel as far as OC features. If you want to heat a room or use a CPU that has no cache then AMD. If you want performance, speed, less heat, and a large L2 cache Intel is the choice.

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "AMD has nothing on Intel as far as OC features. If you want to heat a room or use a CPU that has no cache then AMD. If you want performance, speed, less heat, and a large L2 cache Intel is the choice." }-

Well in the past maybe but today AMD newer crop now have larger L2 caches. Not all about the caches though. I can OC by 1GHz on AMD double it and performs well as and Intel running the same speed and L2 1MB cache.

[whitedragon551]

The largest L2 cache I saw on an AMD was 512Kbx4 = 2Mbs

A comparable Intel of the same price runs at 4Mbs.

Factor in the heat of overclocking to the AMD plus the simple fact that AMD runs hot anyways. You dont get the same performance for the price. AMD has been in the dust for a few years.

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "The largest L2 cache I saw on an AMD was 512Kbx4 = 2Mbs

A comparable Intel of the same price runs at 4Mbs.

Factor in the heat of overclocking to the AMD plus the simple fact that AMD runs hot anyways. You dont get the same performance for the price. AMD has been in the dust for a few years." }-

Well the 64-bit ones run very quick even in 32-bit mode they're not bad.

[whitedragon551]

Almost all CPUs built for the last 10 years are 64-bit processors.

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "Almost all CPUs built for the last 10 years are 64-bit processors." }-

Ten years back is 1999.

About 5 years ago I bought an AMD CPU, 32 bit, not 64.
At the time, this CPU was faster than average for desktop computers.

So, you're wrong.

[JRViejo]

Actually... as you can see by this 64-bit processor timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#64-bit_processor_timeline), in 1991, MIPS Technologies produced the first 64-bit microprocessor, the R4000. Some notable years:
-{ Quote: "1996: Nintendo introduces the Nintendo 64 video game console, built around a low-cost variant of the MIPS R4000. HP releases an implementation of the 64-bit 2.0 version of their PA-RISC processor architecture, the PA-8000" }-
-{ Quote: "1999: Intel releases the instruction set for the IA-64 architecture. AMD publicly discloses its set of 64-bit extensions to IA-32, called x86-64 (later renamed AMD64)." }-
-{ Quote: "2003: AMD introduces its Opteron and Athlon 64 processor lines, based on its AMD64 architecture which is the first x86 based 64 bit processor architecture. Apple also ships the 64-bit "G5" PowerPC 970 CPU courtesy of IBM. Intel maintains that its Itanium chips would remain its only 64-bit processors." }-

[whitedragon551]

-{ Quote: "Ten years back is 1999.

About 5 years ago I bought an AMD CPU, 32 bit, not 64.
At the time, this CPU was faster than average for desktop computers.

So, you're wrong." }-

Im not wrong as demonstrated by the person who posted after you. I also said most not all. There is a difference.

[Keyboard_Commando]

-{ Quote: "
Factor in the heat of overclocking to the AMD plus the simple fact that AMD runs hot anyways. You dont get the same performance for the price. AMD has been in the dust for a few years." }-


On paper AMD and Intel's top offering have the same TDP rating 125W, they are always going to. Performance would tell a different story - certainly Intel manages to run cooler when OC'ed, but there are a lot of myths of AMD always being way too hot. These myths are hanging around from Athlon days. Intel has also made a lot of hot pigs, as well.

But then anyone who is serious about overclocking and dealing with heat goes watercooling. :P

-{ Quote: "AMD has been in the dust for a few years." }-

Is that a good thing? Because I don't think so. AMD competitiveness can only be good for the consumer and bring Intel prices down. I would like to see AMD have a go at kicking Intels arse, on prices they do. AMD is just unable to catch Intel's current top tier model - Intel is always one step ahead, ATM.

[Eliot]

Good luck finding one that has a 12MB L2 like mine. ;)

[TechOutsider]

I don't understand the Athlon Neo. I know it is aimed at the Intel Atoms and ULV offerings, however it has a higher TDP than its Intel counterparts, a bigger architecture, and only one core.

Is AMD giving up?

[Carver]

-{ Quote: " I would like to see AMD have a go at kicking Intels arse, on prices they do. " }-
Ok http://hothardware.com/articles/AMD-Phenom-II-965-Black-Edition-CPU-Review/

[Keyboard_Commando]

Interesting article. Sadly AMD still comes up short in comparison to Core 2 Extreme QX9770 & Core i7 920 - both lower clocked processors as well - both with lower TDP ratings. The lower TDP ratings should allow them to overclock easier than the Phenom-II-965, theoretically. These are just the last offerings of the 45nm core processors. I won't be buying either!

I will hang onto my Q6600 for another year or so and wait for a newer core to come out. 32nm is in the pipeline!

-{ Quote: "Intel is feeling pretty confident about the ramp of its 32nm processors, set for production in late 2009. In fact, the company says it's "accelerating" the process shrink by skipping 45nm chips that were going to arrive later this year.

The upcoming Westmere launch will "de-emphasise*" 45nm Auburndale chips that Intel planned on letting co-exist with its new 32nm line in 2009. Instead, those Auburndale wafers will be used to increase production of Westmere desktop and notebook chips. Intel detailed its revised roadmap at a press event in San Francisco today.

Westmere mobile and desktop chips are still on schedule for production in the fourth quarter of 2009. But Intel wouldn't comment on when OEMs could be expected to introduce products using the chips.

The initial ramp will focus on the mainstream market, rather than chips for high-end PCs and servers. Intel said it decided on its volume ramp platforms well ahead of time. So, according to the company, it's just a happy coincidence that there's a lot more focus on getting cheaper kit during this recession year.

Westmere will launch with two cores and four threads for mainstream desktops and the mobile market. The desktop chip is code-named 'Clarkdale' and the mobile chip, 'Arrandale.

Intel said both Clarkdale and Arrandale offerings in 2009 will have clock speeds at a similar range to what the company has today. But what will give them a boost in performance is hyperthreading and an ability to switch between on-die graphics and discrete graphics. This is the first Intel chip to offer switchable on-die/discrete graphics. The on-die graphics will host a 2-channel DDR3 memory controller.

Westmere will scale to a six-core/12-thread processor called 'Gulftown' later in 2010.

According to the company's roadmap, it doesn't plan on having a 32nm chip in production without integrated graphics this year. The graphics core inside Westmere will be 45nm tech.

Westmere processors also include Intel's new AES instruction set, which Intel said will be a similar upgrade to adding SSE4.1 in 45nm Penryn chips.

The CPUs will be compatible with Intel's 5-series chipsets.

Intel said it will be baking Westmere chips at its D1D fab in Oregon, followed by the D1C fab in Oregon in the fourth quarter. Production will also begin at Intel's fabs in Arizona and New Mexico in 2010. ®" }-

source (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/10/intel_westmere_update_february_09/)

[Bill_Bright]

-{ Quote: "I have read that AMD outperforms Intel on low end systems (cost AND performance)." }--{ Quote: "Actually, I didn't read that. I got that information from a local trustworthy computer shop." }-I think the "trustworthy" computer shop is as confused about the facts as you are about the source of your information. The primary reason it "appears" AMDs perform better on low-end and entry level systems is simply because AMDs have cuts costs so folks will buy their products. This often means, with all else being equal, a $500 AMD computer has a good chance of besting a $500 Intel computer, simply because the builder's budget allows for the next step up in AMD CPUs.

-{ Quote: "Anyone serious about gaming also prefers AMD.
Intel runs way cooler than an AMD does and for that specific purpose is a huge advantage on top of the speed that Intel offers over AMDs comparable CPU." }-Did you mean to say that? Those two statements are contradicting. First, it is totally untrue to suggest that serious gamers (as a whole group) prefer AMD. If they do, it is only because of biases, and budgets. A few years ago, maybe that was true, but no longer - and much of that reason is because of the second part of your statement.

Sure, people will nitpick out exceptions and specific examples where AMDs excel, but if you line up all the pros and cons, AMDs lag behind in all areas, except price. And Intel is putting pressure there too by dropping prices.

Intel was embarrassed by AMD years ago when AMD passed them. This is significant not only because they were spanked in their own game, but AMD, the company, was initially created for the SOLE PURPOSE of creating Intel processors for the IBM PC because IBM wanted a second source for CPUs.

They were further embarrassed when it took years to catch up. But when they did catch up with the Core 2 Duos, not only did they catch up, they zoomed passed, vowing to never to be embarrassed like that again.

So this time, instead of sitting on their laurels, they pressed on with more advances with new quads and now the i7s.

-{ Quote: "i'm just wondering why amd can't best intel now." }-That's simple - let's make sure we know the real reason Intels, as a whole product line, are faster than the AMDs - money!!!! Intel has lots of it. AMD does not. And without lots of money, AMD cannot afford near as much to invest in R&D, or to upgrade production facilities.

HOWEVER - that, in no way suggests AMDs are a poor choice, or inferior in quality. AMDs are excellent CPUs, capable of meeting the needs of just about any user.

[TechOutsider]

-{ Quote: "That's simple - let's make sure we know the real reason Intels, as a whole product line, are faster than the AMDs - money!!!! Intel has lots of it. AMD does not. And without lots of money, AMD cannot afford near as much to invest in R&D, or to upgrade production facilities." }-

So ... Intel's R&D resulted in what cauing them to make a comeback?

[Bill_Bright]

-{ Quote: "So ... Intel's R&D resulted in what cauing them to make a comeback?" }-That's half of it. Having the know-how is one thing. Having the resources (read: $$$) to build and re-tool factories is another. Note these are very expensive, very high tech, precise, "clean" facilities with highly skilled (again, $$$) work forces, manufacturing CPUs using very expensive raw materials (because they must be as close as humanly possible to impurity free). And while being built and retooled, factories are consuming mass quantities of cash, and not making any money. This apparently is too much of a burden for AMD as has they no longer make their own CPUs - see AMD Outsources CPUs Manufacturing (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/cpu-phenom-amd,5370.html).

This is good and bad. Good because then AMD does not have to worry about running factories, but bad because it removes layers of control over the product. Time will tell if, in this case, it was a good business move.

It does not bother me if AMD is never able to truly compete head to head with Intel. All we (consumers) need is for AMD to stay nipping at Intel's heels. This will keep the drive ($$$) going to stay ahead (and not get embarrassed, or investors angry, again) by investing in more R&D and factories, ever advancing technologies to provide better performance for the money while consuming less power and generating less heat. That's good for AMD. Good for Intel. And good for us and Mother Earth too.

[Keyboard_Commando]

Bill_Bright - I have a question, if you don't mind. Where do you see Intel going now they've fallen out with Nvidia, good or bad news for AMD? I wonder if Intel will now just grow into an even stronger position within CPU's - concentrated fully, or do you see a chance for AMD/ATI joint architecture to sneak a win.

[tipo]

-{ Quote: "why? i'm just wondering why amd can't best intel now. in some applications, they are on par, however in others amd just lags behind. even before the i7 came out." }-
i totally disagree...amd is way better than intel...i have twin pc. one has amd and the other intel..same amount of ram same date the os was installed, same AV bla bla bla...the one with the amd it`s like speedy gonzalez compared with the intel... at least in my case... :thumb: amd // :thumbd: intel

[Bill_Bright]

-{ Quote: "i totally disagree...amd is way better than intel...i have twin pc. one has amd and the other intel..same amount of ram same date the os was installed, same AV bla bla bla...the one with the amd it`s like speedy gonzalez compared with the intel..." }-Well, that's silly. It is you that are wrong as proven over and over again by virtually every "legitimate" test facility since the day the Core 2 Duos came out. And your statement is silly because you have taken two (totally unknown) CPUs and made a blanket statement about entire production lines. :( -{ Quote: "at least in my case... " }-That I'll buy, because I noted above, there are always people who will nitpick out exceptions to falsely make a point.

Again, I am not knocking AMDs. They make excellent products. But across the line, Intels, as a line of CPUs, outperform, consume less power, and generate less heat than AMDs. The ONLY area AMDs can compete with any consistency, is in price.

-{ Quote: "Bill_Bright - I have a question, if you don't mind. Where do you see Intel going now they've fallen out with Nvidia, good or bad news for AMD? " }-I think they need each other, and they will work it out. That said, since nVidia's main competition comes from ATI, and ATI has now merged with AMD, I think it is mostly a Wall Street Soap Opera. But as long as all parties don't do something stupid, or illegal, or worse yet, try to cover up something stupid or illegal, I think it will not impact us at all.

[Fly]

Two partial quotes by the same poster, different posts:

'I think the "trustworthy" computer shop is as confused about the facts as you are about the source of your information. The primary reason it "appears" AMDs perform better on low-end and entry level systems is simply because AMDs have cuts costs so folks will buy their products. This often means, with all else being equal, a $500 AMD computer has a good chance of besting a $500 Intel computer, simply because the builder's budget allows for the next step up in AMD CPUs.'

'Again, I am not knocking AMDs. They make excellent products. But across the line, Intels, as a line of CPUs, outperform, consume less power, and generate less heat than AMDs. The ONLY area AMDs can compete with any consistency, is in price'

My quote in post #9: 'However, I have read that AMD outperforms Intel on low end systems (cost AND performance).'

Bill Bright, you seem to contradict me, while it seems to me that we don't disagree.
The low-end AMD CPUs compared to low-end Intel CPUs allow for a relatively fast AMD system because of the price/performance ratio.

[Bill_Bright]

Umm, did you have a purpose for repeating what I said above? Did you mean to add a comment?

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "Umm, did you have a purpose for repeating what I said above? Did you mean to add a comment?" }-

I was composing a post (see time last edited by Fly), also see the time of your post.

I guess my final version is clear ?

[Bill_Bright]

-{ Quote: "I was composing a post (see time last edited by Fly), also see the time of your post." }-Then I recommend you use the quote features of these boards to avoid confusion.

-{ Quote: "Bill Bright, you seem to contradict me, while it seems to me that we don't disagree.
The low-end AMD CPUs compared to low-end Intel CPUs allow for a relatively fast AMD system because of the price/performance ratio." }-TechOutsider asked when opening this thread,-{ Quote: " why is amd slower than intel? " }-I don't agree with your comments in the context of this thread because this thread is not about price/performance ratios. Cost was not a factor in his question at all. Nor was cost a factor in my explanations. The question was all about performance, not about how much it costs.

As I noted, the only place AMD can compete is with cost. When it comes to performance, power consumption, and heat generation, Intels generally excel.

But lets put this in perspective too. AMDs CPUs may cost less for the same performance but the motherboards are comparably priced, and RAM, graphics cards, power supplies, and cases are the exact same, and therefore priced the same too. So it is not like you are saving hundreds just by using an AMD CPU over an Intel.

I agree if money is the primary concern, then AMD is the way to go. And certainly, if the primary use of that budget system is to read email, use Google, and create Word docs, just about any budget system will do.

[whitedragon551]

-{ Quote: "

Did you mean to say that? Those two statements are contradicting. First, it is totally untrue to suggest that serious gamers (as a whole group) prefer AMD. If they do, it is only because of biases, and budgets. A few years ago, maybe that was true, but no longer - and much of that reason is because of the second part of your statement.

" }-

Yes I meant to say that. People in general who are uninformed say AMD is better for gaming.

[Bill_Bright]

-{ Quote: "Yes I meant to say that. People in general who are uninformed say AMD is better for gaming." }-Ah, I see. And I agree. But again, that's not to say you cannot make a great gaming machine with AMD. You can. And no doubt there are some games that are tweaked for and may play better on AMD. But since so much depends on other factors, namely the graphics solution, I would still go with Intel for better "overall" computing performance - unless you are addicted to that particular AMD tweaked game, and the machine was built for, and dedicated to playing that game.

[TOMxEU]

-{ Quote: "First, it is totally untrue to suggest that serious gamers (as a whole group) prefer AMD. If they do, it is only because of biases, and budgets. ." }-
Well I am a gamer (playing ~8 houres a day) and I prefer AMD/ATI because they work well together (made by the same company). I know, that AMD is about 5% slower than top Intel CPUs, but I do not need server CPU. I have AMD Athlon X2 5000+BE@3210MHz + Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme + NF-P12-1300 and it is quite cool. BTW, my case alone costs more than any other component in PC - Lian Li PC-P60 ArmorSuit Black, so I did not pick AMD because of low budget. ;)

[Bill_Bright]

-{ Quote: "Originally Posted by Bill_Bright
First, it is totally untrue to suggest that serious gamers (as a whole group) prefer AMD. If they do, it is only because of biases, and budgets." }-
First, to clarify - I did not mean to suggest serious gamers as a group are biased or misinformed. I meant people who make claims about serious gamers and their preferences are biased, or misinformed.-{ Quote: "I did not pick AMD because of low budget. " }-It sounds like you chose AMD because it met (or exceeded) your needs. That's the best reason there is and it sounds like you have a fine system. As I noted several times above, AMD makes great CPUs.

I don't accept (yet) that choosing AMD is best if using ATI graphics. It would make poor business sense for AMD to limit compatibility to only their own brand of graphics - not a good move when strapped for cash. Graphics solutions must be compatible with the OS and meet ATX standards to fit inside the case, connect to ATX PSUs, and run programs (including games) designed to run on Windows compatible computers. While I certainly expect AMDs to work with ATIs, I also expect AMD CPUs to work with nVidia, VIA/S3 and Matrox GPUs too. And they do.

-{ Quote: "BTW, my case alone costs more than any other component in PC - Lian Li PC-P60 ArmorSuit Black" }-:thumb: A very wise move! While not a fan of fancy facades and flashy lights (I tend to watch my monitors and not the computer case), a case's job is to protect it's contents from accidental kicks and knocks, AND provide plenty of front-to-back airflow, two things this case excels at (plus it has a washable air filter! :) - an absolute necessity, IMO). I have always been a proponent of building PCs on solid foundations consisting of a quality case, and a quality PSU. You did not mention what PSU you have, but I suspect it too, like your case, is of high quality from a reputable maker and will carry you through several years of service AND upgrades.

[TOMxEU]

-{ Quote: "I don't accept (yet) that choosing AMD is best if using ATI graphics." }-
I wanted Spider platform, but when my quadcore Phenom 9600 BE damaged, I had to use dualcore and it was much much more faster, so I decided to keep it.
-{ Quote: ":thumb: A very wise move! While not a fan of fancy facades and flashy lights (I tend to watch my monitors and not the computer case), a case's job is to protect it's contents from accidental kicks and knocks, AND provide plenty of front-to-back airflow" }-
My thoughts exactly. Just to let you know, I replaced all LED fans with normal NF-P12-1300, pity Noctua does not have 14 cm, I had to use 12 cm instead. ;)

[TechOutsider]

I guess you can't win them all. Maybe ATI's sucess in graphics cards will bring in enough $ for better processors.

[Carver]

-{ Quote: "I guess you can't win them all. Maybe ATI's sucess in graphics cards will bring in enough $ for better processors." }-
We are at 45nm die size now according to the road map AMD is going down to 32 nm die size by the 4 Quarter of 2010. A influx of cash will move that date up some.

[tipstir]

Sounds like nobody here is going to agree with either AMD or Intel. I run both and would still go with AMD. Intel commercials will lead you to believe they're the only CPU on the market, well guess again. Larger cache is no always a good thing in some applications. Still the added buffer feature won't hurt.

[Bill_Bright]

-{ Quote: "Sounds like nobody here is going to agree with either AMD or Intel." }-Huh? What does that mean?

-{ Quote: "Intel commercials will lead you to believe they're the only CPU on the market" }-Well, of course they do. AMD would like you to believe the same, as would Ford and Toyota prefer you only buy from them. For those that have done the research, there's a clear leader - but that does not mean the follower is a slouch.

[tipstir]

I am more for AMD than Intel control of the market. I use to go for Intel and not for AMD. I found that AMD CPU though cheaper and can be used OC by 1GHz more tend to do basically the same type of job. This race to see which CPU is faster is getting nowhere today as not every application can use such speeds as of yet.

Intel should never have released the no release CPU called Celeron. This just mix up the market with poor defective CPU with limited cache. I still feel AMD own Sempron still better over Celeron. Full CPU with it's larger cache just adds more speed to I/O stream other than that they all going to perform pretty much the same. Some applications tend to see better results with Single core than with Dual Core. Now with the Quad Dual Core how much applications can use that and if they do are you going to spend for for having the latest CPU then find out another faster CPU has top that CPU you just got.

[Fuzzfas]

My (well, my bigger brother's, i didn't have my own PC back then) first CPU was an Intel Pentium I (200 Mhz). After that, i found myself going with AMD every time (Athlon 1100->Athlon XP 2500+ ---> Athlon 64 3200+ ---> Athlon 64 x2 3800+ ---> Athlon 64 x2 5050e.

I am not a fanatic gamer anymore (i play older games) and mainly need the PC for internet, listening to music, watching films,p2p.

For that purpose, all the comparison between "slower" and "faster" is IMHO moot point. Even the 3800+ x2 shows no noticeable difference to the 5050e. I can p2p, burn DVD, watch HD film and browse the internet at the same time with no delay. What else do i need?

Everytime i did my shopping enquiries, i ended up with AMD, simply because it gave me enough power for MUCH less money.

As for heat, EE (Energy Efficient) AMD models, run very cold. My current 5050e , using stock crappy cooler, with 32 C room temperature, is at 38 C (CnQ enabled).

Yeah, Intel is faster. But how many really NEED that performance boost? AMD gives better bang for buck and for non gamers-average home users is more than enough. The AMD entry leven dual core (the old S939 x2 3800+), is more than enough even for Blu Ray reproduction , coupled with a half decent video card.


The rest of this "faster" war is part of the promo-advertizing of the companies, trying to convince you that you NEED the newest 8-core (soon) CPU, while in reality, for most adult home users, any dual core will do.


My current setup

Asrock A790GMH/128M
AMD x2 5050e
4 GB RAM Kingston 800Mhz DDR2 CAS 4
VGA: using onboard integrated ATI HD 3300
2 HD

Good luck in trying to make an equivalent powered rig with Intel based components and using the SAME amount of money... That's AMD for me... BTW, the above CPU/motherboard combo (the 780G and 790G are very efficient chipsets) is one of the lowest in power consumption around, decreasing overall heat and electricity bill.

(With a fraction of the money difference that i would pay to buy Intel, i bought 1 spare motherboard and 4 GB more RAM for future 64bit upgrade in Windows 7).

[Fuzzfas]

-{ Quote: "Some applications tend to see better results with Single core than with Dual Core. " }-

Exactly. The currently available CPU power is not yet used by software. You can "upgrade" in cores and actually find a performance decrease.

-{ Quote: "
Now with the Quad Dual Core how much applications can use that and if they do are you going to spend for for having the latest CPU then find out another faster CPU has top that CPU you just got." }-

We will arrive at 12 cores and they will still sell the story that we "need" the newer CPU, because it performs a synthetic test in 10 entire seconds faster than our "old" CPU... ;D

[TechOutsider]

I agree with Fuzzfas and tipstir. Both offer comparable performance at most price points. AMD is often cheaper though.

Do we need that performance boost? For me, no. I have a Intel Q6600 and I want to replace it with a Celeron 440 (a lot less heat), since I don't like running my A/C.

-{ Quote: "The rest of this "faster" war is part of the promo-advertizing of the companies, trying to convince you that you NEED the newest 8-core (soon) CPU, while in reality, for most adult home users, any dual core will do." }-

I agree.

What about you guys? Do you think that you absolutely need an i7 over a Phenom II x4 for your computing needs? But competition is nice.

[westom]

-{ Quote: "I agree with Fuzzfas and tipstir. Both offer comparable performance at most price points. AMD is often cheaper though.
" }-
AMD is cheaper with minuscule profit margins (and saddled by a major mistake in buying the video controller company). Its processors are no longer as fast. The reason was obvious. Transistors had gotten so small that the CMOS gate insulator (glass) was as few as three atoms thick. Too much electricity was leaking through that glass. To make the processor faster means even more electricity leaks through that glass. Faster meant too hot. Not because heat is destructive. At those temperatures it is not because heat causes too much timing and conductivity changes - data errors.

Nobody could make a solution for that gate leakage work. Dupont's solution was used on some IBM chips - which then pealed off during construction.

Intel took a major gamble. Intel committed to hafnium dioxide in their next generation of ICs long before the process was even proven. A decision made at the presidential layer because the risk was that massive (and because their management actually understands how the product works). Intel's proprietary hafnium dioxide worked. Everyone else was playing catchup with Intel's smaller and faster transistors because nobody else was able to make transistors that small using the new hi-K material.

Intel has a long history of doing this. AMD is simply pushing Intel to be innovative - as Zilog Z-80, Motorola's 68000, IBM's PowerPC and a long list of smaller challengers (ie Transmeta) also did. To be competitive, the AMD chips must now operate slower so as to not overheat. AMD is now trying new solutions such as outsourcing because their R&D has not kept up with Intel - who took major gambles when the technology was not even known to work.

Also mentioned was AMD's major bungle in grossly overpaying for their video controller company – as then discovering that the video controller does not integrate well with processor needs. This has further impeded AMD's R&D budgets.

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "AMD is cheaper with minuscule profit margins (and saddled by a major mistake in buying the video controller company). Its processors are no longer as fast. The reason was obvious. Transistors had gotten so small that the CMOS gate insulator (glass) was as few as three atoms thick. Too much electricity was leaking through that glass. To make the processor faster means even more electricity leaks through that glass. Faster meant too hot. Not because heat is destructive. At those temperatures it is not because heat causes too much timing and conductivity changes - data errors.

Nobody could make a solution for that gate leakage work. Dupont's solution was used on some IBM chips - which then pealed off during construction.

Intel took a major gamble. Intel committed to hafnium dioxide in their next generation of ICs long before the process was even proven. A decision made at the presidential layer because the risk was that massive (and because their management actually understands how the product works). Intel's proprietary hafnium dioxide worked. Everyone else was playing catchup with Intel's smaller and faster transistors because nobody else was able to make transistors that small using the new hi-K material.

Intel has a long history of doing this. AMD is simply pushing Intel to be innovative - as Zilog Z-80, Motorola's 68000, IBM's PowerPC and a long list of smaller challengers (ie Transmeta) also did. To be competitive, the AMD chips must now operate slower so as to not overheat. AMD is now trying new solutions such as outsourcing because their R&D has not kept up with Intel - who took major gambles when the technology was not even known to work.

Also mentioned was AMD's major bungle in grossly overpaying for their video controller company – as then discovering that the video controller does not integrate well with processor needs. This has further impeded AMD's R&D budgets." }-

Strange you say this I am using a AMD laptop with ATI PCI-E integrated GPU without any issues. Face it AMD just as good as Intel. VIA is another CPU to deal with as it's not as mention as much as AMD. VIA been around too. The CPU doesn't offer a lot of what AMD has for L1/L2.

[westom]

-{ Quote: "Strange you say this I am using a AMD laptop with ATI PCI-E integrated GPU without any issues. " }-
So you know AMD is making a profit on that integrated solution? You can see it is profitable only because your computer works? Others have attempted this and failed. That user also saw it working; not the financial failure that created it and not the slower processing speeds that mean the computer will be retired earlier.

AMD is now suffering R&D cutbacks. Financial analysts attribute that to paying much too much for the video processor company (ATI?). When will you see results of that reduced R&D? Typically four years later when their newer products are not doing what Intel already is. Some R&D cutbacks have already appeared.

AMD is now outsourcing some of its manufacturing. AMD has been slow to grasp technology such as high-K processes and the smaller transistors that Intel has been doing for some time now. Therefore AMD needed outside help. Therefore AMD processors cannot operate at the faster speeds.

AMD is not making profits in an industry that is highly profitable. What AMD was doing in their products years ago has only appeared in their bottom line recently. When AMD had a better architecture, a profit growth appeared in their financials many years later. This started somewhere around K-6 when a new engineering group was isolated from AMD top management. Therefore began some superb work especially in architectural design. Today, AMD's technology is not advancing relative to Intel.

So AMD integrated your CPU and GPU - at how much loss? Others also did this - with no success. Hi-K process is but one example of a major technology leap by Intel that AMD could not do; having wasted so much capital on buying a video controller company. Capital that could have been used in R&D is not available.

Whispers are asking if AMD can survive. Yes. But the fact that whispers are even asking suggests a problem that most attribute to wasting so much capital on the video controller company with so little to be gained.

[Bill_Bright]

-{ Quote: "You can see it is profitable only because your computer works? " }-;D Yeah, my Chevy truck works too, but I would hardly call General Motors profitable.

-{ Quote: "AMD is not making profits in an industry that is highly profitable." }-Highly profitable? Not hardly! Typical of cutthroat industries, the profit margins are minimal and that's much of the problem. The only way to compensate for low profits per unit is to move large quantities. AMD's decline had more to do with Intel's cutting edge advances, AND Intel lowering prices. Unexpected manufacturing problems and the recession at the same time sure didn't help any either.

Note for the entire IT industry, the profit margin is less than 7.5% (http://biz.yahoo.com/p/8qpmu.html) - a careful look shows some serious concerns, like RAM makers profit margin at -44%!

Look at Dell (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=DELL) - a profit margin of 3.43% barely covers inflation.

Intel Profits down 90% (http://apcmag.com/intel_profit_down_90_closing_five_factories.htm).

Better design attracted the previous AMD-only gaming community, among other enthusiasts, and Intel lowering prices attracted everyone.

I think the ATI deal can save AMD, if they can get past today's economic woes - if they are smart about it. If AMD fails to design their ATI graphics solutions to perform equally well on both AMD and Intel based motherboards, the company will surely fail too. That would be very bad for consumers as we need AMD and ATI to keep Intel and nVidia honest, and priced within reach.

-{ Quote: "AMD is simply pushing Intel to be innovative" }-And that's a very good thing for all of us, including AMD. AMD also offers consumers choices - also a very good thing.

[tipstir]

Sure AMD laptop is much cheaper than Intel laptop. Today who wants to spend $1,500 or more on laptop when you can get them from $348, $548 and $699. These net laptop run Intel Atom and AMD has there own Atom. Still price matters. Don't forget VIA. In the past you few others making CPUs too. Intel is huge but AMD can hang around if they don't screw-up. The popular AMD X2 X64 mobile CPU with ATI for video pretty darn good. I have some DELL, and Toshiba running Intel in laptops they're okay too.

[westom]

-{ Quote: " I think the ATI deal can save AMD, if they can get past today's economic woes - if they are smart about it. If AMD fails to design their ATI graphics solutions to perform equally well on both AMD and Intel based motherboards, the company will surely fail too. " }-

Ignored is that other CPU manufacturers have already tried it - and failed. No significant performance was achieved by integrating the video controller with the CPU.

Meanwhile, Dell, et al do not manufacture CPUs. Those CPU manufacturers that have concentrated only on core objectives are highly profitable including Intel and TI.

ATI deal has caused AMD to reduce its R&D budgets when Intel's new technologies require AMD to increase R&D. Another symptom of AMD's reduced competitive edge: outsourcing of some of its production because AMD needs to buy outside help. Insufficient R&D in AMD to innovate smaller transistors and high-K materials. Innovation breakthroughs already in Intel products to make faster chips that consume less energy.

How does integrating a video controller in a CPU make the CPU faster with less energy consumption? It does not. But it does imply AMD is no longer trying to match Intel's innovations.

Defined is why Intel took such a massive technology leap. Intel committed to a proprietary high-K material even though the process was not proven. Other companies committed to high-K materials only to have whole productions fail (ie IBM). Intel committed to a risky process - and succeeded where so many others had failed. AMD is still playing catchup ... does not have those solutions, and is now saddled with a massive ATI debt to further reduce R&D.

Or has AMD decided to stop competing technically? Has AMD decided to become a commodity producer of lower cost low performance CPUs? Has AMD finally admitted it can no longer innovate fast enough to compete with Intel? Then a video controller, the North bridge, and South bridge all integrated in one package would make sense. Has AMD decided to commoditize their product in a slower 'system on a chip'? Maybe since they paid so much for ATI and do not have capital for the necessary R&D.

And finally what industry analysts are also saying. Another point you ignored. AMD paid too much for ATI. For the acquisition to be successful, then explain why even the analysts are wrong.

All above points made previously are unanswered. Some still believe that AMD will somehow compete with Intel - the OP's original question. Possible that AMD has decided to stop trying to compete. To instead find some other CPU market. Somehow an integrated video processor will solve AMD's technology problems? Of course not. How does AMD address the challenge with reduced R&D budgets because AMD paid too much for ATI?

AMD is losing money in a CPU industry where the leading innovators are extremely profitable. To remain competitive, AMD must sell their products on razor thin - almost non-existent - profit margins. So maybe AMD has decided to stop trying to be a leading edge manufacturer?

[Bill_Bright]

-{ Quote: "Ignored is that other CPU manufacturers have already tried it - and failed. No significant performance was achieved by integrating the video controller with the CPU." }-That statement is illogical. Because other's failed before all future attempts by AMD will fail too? ??? Good thing Orville and Wilbur did not have that defeatist attitude. Or NASA.

And you assume too much about improved performance. It is not always about simply increasing performance. It is also about cutting costs, increasing energy efficiency, and reducing heat. If improvements in these areas can be realized without degrading data crunching performance, the product is still a success.

But let's look at performance for a minute. Why was Intel's integration of the floating-point processor into the 486 die a success, even though it increased the price of the CPU? Why was AMD's integration of the memory controller such a big success, such that Intel is now doing something similar? The reason was, and is obvious - no bus to transfer data to distant devices therefore no latencies. But not just that - integration simplifies (lowers the costs of) motherboard/chipset design and manufacturing. If AMD succeeds with their Fusion line of CPUs with integrated graphics (which is still 2 years out), there will be one less bus to travel, and fewer parts to integrate into the motherboard.

And finally, at least on the video front, AMD has NO plans for the Fusion chips to replace high-end graphics solutions (cards) hard core gamers and professional graphics designers demand. Rather, AMD is marketing the Fusion as a very viable, affordable option for "mainstream" computers - that is, the vast majority of computers out there - those that are not extreme game machines, but used for work, school, email, Internet, listening to music and watching DVDs - all of which can be done easily with just about any graphics solution today.

-{ Quote: "Another symptom of AMD's reduced competitive edge: outsourcing of some of its production because AMD needs to buy outside help. " }-It outsources to cut costs, as does just about every industry in the world - or at lease in countries with high labor costs. I assure you, Intel does not believe AMD is not a contender. And with the world economy improving, people and companies are starting (albeit slowly) to buy computers again, so it is not like AMD has no money coming in - or bill collectors banging at the door. In fact, income from the ATI side of the house has gone up, and as Global Foundries (the new manufacturing company name) completes retooling to the new technologies, AMD CPU sales are expected to improve too.

-{ Quote: "How does integrating a video controller in a CPU make the CPU faster with less energy consumption? " }-That's an illogical question. NO graphics solution makes ANY CPU faster. But, a good graphics solution clearly helps define the over all performance of the computer because the more (and faster) the CPU can hand off graphics crunching to the GPU the better the over performance of the computer as that leaves the CPU more cycles to complete its other (and now fewer) duties. And power consumption as seen at the wall outlet (and not necessarily the CPU) is reduced because only one device needs power and no power is wasted shuffling data long distances across a bus. And I note this integration is based on new manufacturing techniques which jams more transistors in the same space - which by itself, improves performance (due to less latency) and allows for even more integration.

-{ Quote: "Or has AMD decided to stop competing technically? " }-Of course not. -{ Quote: "Has AMD decided to become a commodity producer of lower cost low performance CPUs? " }-Not entirely. Lower costs, yes. But they are still striving for high performance, and certainly, many of their offerings achieve that, and will continue to do so for years come, IF they can survive through this recession - and avoid any more buggy drivers.

[MasterTB]

Just to add some fire to the conversation :lurking:

I'm running a system with an "Old" Athlon64 x2 5000+ @2.8Ghz with 4 gigs of ram, a 1TB Toshiba HDD, an XFX 9800GT video card displaying on a Samsung SyncMaster 2343NWX monitor with 2048x1152 resolution (60Hz) and I can easily keep up with a Core2Duo (@2.66 Ghz -default-) with a Zotac 260GTX (same ram and HDD) running all games.... and BTW the other sistem has a 1280x1024 Resolution Monitor.

So, I don't really see AMD being slower than Intel.
Never have and hopefully never will.

I also don't trust benchmarks. They never show you anything your system can do. I've built machines in the past going by what benchmarkers built and never could even get close to the results they got.

Of course this is my experience and my opinion, and opinions vary.

[TechOutsider]

Intel has always been, and will likely remain for quite a while, the 800 lbs gorilla of CPU land

"Chimpzilla" stole 25% of Intel's banana's due to the Netburst fiasco and right now the Gorilla is very, very angry.

Intel's executing very well right now, and they have vast resources to throw at the problem.

AMD will adapt and live, or fail to adapt and die.

A snippit from someone else's forum post ... I think it greatly summarizies this thread.