Intel v/s AMD

Hibernation or Coreboot is the only way.
Bios alone with no OS is 10 seconds.

With Coreboot (LinuxBIOS) and gPXE you can boot a 1000 node cluster in 1 minute.

 

Yeah, I meant, that AMD is good enough even for a gamer, so Intel is more for the servers or for people, who works with graphics and high-demand software.

Based on the tests, today it is more about speed then cores, second core usually uses Windows, which helps, but quadcore is more or less uselless for games (except GTA4). So someone with dualcore overlocked to 3,2GHz has more powerfull CPU then other with quadcore at 2,6GHz. Branding does not matter too much.

 

Once again, you seem focused on the gamer - a minority user, and NOT a representative of the "normal" user. While I agree that speed is a factor, I don't agree that the number of cores is not. Your example is not a fair comparison. If a program does not take advantage of the quad, that's not the CPU's fault.

There are MANY cases where a slower quad will blow the doors off a dual - and one major area is "regular computer use" (which does NOT included current, 3D animated games). If I am backing up a database (such as my Outlook .pst file), spell checking a large Word document, checking email, defragging a secondary drive, surfing the net, while listening to a CD, I will take a quad over a dual, any day!

Since so much is "rebranded" stuff from just a few OEMs, I agree. It is interesting to remember that AMD was created exclusively to produce Intel CPUs so IBM could have a 2nd source for their new home computers, called the "PC".

Ummm, just to ensure there is no confusion - the cores don't use anything (except energy). Programs use the cores, if written to take advantage of them. And since Windows is designed to support multiple CPUs, Windows uses all cores - freeing up CPU resources for other programs more quickly.

You are correct, however, when you say that most games do not (yet) take advantage of the quads - so you are correct when you say a 3.2GHz Dual will play games better than a 2.6GHz Quad. But to make a fair comparison, try a 3.2GHz Quad and see what happens.

Ah, that makes sense.

Oh, and for the record, if you enter into google: Best gaming CPU, you will find more Intels than AMDs - unless on a budget.

I agree 100% - with lot's RAM, and a good graphics solution, a nice AMD will make an excellent gaming platform - but I note a nice Intel, with good graphics and plenty of RAM will too.

 

When it is enough for a gamer, then it is enough for everyone of course, except software and graphic developers, who are a real minority.

P.S.: I agree, that Intel makes great PCs, but I prefer affordable PC better than to pay twice more for 5-10% faster PC, thats is all.

 

Exactly. Did you guys see Dell's new i7 based computers? They put a ATi HD3450 with a i7 940.

Look at the specs of that GPU ...

*64-bit bus
*181 million transistors
*40 shaders

 

Twice more? Are you kidding? That is certainly NOT the way it works. You guys seem to refuse to look at, or are just not aware of the big picture, or reality. You are dreaming! Just because an Intel CPU might cost a little more, it does NOT cost twice more! Furthermore, even if the Intel CPU did cost twice as much as AMD's counterpart, that does not mean you will pay twice as much for the graphics card (which may cost way more than any CPU), RAM, motherboard, case, keyboard, mouse, hard drives, opticals, monitor, PSU, Windows, printer, or anything else that comes with a computer.

It is simply and totally inaccurate and wrong to even suggest an Intel machine costs anywhere near twice as much as an equally equipped AMD machine.

I would rather pay an extra $100 for a PC with an Intel now, and enjoy superior performance for the life of the computer. Assuming it lasts (only) years - that amounts to less than $2.80/month. It you want reality, the reality is most current Intel CPUs consume considerably LESS power and generate less heat than AMDs - often 50Watts less - which is directly seen as savings in electricity to power the CPU, and in fan power, and facility air conditioning.

I'll be happy to discuss facts with you guys - but not made up stuff.

181million? That's nothing. The new GeForce 280 has 1.4 Billion (with a B)! In contrast, the Corei7 has 731 million while the AMD K10 has 463 Million.

 

I think TechOutsider was trying to say how bad the graphics card is compared to the CPU.

 

Ah! Good point. A sure way to bottleneck a computer is to straddle it with graphics that can't keep up. But then again, if the primary purpose of the computer is to check email, create documents for work or school, listen to tune or watch videos, you don't need high-end graphics horsepower - for now. That will change as each new generation of software attempts to keep up with advances in hardware technology, especially graphics. Vista's Aero, for example, is much more graphics intensive than XP's desktop.

 

Is that power level really necessary for all CPU's?

1's and 0's don't know what a volt or amp is.

If zero's are represented as 1.5v and 1's as 5v, can a zero be represented as .15v and 1's as .5v instead?

 

Sure. 1 or 0, high or low, .5V or .4V - it does not matter, in theory. As long as there is a difference in value, you can have a 1 or 0 - IF your hardware is sensitive enough, and fast enough to detect it - and that's the problem. Detecting changes from +5 to 0 is a lot easier than detecting +1.5V to 1.0V.

Understand that a transistor is nothing more than a switch, it takes current to move electrons through a switch, and because of friction, there will always be some inefficiency in that movement - seen in the form of heat. Also note that highs and lows are not achieved instantly. That is, it takes time for the voltage to "rise" to 1.5V and it takes time for the voltage to drop back to 0. Man has yet to create perfection - moving to full light and fiberoptics will get us closer - but that's a few years off.

So yes, it takes as much as a 130W light bulb to flip those 100s of millions of switches back and forth, 3+ billion times a second.

 

i do find that amd based rigs have the best onboard graphic solutions both in terms of overall performance and value for money.those systems are used by the common man and there is a significant difference in price atleast in my country..

 

Ummm, sorry, but that is not the case, and can easily be verified by using the advanced search filter options for both AMD and Intel based motherboards at Newegg. Upon further research, you will find AMD platforms support up to 8000 series of nVidia while Intels support up to 9400. Some Intels use Intel graphics solutions, which are very capable.

I might agree that some AMD on-board solutions may ofter better value for your money - but I don't agree with your "blanket assessment" concerning performance.

That said, motherboards that include on-boards graphics tend to be at or near entry level anyway - both in terms of performance, and price.

 

One advantage Intel have, they retain backward compatibility far longer. I have an AMD 939 board and it has been discontinued, in fact only 2 years after being made ... that's bad. With Intel, you can go back 5-6 years and find compatible mobos.

As to performance ... pretty much the same.

Mrk

 

Its a see saw, years back when P-IV and Xeon were the only Intel offering, the AMD x64 dual core and Opterons would wipe the floor with their performance even though their GHz rating was lower. Most in serious hardware circles wouldn't consider P-IV but with core 2 duo, tables turned, now its Intel's turn to bask in glory and they are making sure it stays that way with the i7 which incidentally uses AMD's tech of putting memory controller on chip instead of bus. I am sure in future, AMD will make a comeback and rule, in the end, its victory for us consumers. Knowing well the ill effects of Intel's hegemony in past, I for one wouln't like this to be one sided for long. I am waiting for AMD to make a come back with a bang, they sure have the potential for it. Meanwhile, I enjoy both, the low price of Phenom made it easy for me to upgrade the AMD system I have and I enjoy my dual quad core PC as well.

 

I don't Intel will let that happen again. It embarrassed them too much last time, and AMD just does not have the R&D money to invest in cutting edge technologies.

I think AMD will again carve out a nice niche market, providing excellent and reliable options for the budget conscience. They may even make a strong showing in gaming which will help keep the fires to Intel too. And that is great for consumers as Intel will have to keep their products within reach of most consumers in order to keep AMD from gaining in market share.

AMD will survive, but it may be on the backs of ATI.

 

Very hard to predict in this world of ups and downs. AMD was a write off and with K8, it was serving the lower cost niche market, it did have superior FPU over contemporary Intel CPUs but wasn't able to carve out a market till they introduced dual core and x64, things changed then. All it takes is a innovative pioneer, Intel had it in Vinod Dham, AMD might get one like that and make a comeback but yes, its not happening soon.

 

A timely review: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-64-power,2259.html

Note the opening paragraph (my emphasis added):

 

The key word being here and there.

 

I think that is 2 words but yeah, the point is, there are a couple benchmarks where AMD outshines (by small margins) the Intels, but overall, the Intels offer superior performance.

BUT - superior does not mean more reliable - that is, there is no evidence to suggest that AMDs crash more often or fail more often, or earlier than Intels. Both offer excellent computing platforms in all areas of computing.

 

Well either way its very encouraging news, time for them to now come close to the i7.

 

And either way, knowing AMD is constantly at their heels keeps the fires burning under Intel. That does nothing but give us consumers lots of viable choices in all prices ranges.

 

You know for a moment when AMD lost out heavily to the C2D, I was scared that the doomsday of mediocre overpriced Intel domination would be back again and this time for good as even Apple is on Intel but its nice to see AMD fighting back and making it good.

 

Wait and see.