why is amd slower than intel?

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...

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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 ?

 

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

 

I've often read that Intel outperforms AMD.

However, I have read that AMD outperforms 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.

 

Wow. Like that answer. Any more theories?

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 Even though im running an Intel now

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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