AMD or Intel

[pr5owner]

#1. first gen AMD's SUCK ASSSSSSS, they never work properly, i have a K6 and its so bad at doing everything
#2. AMD's do run hotter
#3. i am running a overclocked Duron
#4. newer gen AMD's like the XP and the newer gen Durons are far superior to the intel equiv.
#5. Heatsinks are for "Stock" premade/built computers, if you are a serious n3Rd you will go with water cooling, water block > heat sink



man ppl don't just stop at water cooling, they use multiple peltiers, heatsinks (on other components), water blocks, air tight computer cases purged with nitrogen.

 

[stef_nz]

#1. first gen AMD's SUCK ASSSSSSS, they never work properly, i have a K6 and its so bad at doing everything...snip....

thats the ones i was trying to think of. i'm getting on you know, can't remember what i had for lunch let alone the specifics of cpus going back 10 years.

 

[BondoBob]

Syz: Yes, my company sells, services and supports computers. We standardized on Intel years ago for several reasons.

1. Until recently AMD (and CYRIX) have been also-ran machines. AMD has done well with their Athlon XP line but need the refresh coming in the 4th quarter to stay in the hunt. We have built test AMD units from time to time (and have been approached by AMD to become a dealer/OEM for them several times).

2. Intel builds a very professional product (processor and motherboard) and supports their OEMs well. I got tired of wacky MOBO vendors that don't speak English nor support their product after selling it to you.

3. Our customer base is not the game geek or folks who will build their own machine. We sell to places like Investor's Business Daily. They want fast and reliable. They don't want over-clocked machines or reworked x86 technology. They want to use their computers to do a job. If it doesn't work, they call us. Intel fits the bill.

Since the machine is under warranty with (usually) an on-site contract, we have to dispatch a tech and the client stops being productive until the problem is solved. I'm not happy (paying tech) and client is not happy (seeing tech).

The happy thing is building/selling/supporting an "Intel Inside" is fairly painless. We also wait on more Microsoft OS upgrades until at least the first or second service pack. Right now, we are still selling units with Windows 2000 Professional preloaded. We are not a "bleeding-edge" sort of vendor. It is a approach that has worked for 14 years.

At this point, computers are such a commodity that it is isn't worth trying to get a client to buy something they either haven't heard of or don't want. Businesses know and want Intel. AMD is for kids.

Bondo, pulling on the Nomex driver suit.


(An aside is needed here: I am glad that folks buy AMD and wish them a long and productive life. I do not believe that AMD is a BAD product nor will I waste time engaging in a FORD/CHEVY type battle. It is just that the actual unit (computer) is such a small part of computing these days that it isn't worth getting into a "Mine's Bigger Than Yours" mindfuck.)

 

[pr5owner]

well think of it this way

the intel Cpu's are like honda Civics, reliable, runs good, last a long time, good support, everyone has one

the AMD's are like Mazda Proteg, they have more power, they go a little faster (stock base models compared with stock base models), they are reliable, they don't have as big of a market but still fairly large

 

[Allen]

AMD Inside

Yeah, well performance wise... AMD has the upper hand right now. They have more pipelines (derived from the Alpha architecture by DEC many years ago) than Intel's architecture ... everybody knows that by now (i.e. new performance ratings AMD has been pushing in advertisement and their retail boxes). Although my personal opinion is that Intel has caught on and may be coming out with some "real" competition for AMD in the next year or two. The Athlon core is also being pushed to the limits now in improved design performance... so thus the new architecture in the 8th gen X86-64.... just like JDM car aftermarket products, they won't be making them or designing them here in the States..... anyways... I guess it should be a good architecture to succeed the Athlon.... oh wait, it will be the ONLY architecture to succeed the Athlon... hehe.

Although I have heard through the grapevine that intel is struggling with their "super" secret design that is suppose to blow away anything AMD has in store for the next 5-10 years... hehe.... hopefully Intel pulls a K5-K6 disaster with their next design without HPs help....

Only problem with AMD's Athlon is heat. AMD hasn't been able to figure a better solution other than to shrink the die size down (which is very costly and time consuming). Therefore, you would never want your CPU fan to die, nor would you want to lack in good streaming ventillation within your case unit. Same with Intel's chip, but very important with the Athlons ....

As far as pricing goes, AMD is the way to go. For loyalty sake if nothing else from the cost conscious buyers. I think Intel will only price and develop a product for the cost conscious buyers if they are forced to ... such as the case with the Celerons (remember the no cache debacle.... ?).

 

[enry]

I think polls like AMD vs Intel, PC vs Apple, etc... will always be skewed cause AMD/Apple owners are far more likely to be patriotic about their purchase. On the other hand, Intel and PC owners don't really fuss about the specifics of a system. I am a firm believer of the "it's not what you have, it's what you do with it" philosophy (in many ways).

So whenever the question is asked: "what's better, pc or apple" or "what's faster, intel or amd", and some supposed expert starts rambling on about how one prduct that will be no longer in production in 3 months is 20% faster than the next one, I think to myself: "Nonono... wrong answer. The correct answer to your question is: 'who the hell gives a s***?' "

That's just my 2 cents canadian.

 

[Antoine]

Well it's a lot more interesting to pick a side...

Ford/Chevy....I pick Chevy

Mac/PC....I pick PC

AMD/Intel....I pick Intel

Blonde/Brunette...Ill take both

Pick a side...whatever works for you...freedom of choice.

 

[Kooldino]

While I wouldn't say that the Instruction set is inadequate...you do have to admit the 1st gen Athlons did have some problems, and perhaps that is what stef_nz was refering to.

1st gen Athlons were fine. Their supporting motherboard chipsets on the other hand...

 

[Kooldino]

all i remember when the first amd chips came out was a pile of people complaining that certain apps were crashing. i don't have anything to back that up with because it was so long ago.

i surely didn't say the instruction set is inadequate, this was my reasoning behind why the first chips had problems.

i'm the first to admit that amd now is nothing like amd then.

Uh...well they started making CPUs for home PCs in the early 80's...so they "first came out" over 20 years ago...

 

[Kooldino]

#1. first gen AMD's SUCK ASSSSSSS, they never work properly, i have a K6 and its so bad at doing everything

Jackass, a "K6" is a SIXTH gen AMD chip, hence the name. And actually K6's run great. However, there were plenty of crappy motherboard chipsets for K6's. Chances are, if you had problems with your K6 system, it was the fault of the motherboard, not the CPU. The CPUs were solid.

#2. AMD's do run hotter
#3. i am running a overclocked Duron
#4. newer gen AMD's like the XP and the newer gen Durons are far superior to the intel equiv.
#5. Heatsinks are for "Stock" premade/built computers, if you are a serious n3Rd you will go with water cooling, water block > heat sink



man ppl don't just stop at water cooling, they use multiple peltiers, heatsinks (on other components), water blocks, air tight computer cases purged with nitrogen.

The rest of your points I agree with tho. (Although I really can't debate whether you have an OC'd duron or not )

 

[Kooldino]

2. Intel builds a very professional product (processor and motherboard) and supports their OEMs well. I got tired of wacky MOBO vendors that don't speak English nor support their product after selling it to you.

And AMD DOESN'T build a professional product? As for your mobo vendors, they exsist for every platform, not just for AMD's. There are plenty of respectable AMD motherboard manufacturers out there who speak english and support their products. Oh, and BTW, no matter if you're getting an Intel or AMD based motherboard, it's coming from Taiwan regardless.

3. Our customer base is not the game geek or folks who will build their own machine. We sell to places like Investor's Business Daily. They want fast and reliable. They don't want over-clocked machines or reworked x86 technology. They want to use their computers to do a job. If it doesn't work, they call us. Intel fits the bill.

First of all, almost noone sells OC'd machines. 2nd of all, what's this "reworked x86" technology you speak of? Are you referring to the notion that an Athlon (and every AMD chip since the K5) is internally a RISC chip? Well, I got news for ya buddy...ever since the pentium pro/Pentium II, Intel's have been as well. In this way, they actually followed in AMD's footsteps.

Also, in point #3, it's as if you're saying "Intels are reliable, AMD's are not". Look up CPU errata and motherboard recalls. Who has more? Intel. And who foots the bill if your AMD chip dies? AMD. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Since the machine is under warranty with (usually) an on-site contract, we have to dispatch a tech and the client stops being productive until the problem is solved. I'm not happy (paying tech) and client is not happy (seeing tech).

The happy thing is building/selling/supporting an "Intel Inside" is fairly painless. We also wait on more Microsoft OS upgrades until at least the first or second service pack. Right now, we are still selling units with Windows 2000 Professional preloaded. We are not a "bleeding-edge" sort of vendor. It is a approach that has worked for 14 years.

"AMD inside" is equally painless, my friend. Just use good motherboards and cooling.

At this point, computers are such a commodity that it is isn't worth trying to get a client to buy something they either haven't heard of or don't want. Businesses know and want Intel. AMD is for kids.

More like AMD is for computer savvy people. People who are "in the know" use AMD. Admitted, Intel has the fastest CPU out there at the moment, but that doesn't stop an overwhelming percentage of computer nerds from using AMD CPUs. Go to any site on the web that holds a CPU poll somewhere on CPU preference. AMD CPUs are always the favorite of PC nerds within the last few years.

 

[Kooldino]

well think of it this way

the intel Cpu's are like honda Civics, reliable, runs good, last a long time, good support, everyone has one

the AMD's are like Mazda Proteg, they have more power, they go a little faster (stock base models compared with stock base models), they are reliable, they don't have as big of a market but still fairly large

Not a bad analogy...

 

[Kooldino]

Re: AMD Inside

Yeah, well performance wise... AMD has the upper hand right now. They have more pipelines (derived from the Alpha architecture by DEC many years ago) than Intel's architecture ... everybody knows that by now (i.e. new performance ratings AMD has been pushing in advertisement and their retail boxes).

Sorry man, but the fastest Intel out there spanks the fastest AMD CPU. Look it up. And with the soon to be released P4 3Ghz, that gap will only widen until the K8 is released by AMD.

As for # of pipelines...off the top of my head, I'd have to say that the P4 had more...but if you really want to know, look it up and prove me wrong. I very well could be on that point. The only "upper hand" that AMD has is performance "clock for clock". A 1.5Ghz Athlon will beat the piss out of a 1.5Ghz P4. But P4's have much higher clock speeds.

Although my personal opinion is that Intel has caught on and may be coming out with some "real" competition for AMD in the next year or two.

You seem a little mixed up here. Intels used to be the king, and within the last 3 years, AMD has stepped up and gave them some "real" competition. Recently, Intel re-gained the performance crown. Now it's up to AMD to "catch on" again and give Intel some "real" competition. The next 3 years will be VERY interesting as far as CPUs go.

Although I have heard through the grapevine that intel is struggling with their "super" secret design that is suppose to blow away anything AMD has in store for the next 5-10 years... hehe.... hopefully Intel pulls a K5-K6 disaster with their next design without HPs help....

Yet another K5+K6 kater. They were good chips, man. They just had weak FPUs. So basically they were good at everything except for gaming...which they were "so-so" at.

Only problem with AMD's Athlon is heat. AMD hasn't been able to figure a better solution other than to shrink the die size down (which is very costly and time consuming). Therefore, you would never want your CPU fan to die, nor would you want to lack in good streaming ventillation within your case unit. Same with Intel's chip, but very important with the Athlons ....

That's not the ONLY problem with the athlon...there's also the problem with the cores chipping. If you improperly install the heatsink, you can chip your...uh...chip...and it may not work. This can all be avoided by carefully installing your heatsink.

As far as pricing goes, AMD is the way to go. For loyalty sake if nothing else from the cost conscious buyers. I think Intel will only price and develop a product for the cost conscious buyers if they are forced to ... such as the case with the Celerons (remember the no cache debacle.... ?).

Ahh yes, the Intel de-celeron. The first ones sucked SO bad. The latest ones tho...are very good. They're hard to find, but they're basically a .13 micron pentium III. Clock for clock, they'll spank a P4.

 

[Kooldino]

I think polls like AMD vs Intel, PC vs Apple, etc... will always be skewed cause AMD/Apple owners are far more likely to be patriotic about their purchase.

Eh...it all depends on the person. Some people THINK it's a good product, and then buy it, and then others (me) buy it because they KNOW it's a good product. For example, once I was in an Intel/AMD debate...about a year ago...when AMD's were much faster than Intels. I was accused of being "biased" because I have an AMD, so I'd automatically say that they were better. My response was "Well, it's not like I was born with an AMD and am stuck with it...I did my research and concluded that AMD's were superior...and THAT'S why I have one."

Ya see what I'm getting at here? Basically it's that I CHOSE AMD, BECAUSE they were better. I'm not DEFENDING something that I got "stuck" with.

As much as I like AMD, I just go by the facts. If company XYZ came out of the blue tomorrow and released a CPU that was dollar for dollar better than AMD or Intel, I very well may get one. I don't strictly use brand name to determine my purchase.

 

[enry]

I have no problems with rational conversations about processors. But everytime someone talks amd or apple to me it's as if the person is:
a) trying to get me to try drugs
b) going on a rampage and acts WAY TOO PATRIOTIC
c) making unreasonable absolute claims: "X is factually superior to Y in any and every way and you are smoking crack if you buy Y"

So obviously I pay no attention, since the opinions an overly zealous person are not to be taken all that seriously if you have many machines and servers to manage.

But my main rationalization, my barometer for success of a technology is its' application in the professional field. If AMD were so factually and absolutely superior without problems, and so much cheaper, Compaq, Dell, and IBM would respond and start selling AMD based servers. Right now, they are not selling AMDs in servers, and clearly, there is a reason. Even Dell's itty bitty PowerApp servers use P3 (they used to come with celeron!!).

When IBM/Compaq/Dell with their 24/7/4 support start embedding these in their servers, I will come around and get a tester unit.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-940331.html?legacy=cnet
^^^ The word is that next year something will be available, so I'll get me a 1U tester.

 

[YellowMP5]

While I wouldn't say that the Instruction set is inadequate...you do have to admit the 1st gen Athlons did have some problems, and perhaps that is what stef_nz was refering to.

I think you guys forgot about the first pentiums. didn't they have a problem? pentium 60 and 66 both had errors in making large calculations. sure, for 99.99999999999999% percent of the people in the world it didn't matter but it still sucked. and intel knew about it but kept quiet until some prof somewhere got wrong results from his intel. btw, my first "modern" pc was a pentium 60mhz pc made by leading edge (remember those?) bought in the summer of 95. it was one of the best pcs made and NEVER crashed and me and my bro never had a problem with it.

 

[enry]

I think you guys forgot about the first pentiums. didn't they have a problem? pentium 60 and 66 both had errors in making large calculations. sure, for 99.99999999999999% percent of the people in the world it didn't matter but it still sucked. and intel knew about it but kept quiet until some prof somewhere got wrong results from his intel. btw, my first "modern" pc was a pentium 60mhz pc made by leading edge (remember those?) bought in the summer of 95. it was one of the best pcs made and NEVER crashed and me and my bro never had a problem with it.

Lol no, nobody forgot. Kernel patches working around the bug were released immediately, despite, as you said, there being a 1:1 billion chance of being affected.

When a vulnerability is identified in SSH, or Apahe, or PHP, or Win2k, I don't drop the product. I patch it, rebuild and reinstall.

 

[Kooldino]

But my main rationalization, my barometer for success of a technology is its' application in the professional field. If AMD were so factually and absolutely superior without problems, and so much cheaper, Compaq, Dell, and IBM would respond and start selling AMD based servers. Right now, they are not selling AMDs in servers, and clearly, there is a reason. Even Dell's itty bitty PowerApp servers use P3 (they used to come with celeron!!).

See, that's the thing. You'd THINK that, but it's not the case. And it's been proven that AMD based servers (a year ago) were far superior to anything Intel would come up. So while you can "rationalize" all you want, the fact is that, until a few months ago, AMD's CPUs were hands down superior. If you don't believe me, do some reasearch. Again, right now Intel has AMD beat (in performance), so you have to look at something old.

The MAIN thing that keeps AMD from taking over the market is people like YOU. Seriously though...people have it in their heads that Intel is the best thing on the planet, with their dancing men in silly suits and their hyped up commercials. And Dell, Gateway, and Comcrap know this. If you wanna see just how much better AMD's were say...6 months ago, look it up on google. Their dual CPU setups are also MUCH MUCH better than Intel's. And About half the cost.

 

[Kooldino]

I think you guys forgot about the first pentiums. didn't they have a problem? pentium 60 and 66 both had errors in making large calculations. sure, for 99.99999999999999% percent of the people in the world it didn't matter but it still sucked. and intel knew about it but kept quiet until some prof somewhere got wrong results from his intel. btw, my first "modern" pc was a pentium 60mhz pc made by leading edge (remember those?) bought in the summer of 95. it was one of the best pcs made and NEVER crashed and me and my bro never had a problem with it.

You refer to the FDIV bug in the originial Pentium 60. The bug was fixed in the 66. Basically if you divided 1 by number of a certain length (I think it was 16 digits long), and then multiplied back by the original long number, you'd get the wrong number. That was one way to produce it, if I recall correctly. Basically the problem was that the floating point dividers in the chip (which are just actually multipliers working in reverse...assembly geeks know what I'm talking about SAR and SAL) weren't properly carrying over the last few bits and setting a flag in the CPU that should be set. Therefore it would return wrong numbers in some cases.

Fortunately, no one really used floating point numbers back then, but if that same bug were to be released today, we'd all be screwed for playing 3D games. When the original Pentium came out, people just ran business apps mostly...and true 3D wasn't really around.

 

[Kooldino]

Lol no, nobody forgot. Kernel patches working around the bug were released immediately, despite, as you said, there being a 1:1 billion chance of being affected.

When a vulnerability is identified in SSH, or Apahe, or PHP, or Win2k, I don't drop the product. I patch it, rebuild and reinstall.

Actually if there's a 1 : 1 Billion chance of something happening in a CPU, that's damn high. You have to take into account how fast your CPU actually operates, etc. Basically, something 1:1 Billion (in the voice of Dr Evil) can happen quite frequently. But at the time of the bug, floating point numbers were rarely used in programs. Everything was integer driven.

That's not his point though. His point is that he was trying to show that Intel's historically have had problems and misc errata, basically trying to prove the point that Intel isn't what you think.

All you Intel lovers out there (ahem..Enry, Bob) really need to look at things from a factual point of view. I have no problem with Intel at all. I've already noted several times that Intel currently holds the speed crown. However, you have to give AMD credit for having good CPUs out for the past few years. Like me, look at the situation from a neutral, non-biased, scientific POV. Just the fact alone that the overwhelming majority of hardcore computer geeks favor AMD's products should tell you something. It tells you what I said earlier..."People in the know, tend to use AMD". When people are hardheaded and give the "Intel rules, AMD sucks" argument, it really just shows how ignorant they are on the matter.