Intel or Amd

Intel or AMD

  • Intel

    Votes: 17 45.9%

  • AMD

    Votes: 20 54.1%
  • Total voters
    37
Definitely AMD.

Intel made an engineering decision for marketing reasons when it designed the Pentium 4--they made the instruction pipeline insanely long so they could run the clock rate up. They're counting on the average person being stupid and thinking that a higher clock rate necessarily means better performance.

The problem is that that's not true, any more than someone who's pumping away on his ten-speed bike in the lowest gear is necessarily going faster than someone in a higher gear.

A CPU executing instructions is like a factory making things; modern CPUs are set up like an assembly line, so that multiple instructions are being worked on at the same time. The only problem is that, unlike an assembly line, you sometimes don't know whih instructions you should start on (i.e. programs contain conditional branches). Modern processors devote a fair amount of logic to trying to guess right, so that most of the time the assembly line just keeps going. When you guess wrong, you waste time on instructions that you weren't going to execute, and have to throw away all the work you did to start on the instructions you should have done. The longer the pipeline (assembly line) is, the more stuff you have to throw away when you make a mistake.

To be able to run the clock rate up to impress the rubes, Intel had to make the Pentium 4's pipeline SO long that even a very good branch predictor doesn't keep you from wasting a lot of time.
 
reply

LOOK...Intel is BETTER than AMD because Intel has Itanium 2 which is used for government and defense, sciences (Weather and Climate, Weather and Climate, Life and Chemical Sciences and more...), media (broadcast delivery, digital infrastructure, digital publishing, film mastering, content creation, on-air graphics and more...), energy and manufacturing. Also, it is used for supercomputers. You can find http://www.sgi.com/industries/ (industries) and http://www.sgi.com/products/ (products). Pixrar company is using SGI with Itanium 2. I bet that SGI doesn't have laggy and slow graphic animation, games and other programs. You are :shock: lol However, Itanium 2 is very expensive and not for personal computer.
 
Itanium is dead in the water; the IT press calls it "Itanic." There are vastly better 64-bit architectures out there (one of which, Alpha, got killed off), and then there's also AMD's 64-bit extension of the x86 instruction set.

The problem is that Intel has painted itself into a corner. It lucked out when IBM chose the 8088 (a chip grossly inferior to the Motorola 6809) for its first PC, and ever since then, Intel has been selling backwards compatibility with the obscenity that is the 808x instruction set. They've done such a good job that they can't move people over to a different instruction set--AMD is now the one selling backwards compatibility, and they're winning bigtime. Intel has now found out that it can't keep cranking the clock rate up--they've given up on doing a 4 GHz processor.
 
reply

About last 4 years ago, Intel sold 10,000 GHZ cpu(s) to NASA for spaceships and satellites. It's price was $100,000,000 for each cpu. It's insane.
 
AOFrozenCity said:
About last 4 years ago, Intel sold 10,000 GHZ cpu(s) to NASA for spaceships and satellites. It's price was $100,000,000 for each cpu. It's insane.
Click to expand...

ROFL! You got to be kidding!
 
AOFrozenCity said:
About last 4 years ago, Intel sold 10,000 GHZ cpu(s) to NASA for spaceships and satellites. It's price was $100,000,000 for each cpu. It's insane.
Click to expand...
Where can I get a 10,000 GHz CPU?
:giggle: With that clock rate, no wonder they were expensive...

Seriously, way back when, people found out that stray alpha particles could induce memory errors... and spaceships and satellites are subject to considerably more radiation than stuff on earth. I can certainly believe that hardened chips are more expensive, but $100,000,000? What's your source for that?
 
I would pick AMD over Intel, due to speed and cheaper cost, tho it runs hotter than intel, since it's generally faster. Tho, I like PowerPC processors over AMD or Intel, because they're 100 percent RISC, faster at lower clock speeds, not as hot as the PC processors, they go in Mac computers, high end servers and other systems. AMD is working on 100 percent RISC though, it's a hybrid processor as of now with 64 bit. Anyways. :)
 
i like both yet i have HT p4 2.8ghz. it was overclocked to 3.1ghz and it runs greatly.
 
deafclimber said:
i like both yet i have HT p4 2.8ghz. it was overclocked to 3.1ghz and it runs greatly.
Click to expand...

Oh I see. Cool. ;)
 
Intel may be more powerful than AMD, but sometime it's about how much you can afford and what exactly are you planning on doing with it. Personally, I would prefer AMD because of the economical value.
 
My personal preference is Intel, however, I have nothing against AMD. This is one of those things that reminds me of Macs/PC's. People are passionate about their chips and will argue why theirs are better. I have friends that swear by AMD and will use nothing else. I like Intel because its what I've always been using and have never had any problems. I use Intel chips in all of my servers as well as all of my home computers.
 
Back
Top