AMD 64 or Intel 64 processor???

[weixing]

Hi,

the amd naming convention is quite. they denote equivalent performance to a comparable intel chip. for example, my 2600+ runs at 1.9 Ghz but on benchmark, exceeds the performance of a 2.6Ghz intel Pentium 4.

I think intel is taking a beating and is seriously losing market share that is why they will drop the pentium name and use stupid numbers for their chips in future. by doing this, amd is unable to make a comparison and people won't know how good or bad an amd chip is compared with an intel chip but the bad thing is people won't know how good the intel chips are either..

Comparing microprocessor in a fair and consistence method is a difficult task and those benchmark software doesn't help much... there are certain benchmark software that will actually run "faster" on certain microprocessor... that's why A will show his benchmark report that his microprocessor is "faster" than B and B will also do the samething.

The truth is I think no one actually can determine that which microprocessor is faster... there are just too many factors affect the microprocessor performance.

By the way, there is no point spending so much time deciding which is the best microprocessor... Your microprocessor will consider outdated once you buy it. Ha Ha Ha

Have a nice day.

[Airconvent]

Hi,
Comparing microprocessor in a fair and consistence method is a difficult task and those benchmark software doesn't help much... there are certain benchmark software that will actually run "faster" on certain microprocessor... that's why A will show his benchmark report that his microprocessor is "faster" than B and B will also do the samething.

The truth is I think no one actually can determine that which microprocessor is faster... there are just too many factors affect the microprocessor performance.

By the way, there is no point spending so much time deciding which is the best microprocessor... Your microprocessor will consider outdated once you buy it.

There has been accusations that certain benchmark favour Intel in the past. These days, benchmarking is done using a basket of the most commonly used applications, For mathematical performance, they test speed of floating point calculations. This is a measure on how CPUs perform based on a complete set of tasks.
But of course, if people mostly use the cpu for gaming, then the algorithms will focus more on those parameters that matter in gaming.
In this respect, the benchmarks are fairly accurate to reflect real world applications.

btw, unless you are playing those very cpu intensive games or doing alot of encoding/decoding, otherwise you will not notice any difference for any cpu amd or intel of 1.3Ghz and above...that is to say, you cpu may last you years as long as you don not upgrade to Vista when it appears...

That is why some people I know is still happily chugging along using Durons and the older Celerons running on win98..To them, their computer is so fast it makes no sense to "upgrade"...

[ariefm71]

you'll get faster performance by upgrading memory instead. i've just upgraded to 2gb ddr from 512mb and my apps run at least twice faster. i'm using amd 64 3200+ (i.e. 2ghz)

[Airconvent]

strange...I upgraded mine from 512MB to 1GB and saw no real improvement at all....likely my usual apps do not need more memory where as Arief in the IT line probably consume memory like crazy! I have an AMDXP 2600+

btw, I configured my mom's pc with only 64MB RAM when I built her system and man, switching screens took 1.5 min!! I kid you not. its a decent Duron 700 Mhz system. I promptly upgraded her RAM to 256MB and now it zooms along pretty decently...I guess up to a certain point, the law of diminishing returns kick in.

[weixing]

Hi,
To upgrade and see your computer suddenly "speed up", you need to identify the bottleneck of your system... basically, the slowest component of your system.

Generally, you won't see a great improvement in speed by adding more memory if you already have 512MB or more memory unless you are running a server with lots of services running. A faster hard disk or switch off the speed "eating" graphical elements in XP (if using Windows XP) should show more speed improvement than by adding more memory.

Have a nice day.

PS: Hmm... seem getting more and more off topics...

[Airconvent]

Hi,
To upgrade and see your computer suddenly "speed up", you need to identify the bottleneck of your system... basically, the slowest component of your system.

Generally, you won't see a great improvement in speed by adding more memory if you already have 512MB or more memory unless you are running a server with lots of services running. A faster hard disk or switch off the speed "eating" graphical elements in XP (if using Windows XP) should show more speed improvement than by adding more memory.

Have a nice day.

PS: Hmm... seem getting more and more off topics...

ha ha..actually my system is already tuned for max performance...and I have the habit of setting the system to "max performance" for all pcs I get my hands on!!

[QuantumGravity]

I used to support Intel when you make computers, because AMD generated alot of excess heat which requires you to buy a better heat sink. Prices of AMD + motherboard + heatsink usually becomes higher than Intel + motherboard (using their default heat sink will do).

But recently, i heard AMD invited Intel to some hotel in singapore (think Raffles) to a dualcore war. If my sources are correct, AMD won. Although I long time no visit Sim Lim Square to keep up with the prices already, I think AMD no longer needs to buy extra better heat sink which means it's now a better buy than Intel. And correct, Intel's strong point is mathematics, while AMD fares better in games and graphics.

But i still hate AMD's new (now old) naming system that says 3000+ instead of 2.6GHz. Can't compare fairly now with Intel unless I know how to convert..

Well, as of now, with Intel's super hot Prescott core processors, AMD wins Intel in terms of heat... In fact, google the words "Prescott Survival Kit", and you'll find a good joke about Intel's heat.

AMD invited Intel to Ritz-Carlton for a dual-core duel, but Intel didn't turn up. I don't think its that Intel was afraid to take up the challenge, but rather they did not fall into AMD's marketting tactic. After all, Intel spent millions already in their own marketting, and all these millions could be wasted if they loss in the benchmarks. :?

And yeah, Airconvent is right about the naming... An AMD 3000+ processor corresponds to a Intel 3.0Ghz processor, and so on.

Benchmarks wise, the standard these days are (for calculation) SuperPi (calculation of pi), where Intel dominates, but in gaming benchmarks like 3DMark06, AMD wins hands down. Other benchmarks include Sandra 2005, PCMark05, etc.

ha ha..actually my system is already tuned for max performance...and I have the habit of setting the system to "max performance" for all pcs I get my hands on!!

haha , what do you mean by max performance? Overclocking? I myself am running my processor at 4.3Ghz, when's it meant for 3.4Ghz.

[A 5 YeaR Old]

But recently, i heard AMD invited Intel to some hotel in singapore (think Raffles) to a dualcore war. If my sources are correct, AMD won. Although I long time no visit Sim Lim Square to keep up with the prices already, I think AMD no longer needs to buy extra better heat sink which means it's now a better buy than Intel. And correct, Intel's strong point is mathematics, while AMD fares better in games and graphics.

Intel didn't turn up. AMD has overtaken Intel in terms of processor power, the only reason Intel still survives is because of its successful decade long advertising, making it a household brand. I believe everyone who has a computer in Singapore knows Intel, yet most dont even know what does AMD stands for.

Anyway, here's 10 quirky reasons AMD released after Intel didnt turn up for the challenge =)



10. Tried to follow their own roadmap to get to the duel
9. Decided to take the "front-side bus" to the duel; got stuck in a bottleneck
8. The "Intel Inside" stickers they used to package the cores together keep melting
7. Too busy rearranging the deck chairs on the Itanic
6. "Hey, we don't expect anyone to actually buy these things!"
5. Didn't want to compete when they realized that the duel would involve actual "rules" of fair competition
4. They couldn't get a permit from the fire department to emit that much heat
3. No systems available yet - protective clothing used by manufacturers only safe for up to 149 watts
2. Dell told them they weren't allowed to participate

And the number one reason Intel won't accept the dual core duel:

1. Moore's Law has been replaced by "Paul's Paradox": the number of canceled products per year at Intel will double every year after the introduction of the AMD Opteron processor.

[ariefm71]

Generally, you won't see a great improvement in speed by adding more memory if you already have 512MB or more memory unless you are running a server with lots of services running.

I frequently run multiple vmware servers (up to 7) for testing purposes on my home pc, hence the 2gb memory upgrade :-)

[Airconvent]

haha , what do you mean by max performance? Overclocking? I myself am running my processor at 4.3Ghz, when's it meant for 3.4Ghz.

i mean I go to the system settings and turn everything OFF for max speed.
then I empty the cache, delete the unwanted files, etc....heh heh...if have time, I even go to the registry to set "show menu delay" to "0"