Intel vs. AMD

Falcata · 2008-05-06 23:44:13

Okay, this is just something I got to ask. Which is better under Linux? Intel processors, or AMD processors?

iBertus · 2008-05-07 00:30:53

I think it's pretty much the same. Now, I know that some people tend to religiously prefer one over the other, but I've used both and both were very fast and responsive. My current desktop rig is Intel and my laptop is AMD. My wife also has an AMD laptop and AMD desktop system. All systems have run linux or are running linux with good speed.

iphitus · 2008-05-07 01:46:54

Nowadays, they both run fine. But I'd go Intel.

Have a look at LKML, there's a few @intel email addresses there. They actively develop support and drivers for Linux.

In the past, AMD based chipsets have been prone to unusual problems, or slower support.

kensai · 2008-05-07 02:35:37

I love AMD period.

Allan · 2008-05-07 03:02:54

I go all intel for everything when I buy a new laptop (processor, graphics, wireless). A iphitus pointed out, they just have good support under linux. Saying that, I really have nothing against AMD.

skottish · 2008-05-07 03:25:34

I always chose AMD for the historical price/performance ratio. It seems that that's a non-factor now.

iBertus · 2008-05-07 04:01:11

I think that clock-for-clock Intel has a pretty good edge right now, but I remember the good ole days of Socket A chips that ran circle around the Pentium and cost half as much. :-(

jacko · 2008-05-07 04:45:27

skottish wrote:

I always chose AMD for the historical price/performance ratio. It seems that that's a non-factor now.

when u look at the price, its a simple choice. It's not just about the processor price either, mother boards are more expensive.

As for support, I don't know about that, but I do not have any issues with my dual core 4200+

Last edited by jacko (2008-05-07 04:46:08)

KimTjik · 2008-05-07 08:07:16

For typical use they're equal in my view. Intel's have the upper hand on some calculation tasks, just like AMD's can outperform in multi threaded database tasks. For PC I would though say Intel has a stronger line-up, at least for now. However the difference will only show in some very specialized operations.

Since there's no real gain in choosing one before the other I prefer at the moment to support AMD stuff, solely as a mean to keep the competition healthy (OK, there has to some millions more doing the same if it ever will have any impact ). Motherboards for AMD tend to be cheaper as well. Haven't had any issues with AMD/ATi chipsets in a long time.

Phenom is a technically impressive, but unfortunately it doesn't translate yet in stunning performance... or maybe it does, but Intel has some even more impressive CPUs.

cubekid · 2008-05-07 11:21:42

So don't quote me on this, but I've heard that in general, Intel chips are more power-friendly. I'm not sure if this still is the case (I heard it almost 6-7 years ago), but that may be something you want to consider.

Mr.Elendig · 2008-05-07 11:28:47

The cpu's aren't what really matters. The chipset is what do.

Both amd, nvidia and intel makes good chipsets that generaly just works under linux. Raid and lan used to be a bit of a pain on nvidia(nforce), but the never kernels took care of that. Don't know about the ati chipsets since I've never tried them.

The only one to stay away from are via. They have lower performance than the others, and their drivers are not to good. A shame, really, since the C7 is friggin awesome.

eljoeb · 2008-05-07 12:04:17

KimTjik wrote:

For typical use they're equal in my view. Intel's have the upper hand on some calculation tasks, just like AMD's can outperform in multi threaded database tasks. For PC I would though say Intel has a stronger line-up, at least for now. However the difference will only show in some very specialized operations.
Since there's no real gain in choosing one before the other I prefer at the moment to support AMD stuff, solely as a mean to keep the competition healthy (OK, there has to some millions more doing the same if it ever will have any impact ). Motherboards for AMD tend to be cheaper as well. Haven't had any issues with AMD/ATi chipsets in a long time.
Phenom is a technically impressive, but unfortunately it doesn't translate yet in stunning performance... or maybe it does, but Intel has some even more impressive CPUs.

Does that really keep competition healthy? AMD is doing bad right now because their competitive advantage has disappeared; recently their leadership had to promise major restructuring to even begin performing again. If one side has (supposedly) inferior products and people buy their stuff, it is not competition. It's charity. That said, AMD isn't that bad yet. It's just that Intel is pushing into AMD's core competency. You know, umm, I mean, competing.

Wouldn't want that would we?

hussam · 2008-05-07 12:19:40

I use a very old AMD Sempron 2300+ and it works brilliantly using ArchLinux.
Previous distributions that I had tried in 2005 didn't list the correct info in /proc/cpuinfo but ArchLinux's kernel does that correctly.

KimTjik · 2008-05-07 12:58:59

eljoeb wrote:

Does that really keep competition healthy? AMD is doing bad right now because their competitive advantage has disappeared; recently their leadership had to promise major restructuring to even begin performing again. If one side has (supposedly) inferior products and people buy their stuff, it is not competition. It's charity. That said, AMD isn't that bad yet. It's just that Intel is pushing into AMD's core competency. You know, umm, I mean, competing.
Wouldn't want that would we?

No it's not charity, it's the cruel reality of an unbalanced market! AMD did produce better products at a better price many years before Intel finally released their Core 2 Duo, still it didn't generate enough money (oh, what a blessing it was to upgrade to an AMD64 in the era of Intel P4). Intel could still use their grip on the market to sell and make good money on an inferior product. Was that charity? No, it's the way the market sometimes work. Further on Core 2 Duo might not have seen sunlight if it wouldn't have been for AMD, just as the new architecture Nahelem might not have had an integrated memory controller. Whatever brand of CPU you're using you make use of technology that both of them has developed.

If the market didn't reflect the true state of performance when AMD was at top, I'm afraid we really need a good competitor to Intel. Intel isn't in itself evil, even though they have a tendency to strong arm markets with weak market rules. I'm also pleased that Intel is contributing to the Linux kernel as much as they do.

Beside these point I don't give a toss about whatever brand a CPU has. You can't "accuse" me of doing charity, but probably for being too naive!

jarryson · 2008-05-07 13:04:59

i vote AMD, i think it's better

ST.x · 2008-05-07 13:07:56

Intel any Arch Overclockers?

theringmaster · 2008-05-07 13:30:00

amd4life

intel is just too expensive for my college budget. Go phenom!!

byte · 2008-05-07 13:38:29

ST.x wrote:

Intel any Arch Overclockers?

Athlon64 3000+ (Venice, 2 GHz) @ 2.4 GHz here.
I got that Socket 754 system only in 2007 and to be honest, by now I would've bought a Pentium DualCore.

eljoeb · 2008-05-07 13:41:01

KimTjik wrote:

No it's not charity, it's the cruel reality of an unbalanced market! AMD did produce better products at a better price many years before Intel finally released their Core 2 Duo, still it didn't generate enough money (oh, what a blessing it was to upgrade to an AMD64 in the era of Intel P4). Intel could still use their grip on the market to sell and make good money on an inferior product. Was that charity? No, it's the way the market sometimes work. Further on Core 2 Duo might not have seen sunlight if it wouldn't have been for AMD, just as the new architecture Nahelem might not have had an integrated memory controller. Whatever brand of CPU you're using you make use of technology that both of them has developed.
If the market didn't reflect the true state of performance when AMD was at top, I'm afraid we really need a good competitor to Intel. Intel isn't in itself evil, even though they have a tendency to strong arm markets with weak market rules. I'm also pleased that Intel is contributing to the Linux kernel as much as they do.
Beside these point I don't give a toss about whatever brand a CPU has. You can't "accuse" me of doing charity, but probably for being too naive!

Well, yeah. I guess I was just trying to say that when a market is unbalanced, you shouldn't necesarily prop up the losers in the market. You need to take down the winner in the market if they are doing anything illegal. I haven't been completely convinced that Intel is being that shady. At least, not yet. It's called competition because sometimes companies lose and sometimes they win. It seems like AMD has some serious issues right now (both with their products and their organization); their stock jumped on news they would be restructuring (euphemism for layoffs). It also jumped on the news that they would join in on an Intel antitrust suit. Could be interesting to see where it goes...

1linuxuser2another · 2008-05-07 14:15:45

Hi to all! I'm new to Arch Linux and this is only my second post but I just wanted to say that I think both are great chips in their own ways. I think that clock for clock you would have a hard time telling them apart in general day to day computing. Right now though I run an Intel Core2Duo E6550 2.13Ghz over clocked to 3.56Ghz on stock voltages and that is where Intel shines for me cheap processor lots of headroom or lots of bang because I have no bucks. On the Graphics side I have always preferred Amd/Ati and run a 3870 hd. Just my 2 cents!!:D:D

jb · 2008-05-07 15:00:30

byte wrote:

ST.x wrote:
Intel any Arch Overclockers?
Athlon64 3000+ (Venice, 2 GHz) @ 2.4 GHz here.
I got that Socket 754 system only in 2007 and to be honest, by now I would've bought a Pentium DualCore.

Similar situation here. I use a sempron 3100 also clocked to 2.4; it's the same Venice core but at 1.8GHz and 256k L2. Planning on getting a new system when Nehalem is released. If AMD can't release a competitive quad-core chip (performance-wise) by then, I'm getting an LGA1366 based system. I've always preferred AMD, but I have to acknowledge that the top phenom processor can barely keep up with the 1.5 year old q6600.

Misbah · 2008-05-07 16:55:55

deleted

Last edited by Misbah (2012-02-14 04:34:53)

.:B:. · 2008-05-07 16:57:11

byte wrote:

ST.x wrote:
Intel any Arch Overclockers?
Athlon64 3000+ (Venice, 2 GHz) @ 2.4 GHz here.
I got that Socket 754 system only in 2007 and to be honest, by now I would've bought a Pentium DualCore.

A Pentium? I surely hope you mean a Core 2 Duo. Pentium 4 was a pure crap CPU performance-wise. Low IPC, high clock to compensate.

I had one AMD laptop, but ever since all my laptops have been Intel-based. AMD-based ones often come with Broadcom WLAN cards, which means crap. Intel has both the performance and power consumption advantage now, so especially for a laptop it's the best choice. For a desktop, I think AMD is the way to go if you don't need the maximum performance - thanks to C'n'Q they don't consume that much when they're idle. I don't know how Intel's latest perform in that regard, they used to consume more than AMDs in that situation, even the newer offerings.

Price/performance, AMD is still the best pick though.

theringmaster · 2008-05-07 18:45:26

B wrote:

byte wrote:
ST.x wrote:
Intel any Arch Overclockers?
Athlon64 3000+ (Venice, 2 GHz) @ 2.4 GHz here.
I got that Socket 754 system only in 2007 and to be honest, by now I would've bought a Pentium DualCore.
A Pentium? I surely hope you mean a Core 2 Duo. Pentium 4 was a pure crap CPU performance-wise. Low IPC, high clock to compensate.
I had one AMD laptop, but ever since all my laptops have been Intel-based. AMD-based ones often come with Broadcom WLAN cards, which means crap. Intel has both the performance and power consumption advantage now, so especially for a laptop it's the best choice. For a desktop, I think AMD is the way to go if you don't need the maximum performance - thanks to C'n'Q they don't consume that much when they're idle. I don't know how Intel's latest perform in that regard, they used to consume more than AMDs in that situation, even the newer offerings.
Price/performance, AMD is still the best pick though.

No pentium dualcores do exist in, for example, this system. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications … &CatId=114

.:B:. · 2008-05-07 18:46:33

They do exist, but they're still crap - technically they're just Pentium 4.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-05-06 23:44:13

Intel vs. AMD

#2 2008-05-07 00:30:53

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#3 2008-05-07 01:46:54

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#4 2008-05-07 02:35:37

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#5 2008-05-07 03:02:54

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#6 2008-05-07 03:25:34

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#7 2008-05-07 04:01:11

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#8 2008-05-07 04:45:27

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#9 2008-05-07 08:07:16

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#10 2008-05-07 11:21:42

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#11 2008-05-07 11:28:47

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#12 2008-05-07 12:04:17

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#13 2008-05-07 12:19:40

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#14 2008-05-07 12:58:59

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#15 2008-05-07 13:04:59

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#16 2008-05-07 13:07:56

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#17 2008-05-07 13:30:00

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#18 2008-05-07 13:38:29

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#19 2008-05-07 13:41:01

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#20 2008-05-07 14:15:45

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#21 2008-05-07 15:00:30

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#22 2008-05-07 16:55:55

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#23 2008-05-07 16:57:11

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#24 2008-05-07 18:45:26

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#25 2008-05-07 18:46:33

Re: Intel vs. AMD

Board footer