Intel vs. AMD

theringmaster · 2008-05-07 18:50:41

B wrote:

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

what kind of performance could i expect with a system with an PC- AMD Athlon 64 X2?

.:B:. · 2008-05-07 19:18:10

X2 have the same cores as K8 AMD's (actually their codename is K10), so that means they're just dualcore Athlon 64 CPUs (as opposed to dual-core Pentiums, which are actually just two dies on one package, where a K10 is one physical die, like a Core 2 Duo). K8/K10 is still pretty decent, a lot better than a Pentium 4, but the Core 2 Duo is faster in a lot of occasions, although not in every single one (I heard some memory-intensive applications still show the recent AMDs as the stronger one).

kensai · 2008-05-07 19:27:09

iphitus wrote:

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

This could as well tell the contrary, that more intel people are needed to fix intel dirvers so they work well on Linux. Yet, I am not saying that is the case, but caould be.

Now some fun from Linus Torvalds:

Modern PCs are horrible. ACPI is a complete design disaster in every way. But we're kind of stuck with it. If any Intel people are listening to this and you had anything to do with ACPI, shoot yourself now, before you reproduce.

EFI is this other Intel brain-damage (the first one being ACPI).

actually, I'm a bit disgusted at Intel for not even _mentioning_ AMD in their documentation or their releases, so I'd almost be inclined to rename the thing as 'AMD64' just to give credit where credit is due. However, it's just not worth the pain and confusion.

Yet no rant has been found about AMD, lets say AMD contributes to the kernel since the making of the hardware and not after making it. Also, now they are more open source friendly than ever. Still, I'm not proclaiming my post has empiric proof. Just something to think about.

.:B:. · 2008-05-07 19:43:17

AMD has only recently begun to open up. Intel has a longer history (it seems you can also see that in the bug reports they post for their CPUs, Intel is said to be more open than AMD on that point). I thought support for AMD's x86_64 extensions was added rather quickly to the kernel.

Intel is often criticised for putting a lot of stuff into their firmware (WLAN cards for example). You can say that 'has to be done because of FCC regulations' to prevent end-users from tampering with the frequencies etc., but there are other vendors out there that provide drivers that require(d) no firmware - e.g. Ralink for its RT2400/2500 chipsets, etc.

There are quite some complaints about the Intel grafics drivers too, sometimes followed by a few flames addressed to Intel, I haven't read up on that though.

Mandor · 2008-05-07 20:14:44

ST.x wrote:

Intel any Arch Overclockers?

I had a Barton 2500+ (11x166) clocked at 11x210, but lately I actually underclocked it to 11x133 at minimal vcore because of the noise of the Volcano fan. I do not really notice difference, since I use this home PC for quite trivial tasks. This does not interfere with the status of Arch o\clocker since from before the downgrade I'm stuck back with WinXp for that machine for some time.

Before Phenoms were out I thought that Core 2 has no real alternative, but now some fall in the price of 3 and 4 core Phenoms will make them an interesting alternative. As for the Linux compatability of the CPU per se - I can't see the difference.

Bestiapeluda · 2008-05-07 22:38:11

My las Intel was a PIII coppermine (excellent processor).
Since the P4 era I changed to AMD and never looked back.

.:B:. · 2008-05-07 22:52:46

Mandor wrote:

ST.x wrote:
Intel any Arch Overclockers?
I had a Barton 2500+ (11x166) clocked at 11x210, but lately I actually underclocked it to 11x133 at minimal vcore because of the noise of the Volcano fan. I do not really notice difference, since I use this home PC for quite trivial tasks. This does not interfere with the status of Arch o\clocker since from before the downgrade I'm stuck back with WinXp for that machine for some time.
Before Phenoms were out I thought that Core 2 has no real alternative, but now some fall in the price of 3 and 4 core Phenoms will make them an interesting alternative. As for the Linux compatability of the CPU per se - I can't see the difference.

Barton! Good times . I have one too, a 2500+, and it's running at 11x200. Tried to clock it further (actually if you got a Barton 2500+ at the time you actually had a guarantee you could clock it at 3200+ speeds without upping the voltage, saving a lot of money), but it needed a lot of juice for each step - topped out at 2.4 Ghz with my present motherboard. Clocked it back to 2.2 Ghz, been running smoothly ever since .

Misfit138 · 2008-05-08 03:33:54

Kept my mobile barton 2500 at 12x200 for 3 years, and gave it away...still chuggin' along.
Currently at 10x300 w/ Opteron 146.

Mandor · 2008-05-08 06:40:33

People seem to change their PCs too often I has a pesky Celeron in 2000, after that a Thoroughbred B (that I overclocked ugly with a miserable fan) and after that this Barton. I used a GForce4 VGA until recently (few weeks) as I do not play 3D games. If something breaks (or I out of the blue I have a 1000 bucks) I will have to change everything besides the HDD and DVD. For that reason I hope that AMD starts being a real alternative to Intel, so prices go down.

Falcata · 2008-05-09 12:21:20

Which pentium4 processor did the problems happen with? Was it Willamette, Northwood, Prescott, Cedar Mill, or all of the above?

schivmeister · 2008-05-09 14:47:49

Man I love recalling my P3. It was 866MHz and lasted for 6 years at that clock, I oc'ed that to 930 and it lasted another 2 years. That was the machine which ran my first GNU/Linux - Kubuntu. Coupled with an FX5200, as crappy as it is, the system ran fine. Manufacturing quality of older hardware is nowhere as bad as today's. I'll be surprised if a C2D can last even 5 years without fault.

AMD at heart, but my brain decides which way to go when it comes down to purchase. I think someone mentioned this already, but there's a cpu+mobo price pattern. AMD mobos are relatively cheaper, and in the lower end of the CPU spectrum they normally offer the best bang for your buck. But yeah, Intel is winning massive amounts of consumers and AMD converts. They fought back hard ever since their clock race was put to shame.

Mandor · 2008-05-09 15:20:02

schivmeister wrote:

Coupled with an FX5200, as crappy as it is..

Hey, last week I upgraded TO a FX5200, after my gForce4 started to give problems (total X freeze in virtually all distros I tried) under linux (due to crappy drivers, I suppose)

iphitus · 2008-05-09 23:33:45

kensai wrote:

iphitus wrote:
Have a look at LKML, there's a few @intel email addresses there. They actively develop support and drivers for Linux.
This could as well tell the contrary, that more intel people are needed to fix intel dirvers so they work well on Linux. Yet, I am not saying that is the case, but caould be.
Now some fun from Linus Torvalds:
Modern PCs are horrible. ACPI is a complete design disaster in every way. But we're kind of stuck with it. If any Intel people are listening to this and you had anything to do with ACPI, shoot yourself now, before you reproduce.
EFI is this other Intel brain-damage (the first one being ACPI).
actually, I'm a bit disgusted at Intel for not even _mentioning_ AMD in their documentation or their releases, so I'd almost be inclined to rename the thing as 'AMD64' just to give credit where credit is due. However, it's just not worth the pain and confusion.

Yet AMD uses and supports all those same technologies too

Still doesn't change the fact that intel developers actively develop drivers and support for Linux.

B: The firmware thing is a matter of cost. RT2500/RT2400 don't need firmware because those details are embedded into hardware. Later Realtek chips DO require firmware. It's cheaper to develop a card dependent on firmware rather than storing them permanently on hardware.

byte · 2008-05-09 23:45:17

About Coppermines -- I still run my good old P3-650 (Slot1) from 2000 as my main desktop. 6 years at 866/133MHz (not oc'ed anymore, the psu got some issues by now), BX chipset, Crucial ECC ram, and upgraded over the years with a dvd burner, various gfx cards and a combo usb2/firewire controller.

B: Pentium DualCore is a stripped-down (cache) Core 2 Duo, nothing to do with Pentium D. I'm very much into efficiency per cycles/watts, so Netburst architecture was never an option for me.

.:B:. · 2008-05-10 01:13:07

iphitus wrote:

kensai wrote:
iphitus wrote:
Have a look at LKML, there's a few @intel email addresses there. They actively develop support and drivers for Linux.
[...]
B: The firmware thing is a matter of cost. RT2500/RT2400 don't need firmware because those details are embedded into hardware. Later Realtek chips DO require firmware. It's cheaper to develop a card dependent on firmware rather than storing them permanently on hardware.

Ok. That is an interesting point of view indeed, and cutting costs is an argument any company will listen to.

@ Byte: my mistake then, I thought those were still Netburst-based CPUs - if Intel can't even get their naming scheme together... What is gonna become of this world .

Last edited by B (2008-05-10 01:14:12)

iBertus · 2008-05-10 01:16:08

I also loved my Barton XP2500+ OC'd to 2.4GHz with no issue. In fact, my mother-in-law is still using that machine for everyday stuff with the CPU at stock now.

Also, I have my quad-core Xeon OC'd to 3.0Ghz on stock voltage in a SFF case. It's rock-solid stable at that speed and runs great. I wasn't expecting that sort of OC from the quad-core, especially since I've got a video card that heats up like a soldering iron inside the case.

Last edited by iBertus (2008-05-10 01:17:34)

Lyceuhns · 2008-05-10 03:23:09

Well, i have a Intel 478 Celeron, i think it's good, but AMD's are better. =p

I think which Intel is very marketing, more popular and sure, more expensive. I think too, about Intel monopoly.

I think, in future, buy a cheap, useful and powerful AMD AM3 processor.

Mandor · 2008-05-10 08:14:21

Just a notice - AMD has the very bad policy to change sockets way TOO often. Intel LGA 775 has been for quite a lot time, and for that time AMD has changed 5 (6 on the way) sockets. Not that the socket is the only compatibility issue, the chipset is too, but with AMD you don't know if your MB will be relevant next year.

.:B:. · 2008-05-10 10:57:26

AMD has only recently adopted that policy afaik. Socket A, for example, has gone quite a long way . It only started from there that they started juggling sockets - 754, 939, AM2, AM2+, ...

despairblue · 2008-05-10 12:53:57

AM2 and AM2+ are actually compatible.

Lyceuhns · 2008-05-10 13:24:43

Mandor wrote:

Just a notice - AMD has the very bad policy to change sockets way TOO often. Intel LGA 775 has been for quite a lot time, and for that time AMD has changed 5 (6 on the way) sockets. Not that the socket is the only compatibility issue, the chipset is too, but with AMD you don't know if your MB will be relevant next year.

Unfortunately, this is really true.
It's because the memory controller stays on self processor, better performance, but any changes to memories and/or memory controller, change the processor pins too... and socket goes on...

Edit: On Intel's all above, just need to change the northbridge chipset.

Last edited by Lyceuhns (2008-05-10 13:31:18)

skottish · 2008-05-10 13:45:22

despairblue wrote:

AM2 and AM2+ are actually compatible.

Some features on chips designed for AM2+ will simply not work on AM2. You are correct in that they are compatible, but only to a degree.

funkyou · 2008-05-10 14:11:20

I used...

1991 - 1993: Intel i486DX @ 66Mhz
1994 - 1998: Cyrix 5x86 @ 120Mhz
1998 - 2001: P200MMX
2001 - 2004: Duron 800
2004 - 2007: Athlon XP 1600+
2007 - : Intel P4 Dualcore 3.40Ghz

My experience and conclusion: I will stay on Intel. Their stuff is just fast, reliable and compatible. The others always had some "strange" behaviour (like the Cyrix not being a real 586) or labeling (stuff like P-Rating) and for me, none of the competitors came near the performance of Intel hardware (and i am actually using a VIA board, which isnt the best one but supports a sh*tload of older hardware)...

edit: fixed wikipedia link

Last edited by funkyou (2008-05-10 14:12:31)

z0phi3l · 2008-05-11 17:47:34

To those of you looking for cheap and claiming AMD, you are off, Intel currently is a better bargain per dollar spent

vogt · 2008-05-11 19:55:54

B wrote:

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

Apparently they use the same microarchitecture as higher end core2 processors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Pentium_Dual-Core
See external links from there too.

Arch Linux

#26 2008-05-07 18:50:41

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#27 2008-05-07 19:18:10

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#28 2008-05-07 19:27:09

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#29 2008-05-07 19:43:17

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#30 2008-05-07 20:14:44

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#31 2008-05-07 22:38:11

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#32 2008-05-07 22:52:46

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#33 2008-05-08 03:33:54

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#34 2008-05-08 06:40:33

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#35 2008-05-09 12:21:20

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#36 2008-05-09 14:47:49

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#37 2008-05-09 15:20:02

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#38 2008-05-09 23:33:45

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#39 2008-05-09 23:45:17

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#40 2008-05-10 01:13:07

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#41 2008-05-10 01:16:08

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#42 2008-05-10 03:23:09

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#43 2008-05-10 08:14:21

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#44 2008-05-10 10:57:26

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#45 2008-05-10 12:53:57

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#46 2008-05-10 13:24:43

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#47 2008-05-10 13:45:22

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#48 2008-05-10 14:11:20

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#49 2008-05-11 17:47:34

Re: Intel vs. AMD

#50 2008-05-11 19:55:54

Re: Intel vs. AMD

Board footer