AMD v Intel dual-core CPU comparison

[zero2dash]

Dual-core desktop CPU bout: AMD vs. Intel (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav)

C/Net did a comparison between 5 AMD 64 X2 cpus and a Pentium EE + 3 Pentium D systems and the AMD chips beat the pants off of the Intel chips. (Somewhere I hear a collective "duh" chant starting. :))

***
I've always been an Intel fan (simply because I've never had any problems with their cpus) and while I've owned a couple of AMD systems, I was always concerned about heat...although this is during the "Thunderbird" Athlon days whereas now their cpus run a lot cooler.

I probably would've kept buying Intel for the rest of my life but I've seen a lot of Intel hatred and AMD praise lately so I decided to investigate. While I've got some time before I even have the money or the desire to build another pc (my p4 3.0c is only a few years old and still running strong/powerful enough), after all the AMD thoughts lately and the hype, I think my next system will be an Athlon 64 X2. :D (or whatever new cpu AMD has out at the time)

[Grimm]

Yup, AMD did it right, Intel rushed their design and their production. Due to some foresight on AMD's part they are the leaders in the speed of their CPSs.

[zero2dash]

From the little that I know in this area, I've read that with the newer AMD chips, they put the memory controller embedded with the cpu (instead of being a separate piece on a mobo with an Intel cpu), so the AMD chip communicates with the memory/uses the memory much more efficiently - which is one of the huge reasons the new AMD chips are so fast.

I'm still sorta dumbfounded on the #s vs clock speed, but after getting a free laptop (was broken...I repaired it) which has an Athlon XP 2200+ cpu and doing research to try and figure out what the clock speed was...(which, for that cpu is 1.7) I figured out that Athlons are more about performance # over clock speed # like Intel usually puts out (although they don't seem to be anymore, now that their chips have number iterations; ie Celeron D 325).

Plus the other killer that AMD can bank on is that their cpus cost less but outperform the higher-cost Intel chips. Better performance + lower cost = I'm sold. :thumb:

[Markel]

AMD has cleaned Intel's clock in every comparision I've seen recently.

[clutchy]

Yup, AMD did it right, Intel rushed their design and their production. Due to some foresight on AMD's part they are the leaders in the speed of their CPSs.



which i find very interesting. Wasn't intel the one spouting off about dual-core being the wave of the future? and then to be beaten at their own game... it must hurt.

intel makes great chips. I still have a p4 1.8 in my parents system when i was flirting with the dark side about 4 years ago, still works fine. I've never burned an Intel chip either, but i've fried atleast 4 amd cpu's over the years...

that being said, i love AMD chips, they just feel faster. I couldn't see myself using anything else.

[Kevster]

Add to that the numerous quality problems that Intel has had in recent years that have ended in product delays and recalls, and you have a very good case to persuade your management to buy AMD over Intel. Intel may have the sub-100nm process down, but their designs are still lacking and it clearly shows now.

[Bires]

I'm in the same boat. I own a couple of AMD comps but my best computers have always been intel. Unless something changes radically by next summer, my next comp will be AMD-based.

[Chgoman]

Intel was basically trying to catch up with AMD, so instead of having a dual core chip that was designed for that purpose, they basically took a single core chip and jammed a second core on it. Since the chip wasn't really designed to work with 2 cores, it is very ineffecient, which is why AMD kills is (the AMD chip was designed from scratch for 2 cores).

Interestingly, 2 months ago was the first month ever that AMD chips outsold Intel chips. This was also the case last month.