Dual-core desktop duel: AMD vs. Intel
Posted by Steven Parker on 12 December 2005 - 12:32 · 66 comments & 8788 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(1 reply)
#1 Posted by Aaronz0rz on 12 Dec 2005 - 12:40
- im not suprised
-
#2 Posted by Lasker on 12 Dec 2005 - 12:47
- yeah, AMD rocks!
-
#3 Posted by Quick Reply on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:04
- I want to see benchmarks of the Socket 939 Opteron 1x5 series too.
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by Buttus on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:13
- AMD stomps Intel and yet Intel is still more popular...
It's funny what advertising does for you...
-
#5 Posted by Vourdex on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:28
- Very nice read. AMD is blowing Intel out of the water!
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by leonx81 on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:30
- AMD CPUs will be on my next machine! :p
-
#6.1 Posted by mr_skrilla on 13 Dec 2005 - 03:12
- go for it man. I just put in an X2 in my machine and it is fast as hell.
-
#7 Posted by CoolerUK on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:31
- Coolio, common knowledge already I thought but nice article.
-
#8 Posted by mswarts on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:33
- Ouch. I don't agree with their best bang for the buck though... The chips are increasing in price $100 at a time! The 4200+ is a better deal in my opinion.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/so a/Dual_c...226688-7,00.htm
The best thing about AMD is it has a much more gradual price/performance curve. Connect the dots of the two brands to see what I mean
-
(7 replies)
#9 Posted by LTD on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:34
- They're still hard to use, though. :p
-
#9.1 Posted by MrCobra on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:42
- OMG!!! It's been a while since I've seen that comment. Good one.
-
#9.2 Posted by StuRReaL on 12 Dec 2005 - 14:10
- Whats hard to use? its a damn CPU the hardest part is getting the packaging open without slicing your fingers.
-
#9.4 Posted by Smigit on 12 Dec 2005 - 15:19
- LMAO! Yeah, its been a while since I heard that one. hehe
btw, cant we comment with quotes? My 2 attempts failed -
#9.5 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 13 Dec 2005 - 00:50
- @Smigit - I wondered why some of my posts just wouldn't appear... now I remember that they all had quotes in. It's pretty annoying.
-
#9.6 Posted by kizzaaa on 13 Dec 2005 - 09:08
- Either that was a bad attempt at a joke, or you're just stupid.
-
#9.7 Posted by PCyr on 14 Dec 2005 - 03:48
- Either that was a bad attempt at a joke, or you're just stupid.
He's refering to a user on here that used to go around saying (among other stupid things) that AMD chips will never be good because they aren't user friendly (he was serious).
It even inspired a user to make this pic: http://img327.imageshack.us/img327/82/n00bs4dummies2oq.jpg
-
#10 Posted by serafins on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:39
- the comment system is killing me !!!!!
LOL pls upgrade to neowin5 as soon as posibl.
Last edited by serafins on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:53
-
(4 replies)
#11 Posted by Tech001101 on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:42
- also which runs cooler ?
What's nice is the Price's are lower with AMD.
x2 x64 4800 looks like a monster.
-
#11.1 Posted by Quick Reply on 12 Dec 2005 - 14:40
- And I want to know if the Athlons still self distruct if the Heatsink is taken off, too
-
#11.2 Posted by Smigit on 12 Dec 2005 - 15:17
- ??? Well I wouldnt expecy any less from other hardware, say a graphics card.
-
#11.3 Posted by lordtoran on 12 Dec 2005 - 16:17
- @Quick Reply: No, the Athlon 64's finally have the core inside the die and the heat sink has levers, so the destruction potential has decreased dramatically
-
#11.4 Posted by threedaysdwn on 12 Dec 2005 - 16:53
- All the Athlon 64s have a metal slug on top (sort of a "built-in" heatsink). Thus they don't have the problem that the "exposed" Athlon XP chips had. I believe all the newer Athlon XP/Sempron chips had that as well. I think it's similar to what Intel does.
Still, running without a heatsink is definitely not recommended.
-
#12 Posted by el__sid on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:43
- Can anyone say "owned"?
I personally prefer AMD CPU's in general, but I didn't think their x2s were that good!
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by CDog on 12 Dec 2005 - 13:54
- Ouch - wouldn't mind seeing rendering performance results (Lightwave, 3DMax, Maya)
-
(5 replies)
#14 Posted by prospero on 12 Dec 2005 - 14:07
- ok, this is the same exact article (even says "from CNET") posted like 2-3 weeks ago...
it should be obvious that AMD will win this supposed "prizefight" when both the AMD and the Intel is forced to run on an NVIDIA chipset and an NVIDIA gfx card.
i'd like to see the results on an ATI solution.
/rant
i'm still an amd & nvidia fan tho, just think this journalism/benchmark sucks! -
#14.1 Posted by Pdj79 on 12 Dec 2005 - 15:04
- What the hell does the NVIDIA reference have anything to do with this? The one graphics-specific test was set so that the CPU did most of the work...I fail to see how that makes it an advantage for one over the other. Does Intel hate NVIDIA? If anything, the NVIDIA chipset and gfx card probably helped the processor's numbers. And considering ATI has been a bit of a lame duck with their recent releases (Crossfire is the worst implementation of a dual gfx-card solution), I wouldn't be so quick to assume that their Xpress chipset would help one over the other. The main problem is what's been stated in the article...Intel has their memory controller separate from the processor, resulting in greater lag between the CPU and the memory. The X2 has better architecture, utilizes its strengths better, runs cooler, and is cheaper. How can you not lose? AMD needs to sink some money in advertising and steal some of that market share away from Intel. Intel should be reeling from this walloping...even the 3800+ proved to be a good bargain.
-
#14.2 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 12 Dec 2005 - 15:10
- nVidia offers the best performing chipsets for both Intel and AMD... it would be pretty stupid to not use them.
-
#14.3 Posted by threedaysdwn on 12 Dec 2005 - 16:59
- While the low latency to the memory controller is a huge help (especially in certain areas like gaming) - it isn't the only reason that AMD is beating the pants off Intel in the dual-core space.
The other reason is that the Athlon 64/Opteron architecture was designed to be multi-core from the beginning. The Pentium D, on the other hand, is quite literally 2 Pentium 4 chips that have no idea they're sharing the same die. Essentially, Intel bolted 2 chips together and called it dual-core in order to compete. The 2 chips work completely independently and yet have to share a very thing pipe to the system (the same FSB as a single-core P4).
AMD's solution is far more elegant and allows the 2 cores to share resources. And they each get independent channels to the (on-chip) memory controller. -
#14.4 Posted by xMorpheousx416 on 12 Dec 2005 - 22:37
- You need to pay attention to Maximum PC....they have done tests on an ATI "chipset"....and the tears were just too intolerable to read about a second time.
-
#14.5 Posted by prospero on 13 Dec 2005 - 01:13
- i do get maximum PC, i must have missed that article...
as for the nvidia comments, i know in the past amd has always performed better on nvidia than ati and intel performed vice-versa, i just thought the so called "prizefight" was biased... if you say that chipset has no cpu bias than i guess it was unbiased...
i love the fact amd is sticking it to intel, i was just looking for a fair fight, and if this was a fair fight, than intel should def. be worried...
-
#15 Posted by GRex on 12 Dec 2005 - 14:13
- Geez, it wasnt even a challenge for AMD.
-
#16 Posted by windows95isg8 on 12 Dec 2005 - 14:28
- Im not suprised at all
-
#17 Posted by James on 12 Dec 2005 - 14:42
- Good to see people verifying what every AMD fan knows
-
#18 Posted by Hills420 on 12 Dec 2005 - 14:54
- great article, thanks for the link.
-
#19 Posted by Zirus1701 on 12 Dec 2005 - 15:26
- This makes me glad I bought my Opterons
-
(7 replies)
#20 Posted by pallavsuri on 12 Dec 2005 - 17:18
- too late... anandtech.com has already done a x2 comparison with yonah! and yonah beats it hands down. intel is now concentrating on power consumption as well. amd isnt thinking on those lines yet... is it.
-
#20.1 Posted by
malebolgia on 12 Dec 2005 - 18:18
- Only really in power consumption.
-
#20.2 Posted by BurnX on 12 Dec 2005 - 19:07
- From the conclusion of the anandtech.com comparison:
"At 2.0GHz, Yonah is basically equal to, if not slightly slower than an Athlon 64 X2 running at the same clock speed in virtually all of the tests we ran. The important distinction here is that Intel is able to achieve that level of performance, without an on-die memory controller. But there is also one more thing to note, Yonah can offer that level of performance with significantly lower power consumption."
They go on to comment that Yonah looks great for notebooks because of the low power consumption, but is a mixed bag as a desktop contender.
Check the full review out at Anandtech -
#20.3 Posted by netizen on 12 Dec 2005 - 19:34
- Isn't Anandtech traditionally Intel biased, or have they improved? Or at the very least they're prone to having a different opinion or the majority just for the hell of it.
-
#20.4 Posted by tiwaris on 12 Dec 2005 - 20:27
- That article from anandtech was total crap (Intel must have paid them).
Mobile cpus are traditionally designed to consume less power than desktop cpu. Once a desktop tech is perfected, it makes its way into mobile platform.
They compared the intel's yet to be released processor with AMD's bottom of the line dual core which was out ages ago.
They did not mention that Yonah does not have 64 bit capability.
Intel is introducing SSE3 now, but AMD had it before the big bang.
And the crappiest part is Yonah is 65 nm (marchitecture) and Athlon X2 is 90 nm, so the comparison is not fair.
That was one of the most biased reviews I had ever read on Anandtech. They are loosing their credebility.
And yeah, just to add about on-die memory controller, FSB is not very important in AMD's case because it uses hypertransport to communicate with the memory. AMD's design IMO is better in the long run.
Frankly speaking, Intel had no plans of producing 64 bit for the desktop and were very happy with GHz myth, AMD forced them to go 64 bit and make improvements to their architecture and not just the clock speed.
__
Tiwaris
Last edited by tiwaris on 12 Dec 2005 - 20:32 -
#20.5 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 13 Dec 2005 - 01:06
- With Yonah you're talking about Intel's next-gen part performing the same as AMD's slowest current gen dual-core - that's because of the smaller design process (65nm versus AMD's 90nm) and, mostly, because it has double the cache. Increased cache offers better performance but it ups the manufacturing process considerably. So whilst Intel have certainly improved it is still pretty embarassing for the largest PC processor manufacturer - it'll be a good 6-12 months before can become competitive again and that's providing AMD doesn't keep improving.
Usually I'd welcome fair competition but even when AMD has a clearly superior product they find it hard to make an impact, so I'm hoping AMD can continue to dominate the price / performance ratio and keep offering the best gaming processors. -
#20.6 Posted by MrCobra on 13 Dec 2005 - 04:53
- @tiwaris:
They [Intel] have stated before that they had no plans to bring 64bit to the consumer desktop for at least another ten years and the 64bit plan they had was not compatible with x86. The new architecture meant all new everything. -
#20.7 Posted by BurnX on 13 Dec 2005 - 19:01
- Tiwaris:
Anand compared the Yonah to the bottom of line AMD because they had the same clockspeed. Their conclusion was
"At 2.0GHz, Yonah is basically equal to, if not slightly slower than an Athlon 64 X2 running at the same clock speed in virtually all of the tests we ran. "
Not sure where the Anand bashing is coming from. The points they make are the chip performs almost as good as an equally clocked Athlon X2, and it has lower power consumption. To me this is still a win AMD, but it does show that Intel is closing the gap a bit.
-
#21 Posted by fubarshibby on 12 Dec 2005 - 19:52
- No surprise here...
-
#22 Posted by Octol on 12 Dec 2005 - 19:53
- American ZDNet Article URL
Same article, faster from US.
-
#23 Posted by dave164 on 12 Dec 2005 - 20:35
- W00t
I've got a 4400+, good news for me
-
#24 Posted by 12Iceman on 12 Dec 2005 - 20:46
- I love how the slowest AMD Athlon 64 X2 beats the fastest Pentium D at gaming. Rock on AMD, I know where I am buying my next system!!!
-
#25 Posted by Section 31 on 12 Dec 2005 - 21:54
- Intel saddens me...
-
#26 Posted by xMorpheousx416 on 12 Dec 2005 - 22:40
- and to think that the money I am about to spend on a dually 3800+ is gonna be worth it! I am in no rush to have the top end of every thing, and the new rig with 2g's of RAM, 500gigs of hd space, 6800GS, or GT...will all be under $1,700
-
#27 Posted by Nasapion on 12 Dec 2005 - 22:53
- f you ask an average person what they look for in a PC they always seem to say a Pentium4. Damn false advertising
-
#28 Posted by evilpig on 12 Dec 2005 - 23:00
- Agreed
-
#29 Posted by dhitb on 12 Dec 2005 - 23:05
- Nice going AMD, now START CRANKING OUT THEM 939 OPTEROWNS
-
#30 Posted by linsook on 13 Dec 2005 - 00:47
- nice article. at this moment in time i would also chose an x2 over a pentium d. i've built 3 new systems so far. 1 830, 2 x2 3800+. amd, as of now is my top choice. but i am also interested to see what intel has coming. i just read an article over at toms: tomshardware and im eagerly awaiting the competition.
-
#31 Posted by CrisCr0ss on 13 Dec 2005 - 02:05
- ya but if you think about it many people do not know about AMD, take for example my dad and mom even my teacher. All they know is intel Pentium 4, why because of the commericial and because dell and all that advertising suggests Intel Powered or Intel Pentium 4 processor, I myself didn't know about AMD until i became a member of this board.
EIther way, glad to see AMD is on top, its my next setup thats for sure.
-
#32 Posted by Nand on 13 Dec 2005 - 02:58
- great article, although if you wanted a dual-core processor and did your homework you would already know that already. For some reason I dont agree with their price performance, I know and believe AMD's are better however for price/performance http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1876685,00.asp . Oh well to each their own. Go AMD.
-
#33 Posted by Miran on 13 Dec 2005 - 04:16
- A bit off topic, but what ever happened with AMD's lawsuit against intel?
-
#34 Posted by rIaHc3 on 13 Dec 2005 - 13:59
- Im a big Intel fan (but I have no problem admiting that AMD is currently the best in price and performance) so I hope they come back strong with that new chip they are planning for 2006.
To answer the question once and for all, we set ourselves to a no-holds-barred dual-core desktop CPU fistfight. AMD submitted its five dual-core CPUs, and Intel matched with its lineup of four. We built two test beds as nearly identical as we could for the two platforms and ran each chip through a battery of tests. We then ran those results through our price-vs.-performance calculator to find out not only which is the best overall dual-core CPU in terms of raw performance but also which one offers the most bang for your buck. Skip ahead to the official ruling if you want, but the match itself is interesting.