Comparing AMD and Intel Processors - Steve's Experience

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stevedye56
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experience
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around preferences between AMD and Intel processors, with participants sharing personal experiences and opinions. One user expresses satisfaction with their AMD X2 processor, despite acknowledging its lower L2 cache compared to Intel's offerings. Another user argues that Intel's Core 2 Duo models currently outperform AMD, reflecting a shift in preference based on product performance rather than brand loyalty. The conversation shifts to a broader critique of the x86 architecture, highlighting its proprietary nature and discussing alternatives like PowerPC and SPARC, which are seen as more open and accessible. Users debate the implications of using closed hardware while advocating for free software, with some expressing a lack of familiarity with non-x86 architectures. The thread concludes with a mix of humor and frustration over the heated debate, as well as inquiries about where to find RISC-compatible systems.

What CPU do you prefer? (Dual Core processors)

  • AMD

    Votes: 8 33.3%

  • Intel

    Votes: 16 66.7%
  • Total voters
    24
Stevedye56
Messages
402
Reaction score
0
Just out of curiosity I was wondering who prefers AMD over Intel and vice versa. I just built a computer off an AMD X2 processor and love it. I realize that the cache is lower (L2) on the AMD processors now, but how significant of a difference is it? I started getting angry with Intel after two Intel computers that I had failed. They were Dells so that might have been part of the problem. I just tried a few computers with the Core 2 Duo and I must say they were outstanding.

-Steve
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Right now AMD has no good answer to Intel's Core 2 models.
 
I'm biased because I have a mac :biggrin: ... I sure wouldn't complain if apple came out with AMD macs though...
 
One year ago I would have voted AMD, but the intel core 2's beat anything AMD can offer right now. So I guess you could say I prefer whoever offers the better product.
 
Oh c'mon, how is AMD winning? I haven't even heard of them outside graphics for like a year.
 
moe darklight said:
I'm biased because I have a mac :biggrin: ... I sure wouldn't complain if apple came out with AMD macs though...

Don't you have Intel processors in your Mac? Or is it an older Mac?

-Steve
 
steve... jobs? is that you? ... I... :eek:

lol yea I have an intel mac. I need it for editing and music... and procrastinating on PF of course.
 
Last edited:
moe darklight said:
steve... jobs? is that you? ... I... :eek:

lol yea I have an intel mac. I need it for editing and music... and procrastinating on PF of course.

Haha no, I wish though. I love the part about procrastinating on PF. The comput ers at school are too slow to procrastinate. The Techs removed DOS and RUN on the start menu so I just made a simple batch program and found out that we were running on <1 GHz computers with 128mb-256mb of ram
 
i voted AMD just to make things interesting and tip the balance. i care more about the GHz than the brand
 
  • #10
Ki Man said:
i voted AMD just to make things interesting and tip the balance. i care more about the GHz than the brand

Last time I checked the Pentium D was owning all in GHz and they are dual core. But this doesn't mean they are the best.

-Steve
 
  • #11
Why only AMD and Intel? They're both only x86 vendors. There are many other processor manufacturers out there that produce far more interesting and open processors, such as PowerPC and SPARC. x86 is without a doubt one of the most proprietary architecture. AMD has been sued a number of times by Intel for various infringements, and for anyone but Intel, fabricating x86-compatible CPUs is suicide. With PowerPC and SPARC, on the other hand, the entire architecture is open. These specifications are written from the user's standpoint, and thus, do not specify things like whether or not the CPU should have an MMU, if that MMU should be on the CPU, or even if the MMU could be implemented in software. To begin fabricating SPARCs, all one needs to do is pay $50 to SPARC Intl. to acquire trademark usage and comply with the SPARCv8 or SPARCv9 specificatons. PowerPC follows a similar route.

And what's ironic is that some of you, I expect, advocate usage of free software, but you're still using very much closed hardware. Truly ironic, don't you think? The two most important components of your systems are closed -- the CPU and the BIOS.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
graphic7 said:
Why only AMD and Intel? AMD has been sued a number of times by Intel for various infringements, and for anyone but Intel, fabricating x86-compatible CPUs is suicide.

1) Because that's all I felt like putting up.

2) Disagree.
 
  • #13
Stevedye56 said:
1) Because that's all I felt like putting up.

2) Disagree.

Perhaps, you should be more informed and read the Wikipedia article on AMD, specifically, the bit about 'litigation with Intel'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd

More likely re: (1) is that's all you've ever heard of.
 
  • #14
Oh, come on! You can not be serious!

In response to last sentence.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Stevedye56 said:
Oh, come on! You can not be serious!

No, I'm not joking. Its always been the case that to fabricate x86-compatible CPUs, you must seek an 'agreement' with Intel. Very few companies have this agreement, and one of them is AMD. The majority of other architectures out there, nowadays, do not require this, like SPARC and PowerPC, which anyone can fabricate without the fear of being sued.
 
  • #16
graphic7 said:
More likely re: (1) is that's all you've ever heard of.

Not true, but you make assumptions as you wish.

I also am more than familiar with the cases...

-Steve
 
  • #17
Stevedye56 said:
Not true, but you make assumptions as you wish.

I also am more than familiar with the cases...

-Steve

So why do you disagree that x86 is a highly proprietary architecture?
 
  • #18
graphic7 said:
And what's ironic is that some of you, I expect, advocate usage of free software, but you're still using very much closed hardware. Truly ironic, don't you think? The two most important components of your systems are closed -- the CPU and the BIOS.
Hey, I've never heard of SPARC and PowerPC. If it's better why don't you share some information websites or something, stead of just talking down?
 
  • #19
SPARC has had endevors with both AMD and Intel...

Im not denying that it is a highly prioprietary architecture. I am just wondering who likes AMD and who likes Intel. You clearly do not like either and are just pushing SPARC and PowerPC like crazy. I have heard of both of your famed processors . I agree with Smurf also
 
Last edited:
  • #20
huh? I havn't voted. I'm using an AMD right now, but usually i use Intel. I don't even know where I'd get anything other than those two.
 
  • #21
Smurf said:
Hey, I've never heard of SPARC and PowerPC. If it's better why don't you share some information websites or something, stead of just talking down?

You might try reading the Wikipedia arcticles of each respective architecture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerpc

http://www.opensparc.net/ houses a completely open Verilog implementation of one of Sun's SPARCv9-compliant processors, the UltraSPARC-T1.

http://www.openfirmware.org/ houses several implementations of OpenFirmware (a.k.a IEEE-1275), which is the open "BIOS" that many PowerPC and SPARC-based systems use.

Just to point a few things out: SPARC and PowerPC were both 64-bit architectures by 1994 or 1995. SPARC and PowerPC, both, set out to be open architectures from the beginning. Both are RISC-based CPUs, which are highly scalable -- meaning, they can be used on anything from embedded-devices to 72-processor, enterprise-level servers.
 
  • #22
Sorry Smurf, my response was not to you, I should have quoted.
 
  • #23
Stevedye56 said:
SPARC has had endevors with both AMD and Intel...

Im not denying that it is a highly prioprietary architecture. I am just wondering who likes AMD and who likes Intel. You clearly do not like either and are just pushing SPARC and PowerPC like crazy. I have heard of both of your famed processor companies. I agree with Smurf also
:smile:

SPARC and PowerPC are not companies. They are architectures, manufactured by a wide-range of companies, because they're open architectures. Sun and Fujitsu have their own SPARCv9 implementations. And many companies in the early 90s had SPARCv8 implementations, like Sun, Fujitsu, Texas Instruments, Ross, etc.

IBM, Motorola, Freescale, etc. all have their own PowerPC implementations, as well.
 
  • #24
graphic7 said:
:smile:

SPARC and PowerPC are not companies. They are architectures, manufactured by a wide-range of companies, because they're open architectures. Sun and Fujitsu have their own SPARCv9 implementations. And many companies in the early 90s had SPARCv8 implementations, like Sun, Fujitsu, Texas Instruments, Ross, etc.

IBM, Motorola, Freescale, etc. all of their own PowerPC implementations, as well.

I do not recall saying they were companies... Sun Microsystems is the company. Let me direct you to a wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems

x86 Parts.

Sun isn't clean of the apparent sin of being included with the x86 architecture...
 
  • #25
Now can we just have a clean vote? Or do we need a Unix one also?
Maybe I should have just titled this x86 fans only.
 
  • #26
Okay. So for the person who doesn't understand very much about processors or how they work. What does all that mean?

Edit: What does x86 mean?
 
  • #27
stevedye56 said:
I have heard of both of your famed processor companies.

You clearly said they were companies.

Stevedye56 said:
I do not recall saying they were companies... Sun Microsystems is the company. Let me direct you to a wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems

x86 Parts.

Sun isn't clean of the apparent sin of being included with the x86 architecture...

Yes, Sun is a major AMD64 vendor, nowadays, but they're also just another vendor of an implementation of SPARCv8/SPARCv9.
 
  • #28
Ok my mistake I did not mean to type that. That was a stupid mistake I am not that stupid.

Can we end this rant? Because clearly we are getting nowhere in this thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Smurf said:
Okay. So for the person who doesn't understand very much about processors or how they work. What does all that mean?

Edit: What does x86 mean?

x86 is the name of the architecture that Intel created and sells. AMD is just another x86 vendor, and the only reason they're an x86 vendor is they constantly reverse-engineered x86 CPUs Intel produced throughout the 80s and 90s, often doing clean-room implementations. This is why I say x86 is not an open architecture. Its highly ironic to advocate the usage of free software while using x86.
 
  • #30
Stevedye56 said:
Ok my mistake I did not mean to type that. That was a stupid mistake I am not that stupid.

Can we end this rant? Becasue clearly we are getting nowhere in this thread?

Absolutely; however, alternative, open architectures need to be advocated. This was an excellent opportunity, because, apparently a lot of the people that voted in this thread aren't aware there are alternatives to x86.
 
  • #31
Well, In steve's defence I'm hardly representative of this forum. I'm not even a science major.
 
  • #32
Ok cool. No hard feelings although you must admit it was getting heated. And I do agree with you that it was a good opportunity and that many people were unaware.
/rant

lol.
 
  • #33
So.. where would I get a RISC chipset, or a RISC-compatible computer?
 
  • #34
Smurf said:
So.. where would I get a RISC chipset, or a RISC-compatible computer?

I found a few after doing some Google Product searches and Ebay searches.
 
  • #35
Or in a Nintendo 64 :biggrin:
 
  • #36
Genesi has some very affordable (http://www.genesippc.com/) PowerPC systems. Most new SPARC systems aren't exactly affordable (the new Sun Ultra 25 is the low-end SPARC workstation sold by Sun and it starts at ~ $2,500); however, many that are in the 7- to -10-year-old range can be had for pennies:

Ultra 2 ~ $50 - $200
Ultra 60 ~ $100-$300
Ultra 80 ~ $200-$400
Blade 1000 ~ $300 - $1,500

These prices vary per configuration. For example, my Blade 1000 /w 2x750MHz UltraSPARC-III processors (8MB of L2 cache/proc), 2GB of memory, and a single 36.6GB internal fibre-channel disk would run around $400 now, but a config with 2x1.2GHz UltraSPARC-III CU procs would run close to $1,500.

The fact that SPARC systems are generally more expensive doesn't mean that SPARC is better than PowerPC (in some regard, it *may* be, but this is irrelevant). All this implies is that the current set of SPARC manufacturers (Fujitsu and Sun) aren't producing economical SPARCv9-compliant systems, whereas, vendors like Genesi are producing such PowerPC-based systems. IBM, on the hand, while a PowerPC vendor uses PowerPC-based processors in their high-end graphics workstations and servers, but these are far from economical (similar to SPARC in terms of cost).

The market for SPARC workstations has gotten much better. One may shudder at the starting price of $2,500 for the Ultra 25; however, my Blade 1000 in the year 2000 would've run around $30,000.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Anttech said:
And what's even more interesting (paradox) is what is inside the Xbox 360 (built by M$) and it aint x86
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Central_processing_unit

I'm sure Intel wasn't happy about this, but then again, not many vendors have multi-cored CPUs that are built for floating-point calculations. At the time Microsoft made their decision to go with the PowerPC, there was the UltraSPARC-T1, which has a shared FPU unit across all of its 8 cores (this implies floating-point performance is not stellar; however, the UltraSPARC-T1 is excellent for integer workloads), and the IBM POWER4/POWER5, which certainly aren't consumer chips.

Its far more economical for these multi-cored CPU vendors to share the FPU across all the cores and/or share the external cache across all the cores, and many of them do. The UltraSPARC-T2 (the upcoming replacement for the -T1) will give each core its own FPU.
 
  • #39
how do you pronounce "x86"? Do you say the 'x' like
"ex-eighty six" or what?
 

Similar threads

The Most Hated PC CPU
Replies
40
Views
4K
Interest in post comparing nVidia CUDA code vs. Intel AVX-512 code?
Replies
11
Views
4K
Which CPU is Better for Gaming and CAD Software: Intel or AMD?
Replies
18
Views
5K
Upgading From AMD to Intel, Motherboard Keeps beeping.
Replies
5
Views
4K
Operating the SMD FX4100 in Win XP - processor speed question
Replies
2
Views
3K
Requesting suggestions for languages, libraries, and architectures for parallel (and sometimes non parallel) numerical and scientific computations
Replies
8
Views
4K
CPU differences: quad core, dual core, etc. for CFD
Replies
3
Views
15K
  • Poll Poll
Laptop for a Physics major: Lenovo vs. Mac vs. Acer
Replies
14
Views
12K
Comparing two computers I need your opinion
Replies
1
Views
4K
Chipset / Compatible Processor Question
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top