- #31
Smurf
- 441
- 3
Well, In steve's defence I'm hardly representative of this forum. I'm not even a science major.
Comparing AMD and Intel Processors - Steve's Experience
- Thread starter Stevedye56
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Experience
Click For Summary
SUMMARY
The discussion centers on the comparison between AMD and Intel processors, highlighting user experiences and preferences. Steve expresses satisfaction with his AMD X2 processor, while others note the superiority of Intel's Core 2 Duo models. The conversation also touches on the proprietary nature of the x86 architecture, with mentions of alternative architectures like SPARC and PowerPC. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards Intel's current dominance in performance, despite some users advocating for the benefits of AMD and open architectures.
PREREQUISITES- Understanding of processor architectures, specifically x86, SPARC, and PowerPC.
- Familiarity with CPU performance metrics such as clock speed (GHz) and cache size (L2).
- Knowledge of computer building and hardware components.
- Awareness of the implications of proprietary versus open architectures in computing.
- Research AMD Ryzen architecture and its performance compared to Intel Core processors.
- Explore the specifications and advantages of SPARC and PowerPC architectures.
- Learn about the implications of proprietary architectures in software development.
- Investigate the latest benchmarks for AMD and Intel processors to understand current performance trends.
Computer enthusiasts, hardware builders, software developers, and anyone interested in understanding the differences between AMD and Intel processors, as well as the implications of using proprietary versus open architectures.
- #32
Stevedye56
- 402
- 0
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.
/rant
lol.
- #33
Smurf
- 441
- 3
So.. where would I get a RISC chipset, or a RISC-compatible computer?
- #34
Stevedye56
- 402
- 0
Smurf said:
I found a few after doing some Google Product searches and Ebay searches.
- #35
Stevedye56
- 402
- 0
Or in a Nintendo 64 
- #36
graphic7
Gold Member
- 450
- 2
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.
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 $30,000.
Last edited:
- #37
Anttech
- 233
- 0
And what's even more interesting (paradox) is what is inside the Xbox 360 (built by M$) and it aint x86
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Central_processing_unit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Central_processing_unit
- #38
graphic7
Gold Member
- 450
- 2
Anttech said:
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
Smurf
- 441
- 3
how do you pronounce "x86"? Do you say the 'x' like
"ex-eighty six" or what?
"ex-eighty six" or what?