Intel Vs. Amd
#1
Posted 17 April 2005 - 07:42 PM
#2
Posted 17 April 2005 - 08:32 PM
#3
Posted 17 April 2005 - 09:00 PM
While it has a slower clock speed (GHz), the AMD processors work more efficiently per cycle, which is how they can match and surpass Intel processors clocked at over 1GHz faster. For this reason they have gained alot of respect in the PC enthusiast community. Plus, until last month, AMD made the only consumer-level 64-bit processors (the Athlon64 line), which gave them a leg up in most benchmarks, applications, and games. However, Intel has been rapidly closing the performance gap with the release of their own 64-bit parts.
Both companies are now on the verge of launching their dual-core processors, which means there are two CPUs built into every processor. This allows computers to multi-task better (run two applications at the same time). With dual-core processors, when one application crashes it shouldn't take down the whole computer with it, because the other core will take over responsibilty for the operating system and other applications while the first core deals with the crashing program.
So basically it's a constant race for performance between the two companies. Check out sites like PcWorld.com and TomsHardware.com to learn more.
#4
Posted 18 April 2005 - 11:51 AM
But don't be fooled of the GHz, GHz indicates just who fast the CPU works, not what it does. Let's say there is to cares who races against each other, one car i faster then the other, but the slowest car wins, because it drives the swings best.
Why 64 bit is better is hard to explain, because in most cases 32 bits is better.. In the 64 athlon serie they use both 32 and 64 bit. Don't think it is hard to make a 64 bits CPU, it is possible to make 256 bits CPUs. So don't think a 64 bits CPU is twice as god as a 32 bits CPU.
To make a complicated matter easy, a 64bits CPU can make you have more RAM and deal with bigger calculation faster.
PS: Just the fist paragraph was devoted to Max, the rest was just some simple explenations.
#5
Posted 18 April 2005 - 04:15 PM
Intel CPU's are notoriously better at encoding audio and video, which is why it is the choice of audio companies and some video studios.
Your car analogy isn't really the best. It's more like comparing two human sprinters: one is short (Intel) and can do many more strides per second than his taller opponent (AMD). However, the taller runner can take longer strides, so he goes further per stride. So much further, in fact, that the short runner cannot compensate by doing more strides per second.
64-bit is better simply because there are more registers on the CPU. x86 CPUs, which are the kind used by Windows computers, normally have 8 registers, but x86-64 CPUs have over 8 more registers. For the uninitiated, registers are a form of memory (like RAM, except only single bytes in size (256MB compared to 0.001 MB)) that resides on the CPU itself and is very, very, very, very fast. It is what the CPU uses to hold the data when it is performing calculations.
Any other questions?
#6
Posted 19 April 2005 - 07:02 AM
First of all, as I've said in my previous post, a 64 bit CPU, is NOT twice as good as a 32 bits CPU. A 64 bits CPU has it good sides and bade sides. It all has to do with the machine code, you know like.(01010010011010101010010101010100)
In 64 bit you use 64 zeros and ones, in 32 bit you use 32 zeros and ones. So in 32 it is 32^2 = 4294967296-1 minus one because only 0 counts as a number.
So lets say that a 32 bits CPU have to add 561 and 10687 will it look like this:
00000000000000000000001000110001 (= 561)
+ 00000000000000000010100110111111 (= 10687)
= 00000000000000000010101111110000 (= 11248)
With a 64 bits CPU it would look like this:
000000000000000000000000000000000000000-
0000000000000001000110001 (= 561)
+ 000000000000000000000000000000000000000-
0000000000010100110111111 (= 10687)
= 000000000000000000000000000000000000000-
0000000000010101111110000 (= 11248)
64^2 = 18446744073709551616-1. In other words it's 18,4 peta.
So a 64 bits CPU can handle 4,3 billion times bigger numbers then a 32 bit. But the machine code is just twice as long.
It's not like a 32 CPU can't do high calculations, it just have to take more then 1 operation.
But in this example it is best with a 32 bit CPU.
So it's not like Intel couldn't make a 64 bit CPU, it's just that it would be useless.
#7
Posted 19 April 2005 - 05:32 PM
#8
Posted 19 April 2005 - 10:48 PM
Right now, I respect both, the newest processors Extreme Edition and FX tend to overheat a lot, that's why you must get a water based fan for your processor, basically the battle between those latest processors is quite tight, AMD processors are faster without needing too much GHz, Intel processors tend to overheat more than AMD. It's quite difficult to choose, but I'd choose AMD, with time I've learned that AMD products last longer than Intel's.
#9
Posted 20 April 2005 - 08:31 AM
Andross, on Apr 19 2005, 11:32 PM, said:
It is correct what you say, but a 32 bits CPU is still better at most games then a 64 bits. You can use a 32 bits CPU to much more then word processing, and still be better effective then a 64 bit CPU.
<!-- Not to Andross -->
But as you see in my example a 64 bits CPU need twice as much cache/RAM then a 32 bits CPU. What is good with AMD is the Cool'n' quite function. You might think that it lowers the "stats". And yes you are right it does, but only when you don't need to be full clocked, it "underclocks" when you don't need so much CPU power, so the sound gets weaker. Once you need more CPU power, it adjusts to full "speed".
I am exited to see the new dual core CPUs witch Max mentioned.
#11
Posted 20 April 2005 - 07:37 PM
While it is true that 64-bit means more memory consumption, memory has become alot cheaper, and it is also being used more effectively in many games and processor intensive calculations. After several years of "loose" programming (not as much optimizations), game programmers are tending to spend a good deal of time optimizing the engines and were Assembly code to take advantage of things like the new registers in 64-bit CPUs. I think the future is looking really bright with the transition to 64-bit CPUs and dual-core CPUs.
#12
Posted 21 April 2005 - 10:18 AM
But my point was that 32 bit is to more then word processing.
#13
Posted 22 April 2005 - 06:51 PM
#14
Posted 22 April 2005 - 07:32 PM