AMD vs. Intel Processor Discussion
As much as I'd like to support AMD/ATi, I'd choose Intel over AMD and nVidia over ATi when I'd buy myself a new computer. I'm on a AMD Athlon 2400+ here and I'm absolutely happy with it. And honestly, I could live with the fact that performance-wise none of the AMD CPUs is on par with their Intel counterpart. But I can not understand why they are consuming so much more power then compared to the Intel CPUs. And that's an important point for me to consider! Therefore, why should I choose a AMD system when I can get a Intel system for almost the same price that offers me way more performance but is less power consuming at the same time!
And talking about graphic cards, well, I got a nVidia card when I had to buy a new one because I had so much trouble with my ATi card back then. I never had a problem since then and I'm very happy with the nVidia card. Therefore, I'd go for nVidia again. The only graphic card that sounds interesting to me is the new Radeon HD 4850. But then again, thinking about Radeon and ATi drivers brings up bad memories.
That cannot be more incorrect. Intel CPUs are a lot more expensive than AMD CPUs, they use a lot more power than AMD cpus, and are only 10-20% faster. Go look at some benchmarks before you start talking rubbish.
Originally Posted by Janusz11
This is very common. ATi drivers never ever worked, Windows, Linux you name it, it just never worked. Even today I got to do some black magic to install the driver's on my laptop.
Originally Posted by Janusz11
However, with all the hardware specs that AMD has given out to the community, I am willing to give ATi a try. Would be my first ATi purchase, so i'm pretty anxious. I want a 4870X2.
First of all: calm down and watch your tone!
Second: I've checked a couple of benchmarks and have yet to see one where a PhenomX4 9850 beats a Intel CPU of the same calibre. But maybe you can point me to two or three tests that show just that. And while we're on it, please point me also to a couple of tests that show that AMD CPUs consume less power than Intel CPUs of the same range. Because the tests I've seen have shown exactly the opposite.
And yes, compared to AMD Intel's hardware is traditionally more expensive. But I can get a Intel Core2 Duo E8400 for less the price of a PhenomX4 9850- and still the E8400 manages to blow the PhenomX4 out of the water performance-wise when it comes for example to games. This may be because the E8400 has a little more power under the hood (3.0GHz) and there isn't that much software out yet that supports more than two (or even one) CPUs. But nevertheless, from all the test I've seen Intel is the better choice right now when it comes to performance, power consumption and temperature.
Fact is I have other priorities than only the lowest price. And I'm also willing to pay more if I get more for that extra money.
Last edited by Janusz11; 06-21-2008 at 06:45 PM.
haha, even a 3.2ghz core 2 quad yorkfield cannot outperform a phenom 9850 in stuff like openssl :P
in other stuff however, such as compression, core2 beats the amd sooo badly.
Just a couple of quick points. In many games a fast dual-core will beat even a somewhat more expensive quad-core, whether you are comparing Intel to AMD, Intel to Intel or AMD to AMD. We still sell a lot of fast (and less expensive) dual-core CPUs for the same reason. A lot of games still do most of their work in a single thread so the main determinant of performance is core speed, not number of cores. Quad core CPUs tend to have slower core speeds than their dual-core counterparts but are still much faster when the app actually uses all the cores.
re: power consumption, my understanding is that it depends on what you measure, since current Intel CPUs have the (power hungry) memory controller in a separate chip while we have it on the CPU. If you just measure "CPU" power consumption the Intel parts look lower, but if you measure "full system" consumption then the AMD parts tend to draw lower power.
There are so many core/speed/power combinations that it's pretty easy to prove anything with a bit of effort
Yes, dual core is for gamers a good choice, if you do lots of compiling then you might prefer a quad. I would not say that Intel CPUs are more expensive than AMD ones with similar performance, what really is more expensive are the board, especially when you always want to buy the lastest chips like Intel P45. P35 would still be enough (it basically only lacks PCI-E 2.0 support). The cheaper ATI boards still use SB600 which has very low USB speed compared to Intel chipsets. Also I would say you can OC Intel CPUs much better than AMD ones, if you want to squeeze out the max of it. If you don't need max performance and you don't want to OC it should not really matter what you buy, but when you really want a fast and feature complete gfx card then hands away from ATI. I would not buy it for 2 reasons: a) the free driver can not handle 3d yet and even when it does it will be enough for compiz but not for gaming, b) fglrx is compared to nvidia really much worse. Especially when you own a CRT and want to use custom res (which is very unlikely that this will work) and it has also app compatibility problems like games not running with wine which work flawlessly with nvidia or invisible gfx like pointsprites (ok thats rarely needed for games).
Phenom is better than people give it credit for, but it seems like nothing in AMD's lineup directly competes with Wolfdale. Still, Socket 775 is on the way out, so it doesn't make much sense for me. I like that Nehalem will have an integrated memory controller, but rumor has it that it will be DDR3-only, which seems risky at best (feels reminiscent of Pentium 4 and Rambus). Here's to hoping that Deneb is solid...
Interesting point, although I'm pretty sure that the tests (one of them was on Tom's Hardware) were measuring the overall system load and not only the CPU power consumption. I was just referring to the latter only in my last two posts because I think that's where pretty much everything starts. Also, I was under the impression that the 45nm technology is one of the positive factors in this respect. But then again, interesting information and thanks for pointing it out. I will keep this in mind for my future orientation. I totally agree, power consumption depends on so many factors.
Originally Posted by bridgman
This really is an important factor for me to consider. As I've already said, I can live with a comparable lower performing system, I'm not a serious gamer anymore. There are more factors that matter to me now than only the best FPS figures. And yeah, I know, dual core CPUs (Intel and AMD alike) still have some "advantages" over quad core CPUs because there ain't so many applications yet that really take advantage of the multi-core structure. Therefore a dual core CPU is good enough for me right now, its not like that I compile stuff and encode audio every day. But then I don't want my power supplier ask me if I want them building a nuclear power station just for me next to my house! ;-)
if the free driver performance estimate of 80-90% performance holds true, then it very much WILL work for gaming..
Originally Posted by Kano
That must be a bad joke you have fallen into i guess, because even the best current oss drivers are not feature complete. Like in most cases GLSL is not supported which is for example a requirement when you want to play Zero Ballistics. Maybe you can play some opensource engine games - as they are usually based on 5-10 year old Quake engines which can be played even with the cheapest card (Quake 1 even runs fast enough with Software rendering if needed!).