AMD vs Intel

[kassler]

Thank you, finally something that explains what the fcuk you're talking about.

I haven't read the whole thing but it seems there might be something to what you are saying. But I still think it's a minor deal since most people don't seem to notice. Some of the points in that thread only applies to C2Q and not C2D. Also it seems to affect mostly gamers and not all of them at that.

here is more:
http://abinstein.blogspot.com/2007/08/n ... ry-is.html
http://abinstein.blogspot.com/2008/04/t ... core2.html

[ryboto]

here is more:
http://abinstein.blogspot.com/2007/08/n ... ry-is.html
http://abinstein.blogspot.com/2008/04/t ... core2.html

Great, I'd already read through the thread, and that blog, but still, right now, Intel has the edge. Maybe in the future, when software needs bandwidth and more cores, we'll see the architectural advantage swap sides. Then again, Intel is moving to an IMC also.

[andyb]

Ignoring Kasslers seriously misguided thought pattern for a minute, no-one has pointed out that the end users original post was comparing two systems at quite different price points, which in essence is rather unfair.

The cost difference between those 2 systems is $90, which is enough to kit the PC out with 2GB of DDR-2 800 RAM, pay for the shipping and still be able to go down the pub for a few flavourless pints of gnats piss.

Better still would be the performance difference, the AMD system would flatten the Intel system, as the Intel system wouldnt have any RAM


Andy

[kassler]

Here is one processor test that show how AMD performs better when the resolution gets higher or the game is more I/O intensive.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/

That test is done with 8800GT. Faster cards will have more dramatic effects in favor of AMD.

[Erssa]

Here is one processor test that show how AMD performs better when the resolution gets higher or the game is more I/O intensive.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/

That test is done with 8800GT. Faster cards will have more dramatic effects in favor of AMD.

It's exactly the opposite. With higher resolution games get gpu limited, so AMD is able to catch up Intel here, because it has some architectural advantages. Throw in faster GPU(s) and you see Intel going ahead.

Phenom is a disaster, not only is it slow, it's really hot. Netburst all over again. I build my new computer couple of weeks ago, and I didn't give Phenom even the slightest thought. I bought x2 4850e, because it was cheap. Anything more expensive worth buying is named Intel. There's really no point in buying Phenom 9600, when you can get E8400 (or Q6600) for less.

It always surprises me how much fanboyism can effect people...

[austinbike]

AMD is then completely unprepared for an 80 core CPU that intel has had in the works for almost 2 years now.

AMD is unprepared? HOW ABOUT THE WORLD IS UNPREPARED???

80 cores is a neat science project, but let's be real, software today can barely take advantage of quad core. I have a quad core in my desktop and a dual in my notebook. My dual rarely has both cores engaged heavily at any one time and my quad only does that when I am transcoding video from tivo.

The reality is that software is going to be the bottleneck on this issue. An 80 core proc only makes sense if your OS can navigate doing 80 things at once. Job scheduling becomes the bottleneck.

Here's the experiment: Take your kid to the grocery store. You can keep an eye on them. Take their friend too. You can keep an eye on both of them. Now, invite their whole 2nd grade class. 20 7-year olds running through the store creating havoc.

Even with servers the OS's have a LONG way to go in being that threaded. Enterprise software does not churn out new revs and new features every six months, they go for stability. Most of the apps in production today were written when 4 single core procs were the state of the art for high end scaling. They do great on 4 threads, do well on 8 threads and don't scale as well on 16 threads. The big database, ERP, e-commerce, web hosting and back-end apps can do well up to 16 threads, but look at the market and you see 8-way servers being only a very small slice of the market.

Remember that as you increase core count you end up decreasing clock speed to fit in the same TDP. So an 80 core proc isn't going to run at 4GHz, it will probably not have "giga" in the title.

Software efficiency has a long way to go before it is ready for a platform like that.

[kassler]

Here is one processor test that show how AMD performs better when the resolution gets higher or the game is more I/O intensive.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/

That test is done with 8800GT. Faster cards will have more dramatic effects in favor of AMD.

It's exactly the opposite. With higher resolution games get gpu limited, so AMD is able to catch up Intel here, because it has some architectural advantages. Throw in faster GPU(s) and you see Intel going ahead.

No!

How do you explain that a slower processor (as you can se that test has one that is OC) will increase the lead when resolution goes up?
You are right that if the GPU is to slow that will be the most limiting factor. You can se that effect on the crysis test. 1680x1050 the AMD pulls ahead. But the score is evened out at 1920x1200. If the GPU was faster, then AMD would have increased the lead even more at 1920x1200

[Erssa]

Here is one processor test that show how AMD performs better when the resolution gets higher or the game is more I/O intensive.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/

That test is done with 8800GT. Faster cards will have more dramatic effects in favor of AMD.

It's exactly the opposite. With higher resolution games get gpu limited, so AMD is able to catch up Intel here, because it has some architectural advantages. Throw in faster GPU(s) and you see Intel going ahead.

No!

How do you explain that a slower processor (as you can se that test has one that is OC) will increase the lead when resolution goes up?
You are right that if the GPU is to slow that will be the most limiting factor. You can se that effect on the crysis test. 1680x1050 the AMD pulls ahead. But the score is evened out at 1920x1200. If the GPU was faster, then AMD would have increased the lead even more at 1920x1200

If what you say is true, everyone would be talking about it. AMD would be screaming their lungs out, how they have the fastest high res gaming platform. However, it seems to be the best kept secret in the IT world, only revealed to small number of fanboys (no offense).

[kassler]

If what you say is true, everyone would be talking about it. AMD would be screaming their lungs out, how they have the fastest high res gaming platform. However, it seems to be the best kept secret in the IT world, only revealed to small number of fanboys (no offense).

Try to find one more test like that and you will se same pattern. But you will have very hard to find that type of test. You can find a lot of I/O performance test on servers.
Also, GPU's hasn't been that fast so there hasn’t been any big problem. The only card that may have been able to saturate the FSB was the nVidia 8800 GTX but the effect was probably not that big. Also games haven’t been developed for just using the fastest computers.
But there has happened a lot just this year on the GPU market and now the I/O might be something that will limit performance.

[Erssa]

Try to find one more test like that and you will se same pattern. But you will have very hard to find that type of test. You can find a lot of I/O performance test on servers. Also, GPU's hasn't been that fast so there hasn’t been any big problem. The only card that may have been able to saturate the FSB was the nVidia 8800 GTX but the effect was probably not that big. Also games haven’t been developed for just using the fastest computers.
But there has happened a lot just this year on the GPU market and now the I/O might be something that will limit performance.

In other words, there's nothing to back up what you suggest. Server benchmarks tell nothing about desktop performance. 8800GT used in the test is a slow by modern standards. We need at least 9800 GX2 to get serious tests. Preferably SLI or Crossfire configurations.

Real world test would have HD4870 Crossfire on X48 platform and overclocked Intel Quad compared to Overclocked Phenom 9850 on 790FX platform. I could pretty much guarantee AMD won't have bigger numbers in any benchmark except for power consumption and noise.

Like I said, if what you said is true, AMDs PR department, enthusiasts and hardware sites would be all over it. But as things are, Phenom still can't touch Intel except in servers (technically not Phenom, but Barcelona). It doesn't suck that bad at gaming, but it consumes more power and loses at pretty much everything. Besides servers, AMD is only viable in the low end budget field where it's still very viable choice.

Which would give me a better noise to performance ratio?

AMD Mobo
AMD Proc

Intel Mobo
Intel Proc

I'm finally going to answer this. Both have same noise. Intel has better performance, but AMD has better value.

[kassler]

In other words, there's nothing to back up what you suggest.

There isn't a secret that AMD has much better I/O performance.
There isn't a secret that other traffic apart from memory transfers degrade FSB speed because it isn’t as effective to handle that type of “crossfireâ€

[Vicotnik]

What is you explanation that a processor with less cache en lower clockspeed wins over a processor with higher clockspeed and more cache?

Easy. Since the CPUs are so different they excel at different tasks. That the Phenom is better in some cases is to be expected. However, if C2D/C2Q is better in most cases, and in the cases that matters most to me (to most people really) then Phenom is still not the CPU to buy. Today.

If, in the future the things that Phenom does better start to matter more, that conclusion may change. But today C2D/C2Q is the champ. No sane person buys computer hardware "for the future" or "for what might come".

Do you agree that the C2D/C2Q is better than the Phenom in most cases?

You don't need to overcklock a phenom. You need to overclock Intel to get extra FSB speed. It is the FSB that are the bottleneck

Bottleneck when it comes to bandwidth - yes. Bottleneck when it comes to performance - no, except in a few rare cases. That is why Phenom is beaten in the vast majority of tests.

[kassler]

What is you explanation that a processor with less cache en lower clockspeed wins over a processor with higher clockspeed and more cache?

Easy. Since the CPUs are so different they excel at different tasks.

And in this case it could be that AMD has better I/O performance? That is vital for fast GPU cards
Or what do you think?

If you are a gamer and buy fast GPU, then AMD is a better choise

[Vicotnik]

And in this case it could be that AMD has better I/O performance? That is vital for fast GPU cards
Or what do you think?

If you are a gamer and buy fast GPU, then AMD is a better choise

No, I don't agree with that conclusion. For Phenom to be the better choice the few cases where Phenom performs better must matter a lot. And things like power consumption must not matter at all.
I'm sure there are a few gamers like that, but I don't think they represent the majority of gamers, much less the majority of computer users in general and most certainly not the average SPCR reader.

[kassler]

And in this case it could be that AMD has better I/O performance? That is vital for fast GPU cards
Or what do you think?

If you are a gamer and buy fast GPU, then AMD is a better choise

No, I don't agree with that conclusion. For Phenom to be the better choice the few cases where Phenom performs better must matter a lot. And things like power consumption must not matter at all.
I'm sure there are a few gamers like that, but I don't think they represent the majority of gamers, much less the majority of computer users in general and most certainly not the average SPCR reader.

The motherboard on intel use more power. Also you don't need a phenom 9850 BE. One 9550 will do just fine. It has a lot of I/O to. The important thing is that gpu won't limited by slow FSB. Overclocking the motherboard will use more power.
I have a 9500 with a HD3850 and it is using about 90 watts idle.

[Vicotnik]

90W is not that impressive. And at load the difference will be even greater.

Looking at the OCC Crysis test that you linked to, the Phenom is only the clear winner at one resolution. At low resolutions C2Q is in the lead, and at the very highest the GPU becomes the bottleneck causing all CPUs to perform about the same. Only at a certain sweetspot is Phenom faster than C2Q.
And at other non-gaming tasks the Phenom is usually outperformed by the alternatives from Intel by quite a lot. Even if Phenom was better than C2D/C2Q in all gaming situations, I would still not recommend it since most people don't use their computer exclusively for gaming. For games the GPU has a far greater impact on performance anyway, and is more likely than the CPU to be the bottleneck.

In my opinion Phenom is a pricey CPU with moderate performance and high power consumption.

[Erssa]

Looking at the OCC Crysis test that you linked to, the Phenom is only the clear winner at one resolution.

And even then the framerate is unplayable 22fps.

[kassler]

Looking at the OCC Crysis test that you linked to, the Phenom is only the clear winner at one resolution.

it is a winner if you go higher and need the performance.

Buying a quad for the average computer user is pretty stupid.

[Vicotnik]

it is a winner if you go higher and need the performance.

Unless the GPU is stopping it, which seems to be the case most of the time. But like I said; even if Phenom is gods gift to man in gaming situations, it's still a pretty crappy CPU imho.

Buying a quad for the average computer user is pretty stupid.

On that we agree.

[kassler]

it is a winner if you go higher and need the performance.

Unless the GPU is stopping it, which seems to be the case most of the time. But like I said; even if Phenom is gods gift to man in gaming situations, it's still a pretty crappy CPU imho.

Remember that you can underclock one amd and keep responsiveness and performance. This is not possible with intel because it is vital that the FSB runs fast.

[jaganath]

Remember that you can underclock one amd and keep responsiveness and performance. This is not possible with intel because it is vital that the FSB runs fast.

sorry, this is patently untrue. they can both be undervolted and underclocked (using RMClock or BIOS), and the intel has better performance per CPU cycle and per watt.

these AMD vs Intel threads seldom achieve anything constructive, with fanboys on both sides. most people acknowledge that outside of the budget segment AMD is not currently a competitive option.

[kassler]

Remember that you can underclock one amd and keep responsiveness and performance. This is not possible with intel because it is vital that the FSB runs fast.

sorry, this is patently untrue. they can both be undervolted and underclocked (using RMClock or BIOS), and the intel has better performance per CPU cycle and per watt.

If you are referring to those tests that measure fps on low resolutions, how fast one lengthy rendering will be done etc. then you are right. But these types of operations are seldom done and when they are done the user can work with other tasks or take a coffe brake. If you are doing something that takes 15 or 18 minutes, that isn’t so important because it so long time that it isn't a problem to do something else during the time when the computer works.

What I am talking about is how the computer feels, how smooth it is running and how fast it responds when you start applications, surfing etc. Running one single application as fast as possible then there is no brainer, intel wins! I know those who thinks that a AMD X2 4000+ is faster than one C2Q 6600 just because the AMD responds faster. Intel has a 5+ year old solution communicating with other hardware on the motherboard that is slowing down the processor.

Intel quads actually respond slower than their dual cousins.

[accord1999]

What I am talking about is how the computer feels, how smooth it is running and how fast it responds when you start applications, surfing etc.

Human perception is unreliable. Quantifiable measurements show Intel to be faster nearly across the board.

Running one single application as fast as possible then there is no brainer, intel wins! I know those who thinks that a AMD X2 4000+ is faster than one C2Q 6600 just because the AMD responds faster.

There are people who think expensive power cables improves their music quality too.

Intel quads actually respond slower than their dual cousins.

Phenom does too with its slower memory controller and slow L3 cache.

[kassler]

Phenom does too with its slower memory controller and slow L3 cache.

Nonono!

The first response isn't dependent of the cache, it is how fast memory travels to the cache and there are often initialization code done when one application start. This type of code is just executed and then it isn’t used anymore. The cache is not that important when applications starts.
I think you have heard before (if you read about computers etc) that applications use 10% of the code 90% of the time. This of course depends on the applications but it gives some hints on how applications behave.
Phenom has done a lot of things to improve the latency using external memory and it responds faster then Intel and the older AMD processors.
Also the phenom has one L2 cache for each core that is on 512 kb.