Processor comparison (Intel v. AMD)

OK, so I am talking with my friends about hardware and I'm a little lost with these confangled new processors. Namely the AMD Athlon and the Intel Duo.

The AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 (with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology) and the Intel Core Duo Processor T2600 to be precise.

Now, from my understanding, isn't AMD putting two chips into one? Whereas Intel is using two physical chips?

Does this seriously affect performance that much, or is it not noticeable?

And price aside, which is "better" (irrelevant to company preference ;))?

Intel core duo is one cpu but 2 cores.

From my understanding Intel is leading the laptop market with their energy efficient dual core processors (intel core duo) and AMD is leading the desktop market with their dual core processors. Though this may change when Intel releases their core 2 extreme edition of processors set to release 3rd quarter of this year... Only time will tell.

Does this dual core technology boost performance compared to single core? Yes definitely.

Which company is better with dual core processors? As of now I think that depends if your looking for a laptop or desktop...

The different companies have produced processors which are better are some functions than the other.

I can understand why you are lost right now the array of processors out there is bewildering. Intel in particular has a naming scheme which is simply put, "Shite". I don't know if it is deliberately confusing or the marketing guy is a tosser but it is bad.

BUT really when you get down to it all the processors are very powerful right now and it is hard to split them. I think you'll need to do a lot of readng and review hunting to get your own opinion sorted out and that will depend very much on what you will be using the machine for.

Well, actually for desktop CPU's AMD's Athlon x2 line pretty much destroyed Intel's Pentium D line... which is probably why Intel is in such a hurry to release their core 2 extreme line...

Hi The Duck , I guess I still have that feeling that hardware has advanced beyond software still...............what do you think?

I honestly don't know what to advise these days unless it is for business or extreme gaming (spend everything you can afford, and then some)

There are people round here quite happily running their businesses on Office 97 and PIII's :eek:

Difficult times old chap?

Quote:

---

Which company is better with dual core processors? As of now I think that depends if your looking for a laptop or desktop...

---

Maybe I'm a little naive, but does it matter whether it's a laptop or a desktop?

Intuitively this makes sense since if one company were better at one, it should be reasonable that it is good at the other...but this can also be very very wrong (I s'pose).

But doesn't that make sense: if a processor company does well with laptops (a smaller processor), then it should logically do even better with desktops (with more space for larger processors)?

Quote:

---

Maybe I'm a little naive, but does it matter whether it's a laptop or a desktop?

---

Yes it does, but probably not the way you at first think. There is really no significant size difference between a laptop and desktop processor. The actual processor is a relatively (to overall dimensions) small component anyway.

The real issue is that a laptop needs to be small and lightweight whereas this doesn't matter so much with a desktop.

Now, a fast processor generates a lot of heat, and I don't have much space in a laptop for a heatsink and fans. To give you an idea I have just done a comparison on my bench between a Coolermaster heatsink and fan, and a Toshiba laptop. The Coolermaster is TWICE the height of the Toshiba.

It is thus important to try to reduce the heat generated in a laptop, and this is reflected in the chip design........and in its price . This is not so important in a desktop where the increased design and manufacturing costs would be far greater than the additional cooling.

Another factor to bear in mind is that laptops are designed to run off batteries, so energy consumption is an issue that does not really apply to desktops.

So, laptop components are designed with size, weight, heat and electrical consumption factors in mind. I suppose you could say the same about complete machines. The best laptop may not be made by the same people who make the best desktops, who may again be different from those making the best servers.

Please bear in mind that this is highly competitive, so manufacturers leapfrog eachother over time.

;)

Quote:

---

Hi The Duck , I guess I still have that feeling that hardware has advanced beyond software still...............what do you think?

---

That is still true today but not so much as it was years ago, especially in the graphics card sector...

Quote:

---

There are people round here quite happily running their businesses on Office 97 and PIII's

---

Yes, if your computer is for business, then there's no need for a dual core processor and a 500 dollar video card :p.

I'm running into the same confusion on this issue. My girlfriend and I are both looking for laptops, but for different things. I'm after an Athlon 64 processor in mine for gaming, but I don't know if she would necessarily want the same... I'm looking at Intel duo chips for her, but I'm open to suggestions. Also, where does the Turion 64 come into play? Is it decent?

Seeing as how games have yet to be created in 64bit I don't see the urgent need to get a 64bit cpu...


Are you both getting different laptops or are you sharing one? If you guys are both getting your own then what's the problem?

Turion 64's are competing with Intel's centrino cpu's for laptops. They are basically a repackaged athlon 64 with some minor changes like the on die memory controller to save power, hence making it more mobile. And the fact that the Turion will be available to many different chipsets will make it cheaper then centrino cpu's most of the time. Centrino's need an Intel chipset hence making centrino's more expensive...

So yes, it's a good cpu and AMD beat Intel to 64 bit CPU's for laptop's but in the grand cheme of things AMD is still playing catch up to Intel on the laptop front... Intel is going to release their core 2 duo line this summer... or so they say. This line of CPU's will have 64 bit + dual core and be able to process 4 instructions per clock cycle... but now I'm just rambling...

Hi keezel

This sort of relates to the comments TheDuck and I were having about the relative development stages of hardware and software.

A 64 bit dual core is faster than a 32 bit single core, but there isn't much that really takes full advantage of the technology.

I guess you need to ask yourself when you are going to go to Vista, and, more importantly, what flavour of Vista? If your answer is "sooner" rather than "later" then you need to buy with that in mind.

You would really need to look at the detailed requirements of the types of games you like to play.

There are four basic factors:

1. RAM quantity and speed
2. Video card (particularly frame rate)
3. Processor
4. Screen

Some games are more memory intensive, whilst others are video intensive. In this respect also bear in mind that RAM is an easy upgrade whilst the video is not, as you will be left with an old card with little second user value.

I read a review a few months back (in a magazine) that compared various options for gaming. Their conclusion was that the processor was the least significant factor in performance once you had crossed the threshold level for the particular game ( that's the "recommended" not the "minimum" :)).

Also, don't forget the screen and screen resolution/refresh. A good video card is a waste of money unless you have a display that supports it.

The problem with laptops is that the screen is a limiting factor, particularly as they tend to have an optimum setting. This will tend to be reflected in the video card options you are offered.

I guess that when it comes to gaming, laptops still have a way to go to match desktop equipment that is available.

;)

And to add to nihil's monitor comments... When gaming with an LCD make sure the response time is no more then 12ms. I'd say 8ms is prefered though. Refresh rate means nothing if your LCD reponse time is 20ms...

I'd also say the FSB is a major factor in high performance systems. On a well balanced high end system, the FSB is the only real bottleneck...

Quote:

---

Does this seriously affect performance that much, or is it not noticeable?

---

Yes, it definatly effects performance.
I'm running an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ which has a clock speed of 2 GHz (not as fast as many processors out there) and I have noted a big difference in performance, particularly with multitasking. I am able to perform heavy load operations (ie resizing 100's of pics or video encoding) and the overall performance of the machine is effected very little.
So, if you use heavy applications or many applications at once, dual core is definatly a big help.

Quote:

---

And price aside, which is "better" (irrelevant to company preference )?

---

Like others have said, it mainly depends on your requirements - it seems that Intel are better for laptops and AMD are better for desktops. I have something to add to this however - it is not just a choice of "do I want a laptop or a desktop", it also depends on what applications you will mainly be using. I believe in some cases for pure video encoding Intel tend to come out slightly ahead?

On an additional note - I have noticed that some software (usualy games) do not like using 2 cores AT ALL and simply freezes at some point. With these I have found that just limiting the program to a single core tends to sort things out.

In any case - judging by the majority of literature I have read that the AMD CPUs are the better choice for desktops, particularly when price IS taken into consideration (and I expect that there are very few people who can choose to ignore price).


omin

Actually omin you have raised some of issues that I had missed.

1. I think that we agree that a dual core processor will outperform a single core one, provided that you have the workload/application requirements that need it.

2. As for the difference between laptops and desktops, no-one has mentioned the power supply? I was fixing one with an Intel 3.2Ghz the other day, and noticed that it was running at 1.8Ghz. This is part of the powersaving regime, and I was running it off the battery rather than mains supply.

3. We have already mentioned that 64 bit is rather a waste if you only have 32 bit applications, but can be justified in some scenarios, generally because of the dual core.

4. The OP actually mentioned twin processors as well a dual core. To effectively make use of multiple processors you really do need applications that are designed to take advantage of them.

I must admit that I have never heard of multiple processors causing a problem (unlike dual cores) but if your software doesn't understand them, you will have a lot of redundant resource (read "wasted money")

Other points to consider: (I am arguing "balance" here)

1. RAM type and speed
2. Video capabilities
3. L1 & L2 cache size. Generally the bigger the cache, the more powerful the processor, as opposed to raw clockspeed. I am sure that some will remember the old PIII Xeons that would walk all over a P4...........but they did cost £3,250 a pop :eek:

What I am trying to propose that a single component should not be an issue when you are considering a complete system. Rather think of balance, future proofing and upgradability.

EDIT:

I forgot to say that in an ideal situation the usage requirement should dictate the performance requirement, which will dictate the price...........another one of those "eternal balancing triangles"

Here is a new acronym: WYPFIWYG "What You Pay For Is What You Get"

:cool:

Hmm... Dual core cpu's definitely increase multi tasking performance but regardless of what people say, in order for applications to take full advantage of dual core cpu's they need to be developed with dual core in mind. This is the reason why the performance of games have not increased much with dual core... Or most applications for that matter unless your multi tasking...