AMD or INTEL ?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

<snip>

>
> And PC1066 RDRAM doesn't seem very fast. Luckily I avoided this era from Intel;
> the 820 chipset cos Intel ~$250M or so? Just shows that chip making isn't always
> plain sailing.

You are confusing 820 and 850? 820 was, well, amazing, but not in a
positive way, unless you really want to be impressed at just how much
Intel marketing really can cope with. 850, in its time, was the chipset
of choice for performance, and it wasn't abandoned because of a lack of
performance, AFAIK, but for reasons having to do with...marketing.

RM
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > And PC1066 RDRAM doesn't seem very fast. Luckily I avoided this era from Intel;
> > the 820 chipset cos Intel ~$250M or so? Just shows that chip making isn't always
> > plain sailing.
>
> You are confusing 820 and 850? 820 was, well, amazing, but not in a
> positive way, unless you really want to be impressed at just how much
> Intel marketing really can cope with. 850, in its time, was the chipset
> of choice for performance, and it wasn't abandoned because of a lack of
> performance, AFAIK, but for reasons having to do with...marketing.
>
> RM

I was mentioning the 820 because of the RDRAM. The faulty memory translation
chip cost Intel a fortune in replacing motherboards.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
>>Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>And PC1066 RDRAM doesn't seem very fast. Luckily I avoided this era from Intel;
>>>the 820 chipset cos Intel ~$250M or so? Just shows that chip making isn't always
>>>plain sailing.
>>
>>You are confusing 820 and 850? 820 was, well, amazing, but not in a
>>positive way, unless you really want to be impressed at just how much
>>Intel marketing really can cope with. 850, in its time, was the chipset
>>of choice for performance, and it wasn't abandoned because of a lack of
>>performance, AFAIK, but for reasons having to do with...marketing.
>>
>
> I was mentioning the 820 because of the RDRAM. The faulty memory translation
> chip cost Intel a fortune in replacing motherboards.

Intel fumbled the RDRAM era in a number of ways (probably nodded off
during Steve Ballmer's gratis seminars on how to be a 21st Century
monopolist), but I don't think the 820 fiasco sheds much light on RDRAM.

RM
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

[SNIP]

> A different way of characterizing workloads is how much work and how
> much specificity you are going to put into the code, and K7 is generally
> more friendly to nai-ve code than NetBurst. If you're willing to
> settle on Intel and to use its compilers and tools like Vtune and the
> Math Kernel Library, then you needn't always be writing code that is
> hobbled for NetBurst, but you may be writing code that is less than
> optimal for AMD.
>
> That's a prospect that doesn't please advocates of AMD. Writing and

It should because if you are tuning to a high degree it can increase
the likelihood of taking a hit everytime Intel changes the micro-
architecture (over-specialisation). Intel has announced that the end
is nigh for the NetBurst architecture too... :)

If you look at the grand scheme of things I don't think much code is
tuned to that kind of level. In essence what you're saying is that
K7/K8 is cheaper to tune, and with most software development driven
by cost to the exclusion of quality, something has to give.

NetBurst ain't all bad, Intel pitched it as excelling at multimedia
and it does just that providing the inner loops are tuned to buggery
(which they mostly are).


Cheers,
Rupert
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:32:37 GMT, Robert Myers
<rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>That's a prospect that doesn't please advocates of AMD. Writing and
>tuning for your own closed universe? AMD if you are writing nai-ve code,
>Intel maybe if you are writing code that can make good use of Intel
>productivity tools and are willing to fiddle. Writing for the world at
>large? I don't know that I've ever seen a discussion of how commercial
>developers have really dealt with not knowing whether they are writing
>for K7 or P4, but I would assume it's safer to assume you are writing
>for P4.

From what I've seen of most commercial code it's mainly a matter of
setting -02 in the compiler and praying that it doesn't break
something! :>

Seriously though, for most commercial code that is going into
widespread use the focus is on it working properly on as many
platforms as possible. This tends to avoid any architecture-specific
optimizations as they can often break your code on different setups,
not just AMD vs. Intel but even current Intel vs. next-generation
Intel. An awful lot of the world are still using PCs with PII and
PIII era processors, and optimizing for the PIII tends to be VERY
different from the P4.

There are, of course, going to be some exceptions to this rule,
particularly for really CPU-bound tasks. Some applications simply
detect what sort of processor you have and use different code paths
depending on what chip you've got. But for the most part you probably
won't see all that much in the way of processor-specific
optimizations.

This is, of course, one of the major complaints against SPEC CPU.
It's so sensitive to the compiler and optimizations used that it often
does not reflect on what you'll encounter in the real world. We've
most recently actually seen AMD and Sun use this to their advantage to
take back the lead as the fastest x86 processor for CFP2000 using the
new Pathscale and PGI compilers along with the newest version of GCC
and AMD's Math Libraries. 3 different compilers and PLENTY of
optimizations flags, but it gave them a rather impressive CFP2000
score (1637/1787 for base/peak).

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 17 Aug 2004 00:01:18 -0700, codemutant@programmer.net (Codemutant)
wrote:

>AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
>find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
>counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
>aspect.
> Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
>case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
>ill-configured??

Intel versus AMD (August 24th,2004)
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39023760,39164010,00.htm
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

AMD, I think it does better on games. Got a 2ghtz Xp 266mhz front
side bus. 512ram, 90 gig hard drive. Abit KX7-333 with raid. Abit
make some soild board. Suttle make some decent boards. Asus, I like
a P3 board i had from them. I build again istead of buy. Then i know
what componets im getting. Run Win ME. Not a big fan of xp yet

==============
Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

peppythegimp wrote:
>
> AMD, I think it does better on games. Got a 2ghtz Xp 266mhz front
> side bus. 512ram, 90 gig hard drive. Abit KX7-333 with raid. Abit
> make some soild board. Suttle make some decent boards. Asus, I like
> a P3 board i had from them. I build again istead of buy. Then i know
> what componets im getting. Run Win ME. Not a big fan of xp yet

Fewer problems when building with Intels. Just see homebuild news groups.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> peppythegimp wrote:
> >
> > AMD, I think it does better on games. Got a 2ghtz Xp 266mhz front
> > side bus. 512ram, 90 gig hard drive. Abit KX7-333 with raid. Abit
> > make some soild board. Suttle make some decent boards. Asus, I like
> > a P3 board i had from them. I build again istead of buy. Then i know
> > what componets im getting. Run Win ME. Not a big fan of xp yet
>
> Fewer problems when building with Intels. Just see homebuild news groups.

That is because only a small percentage of those building their own
computers are choosing to go with Intel.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> Fewer problems when building with Intels. Just see homebuild news
> groups.

Looking at it, right now. Don't see anything unusual about it. Right now
more people seem to be talking about SP2 than any hardware.

Yousuf Khan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:17:34 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
<johs@excaouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com> wrote:

>
>
>peppythegimp wrote:
>>
>> AMD, I think it does better on games. Got a 2ghtz Xp 266mhz front
>> side bus. 512ram, 90 gig hard drive. Abit KX7-333 with raid. Abit
>> make some soild board. Suttle make some decent boards. Asus, I like
>> a P3 board i had from them. I build again istead of buy. Then i know
>> what componets im getting. Run Win ME. Not a big fan of xp yet
>
>Fewer problems when building with Intels. Just see homebuild news groups.

Those News groups are only filled with people having problems, ever read
any of those posts, I mean there are people in there that never even
built a PC or don't have a clue what their doing!

What's so different about building with AMD or Intel anyway, you install
the OS, chipset, video, lan, audio drivers, I never had a problem, but
then again I guess know what the hell I am doing! ;p

Ed
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <4142DEC8.370A82D0@excaouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com>,
from the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
<johs@excaouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com> said
>
>
>peppythegimp wrote:
>>
>> AMD, I think it does better on games. Got a 2ghtz Xp 266mhz front
>> side bus. 512ram, 90 gig hard drive. Abit KX7-333 with raid. Abit
>> make some soild board. Suttle make some decent boards. Asus, I like
>> a P3 board i had from them. I build again istead of buy. Then i know
>> what componets im getting. Run Win ME. Not a big fan of xp yet
>
>Fewer problems when building with Intels. Just see homebuild news groups.

We had this discussion twice in the last month. 95% of home builders (at
least in the UK) have enough smarts to select AMD (based on
price/performance), so no, you won't find many Intel build issues on
homebuild newsgroups.

Just like you won't find a lot of Maserati issues on car maintenance
groups .. all those cars with problems are probably Ford, or GM or
something .. yes?

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Ed wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:17:34 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
> <johs@excaouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >peppythegimp wrote:
> >>
> >> AMD, I think it does better on games. Got a 2ghtz Xp 266mhz front
> >> side bus. 512ram, 90 gig hard drive. Abit KX7-333 with raid. Abit
> >> make some soild board. Suttle make some decent boards. Asus, I like
> >> a P3 board i had from them. I build again istead of buy. Then i know
> >> what componets im getting. Run Win ME. Not a big fan of xp yet
> >
> >Fewer problems when building with Intels. Just see homebuild news groups.
>
> Those News groups are only filled with people having problems, ever read
> any of those posts, I mean there are people in there that never even
> built a PC or don't have a clue what their doing!
>
> What's so different about building with AMD or Intel anyway, you install
> the OS, chipset, video, lan, audio drivers, I never had a problem, but
> then again I guess know what the hell I am doing! ;p

Yes, personally I think it's very simple; you just follow the manufacturer's
instructions and it usually works! Why people want to tinker with voltages
and bus speeds is beyond me.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <L5C0d.211145$pTn.32921@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
from the wonderful person Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> said
>Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>> Fewer problems when building with Intels. Just see homebuild news
>> groups.
>
>Looking at it, right now. Don't see anything unusual about it. Right now
>more people seem to be talking about SP2 than any hardware.

What are they saying in the US homebuilt groups? The UK opinion seems to
be that mostly it works (but doesn't add much for people who already
were wearing full protection. 8>.) but a few people have had horrendous
problems (and had to back it out, which strips your machine =way= back)
or lost particular devices, or whatever.

I'm sitting here with an SP2 CD that MS finally sent me (took about 2
weeks) running backups to tape, prior to tossing a coin to see whether
to try it on one PC or not.
8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>
> Bitstring <41434DE0.C5025ACE@excaouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com>,
> from the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
> <johs@excaouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com> said
> <snip>
> >Yes, personally I think it's very simple; you just follow the manufacturer's
> >instructions and it usually works! Why people want to tinker with voltages
> >and bus speeds is beyond me.
>
> For the same reason they climb Everest .. because they can (or in some
> cases, 'think they can')

And they think they know better than the manufacturers who have spent
$billions on research. Obviously, all they do is narrowing the safety
margin for system stability. Not as difficult or challenging as climbing
Everest. I wished I had gone the other way and build with registered and
ECC memory. Developing and understanding software structures is far more
interesting and challenging.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <41434DE0.C5025ACE@excaouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com>,
from the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
<johs@excaouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com> said
<snip>
>Yes, personally I think it's very simple; you just follow the manufacturer's
>instructions and it usually works! Why people want to tinker with voltages
>and bus speeds is beyond me.

For the same reason they climb Everest .. because they can (or in some
cases, 'think they can')

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>> Looking at it, right now. Don't see anything unusual about it. Right
>> now more people seem to be talking about SP2 than any hardware.
>
> What are they saying in the US homebuilt groups? The UK opinion seems
> to be that mostly it works (but doesn't add much for people who
> already were wearing full protection. 8>.) but a few people have had
> horrendous problems (and had to back it out, which strips your
> machine =way= back) or lost particular devices, or whatever.

I don't know, I didn't bother reading any of them, just looked at the
subject lines for a quick glance over to make my point in this group. 🙂

> I'm sitting here with an SP2 CD that MS finally sent me (took about 2
> weeks) running backups to tape, prior to tossing a coin to see whether
> to try it on one PC or not.
> 8>.

I wouldn't worry so much about it. I installed it on three computers
already, with no problems. In fact, one of those computers was a buddy's
computer who ALWAYS has problems after any sort of change is made to his
system. It's like he attracts lightening to himself. I did follow some
precautions prior to installation:

http://forums.g4techtv.com/messageview.cfm?catid=59&threadid=219022

But I found, I didn't even need to follow those precautions prior to
installing it. For me, I usually expect to be among the "exceptional cases",
which have problems in some form or another, but this time nothing.

Yeah, the service pack itself didn't really add too much to my security,
more than what I was already following. I did replace the ZoneAlarm and
Sygate (depending on computer) with the built-in Windows Firewall now. And
their are a few upgrades to Outlook Express that simply make it much more
secure now (for example, it won't automatically display graphics in email
messages, since a lot of it may be used by spammers to track whether your
email address actually exists or not).

Yousuf Khan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
[...]
>
> I wouldn't worry so much about it. I installed it on three computers
> already, with no problems. In fact, one of those computers was a buddy's
> computer who ALWAYS has problems after any sort of change is made to his
> system. It's like he attracts lightening to himself. I did follow some
> precautions prior to installation:
>
> http://forums.g4techtv.com/messageview.cfm?catid=59&threadid=219022
>
> But I found, I didn't even need to follow those precautions prior to
> installing it. For me, I usually expect to be among the "exceptional cases",
> which have problems in some form or another, but this time nothing.

[...]

Also installed SP2 with no problems. But it now takes a lot longer to boot.
My P4 2.8 GHz is slower to boot than my PIII 450 MHz laptop. What is it
doing all that time? Discs from computer mags no longer display
automatically; I have to click on a coloured bar to indicate that it's OK
to run the script.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> Also installed SP2 with no problems. But it now takes a lot longer to
> boot. My P4 2.8 GHz is slower to boot than my PIII 450 MHz laptop.
> What is it doing all that time? Discs from computer mags no longer
> display automatically; I have to click on a coloured bar to indicate
> that it's OK to run the script.

Have you tried to clear the XP prefetch cache? Just type "prefetch" at the
run prompt, and an Explorer window will popup, just delete all of the files
in there, and reboot. The first reboot should be slower, and then
subsequently every following reboot should be faster.

Other than that, if that doesn't work, then you may have deeper problems.

Yousuf Khan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> > Also installed SP2 with no problems. But it now takes a lot longer to
> > boot. My P4 2.8 GHz is slower to boot than my PIII 450 MHz laptop.
> > What is it doing all that time? Discs from computer mags no longer
> > display automatically; I have to click on a coloured bar to indicate
> > that it's OK to run the script.
>
> Have you tried to clear the XP prefetch cache? Just type "prefetch" at the
> run prompt, and an Explorer window will popup, just delete all of the files
> in there, and reboot. The first reboot should be slower, and then
> subsequently every following reboot should be faster.
>
> Other than that, if that doesn't work, then you may have deeper problems.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Thanks for tip. It might boot slightly faster now, but I'm not yet sure.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:26:49 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:

>
>
> GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>>
>> Bitstring <41434DE0.C5025ACE@excaouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com>,
>> from the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
>> <johs@excaouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com> said
>> <snip>
>> >Yes, personally I think it's very simple; you just follow the manufacturer's
>> >instructions and it usually works! Why people want to tinker with voltages
>> >and bus speeds is beyond me.
>>
>> For the same reason they climb Everest .. because they can (or in some
>> cases, 'think they can')
>
> And they think they know better than the manufacturers who have spent
> $billions on research. Obviously, all they do is narrowing the safety
> margin for system stability.

Some want something for nothing. Some like to tinker. That said, often
manufacturers will leave performance on the table, depending on speed bins
vs. demand. OTOH, I'm in your camp. I've never overclocked my home
system. I've done it for work in a "what-if" sort of mode, where
stability nor data is of any importance.

> Not as difficult or challenging as climbing
> Everest. I wished I had gone the other way and build with registered and
> ECC memory.

Registered isn't a big deal (though I have it on this system). ECC I
wouldn't be without. It's simply too cheap (11% adder) to go any other
way.

> Developing and understanding software structures is far more
> interesting and challenging.

Bah! Hardware is fun! Software sux! ;-)

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>> Have you tried to clear the XP prefetch cache? Just type "prefetch"
>> at the run prompt, and an Explorer window will popup, just delete
>> all of the files in there, and reboot. The first reboot should be
>> slower, and then subsequently every following reboot should be
>> faster.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> Thanks for tip. It might boot slightly faster now, but I'm not yet
> sure.

The prefetch cache is why XP boots faster on the same machine than it did on
Win 2000 or earlier. It preloads device drivers and services into memory,
from a common location, before initializing them. However, after any sort of
major upgrade of the OS, some of the old drivers may no longer be needed,
but they'll still be brought into memory if they remain in the prefetch. So
deleting the stuff in the cache would mean that they'd be recreated from
scratch and only those things that are really needed now will be brought in.

The other thing to check for is to make sure that Windows is truly putting
the hard disk into UDMA modes, rather than PIO modes. I found out the day on
my Win2K desktop that if there is more than six consecutive failures of the
disk during bootup, the IDE device driver will record it and then put the
drives into PIO mode, even if you've got the settings set to use UDMA. The
only way to fix this is to uninstall the IDE device drivers (the main one,
as well as the ones for the primary and secondary channels), and then reboot
and have it redetect the device.

Yousuf Khan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> >> Have you tried to clear the XP prefetch cache? Just type "prefetch"
> >> at the run prompt, and an Explorer window will popup, just delete
> >> all of the files in there, and reboot. The first reboot should be
> >> slower, and then subsequently every following reboot should be
> >> faster.
> >>
> >> Yousuf Khan
> >
> > Thanks for tip. It might boot slightly faster now, but I'm not yet
> > sure.
>
> The prefetch cache is why XP boots faster on the same machine than it did on
> Win 2000 or earlier. It preloads device drivers and services into memory,
> from a common location, before initializing them. However, after any sort of
> major upgrade of the OS, some of the old drivers may no longer be needed,
> but they'll still be brought into memory if they remain in the prefetch. So
> deleting the stuff in the cache would mean that they'd be recreated from
> scratch and only those things that are really needed now will be brought in.
>
> The other thing to check for is to make sure that Windows is truly putting
> the hard disk into UDMA modes, rather than PIO modes. I found out the day on
> my Win2K desktop that if there is more than six consecutive failures of the
> disk during bootup, the IDE device driver will record it and then put the
> drives into PIO mode, even if you've got the settings set to use UDMA. The
> only way to fix this is to uninstall the IDE device drivers (the main one,
> as well as the ones for the primary and secondary channels), and then reboot
> and have it redetect the device.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Oops, like like you spotted something there. I use a little KVM box, but
there is a small problem with the mouse, it doesn't work on first boot
attempt; some capacitor or other need charging from the keyboard for it
to work, hence the mouse always works on second boot attempt. Hence
booting my PC is ON-OFF-ON. This problem only occurs if I don't use the
power unit for the KVM, which I usually don't because it's only relevant
at boot time. However, booting twice isn't good in the long run, so I'm
making a small 9V battery box for priming the KVM just at boot time.

On the other hand...the problem didn't exists before SP2.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can <GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:

>Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>>
>>Yes, personally I think it's very simple; you just follow the manufacturer's
>>instructions and it usually works! Why people want to tinker with voltages
>>and bus speeds is beyond me.
>
>For the same reason they climb Everest .. because they can (or in some
>cases, 'think they can')

I think hot-rodding your car is a better analogy...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom