AMD vs. Intel architecture

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
werxen

werxen

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,331
0
19,310
ok. i hear a constant battle between AMD and Intel about their architecture. AMD always makes the claim that their architecture is far superior but Intel has been producing much faster processors as of late. what is the big difference and who's will survive in the long run?
 

lawls flamebait and who's gonna be the fish?! +1
 


I would say performance in your favorite apps is what matters - after all, Superpi is a 'benchmark' :).

Werxen - you should do some googling to see what the architectural differences are. I don't think AMD is always claiming their arch is far superior to Intel's - with Core i7, they went to their alternate mantra of "Intel copied from us" :). RWT has a pretty good explanation of i7 arch at http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT040208182719&p=1
 
Each arch has its ups and downs. I do know that intels cache part of their arch has always been considered "superior" since it was faster but the IMC/HTT part was better than the FSB.

But as of now as fazers said, AMD is doing the Intel copied us even though if you compare QPI to HTT you would see that they share almost nothing in common except that they both connect each CPU internally at a very fast speed. Other than that QPI and HTT are like the IMC and FSB. Do the same thing but in different ways.
 
I think AMD is standing behind on the performance per dollar argument. And considering the fact that you could get a decent AMD CPU and Mobo combo for the price of a core i7 i'd say they have something.

But that also depends on how much you value CPU performance. In raw CPU performance Intel definitely takes the cake. And to those who need the speed the price is certainly justified.

Actual CPU design has little to do with the claims. If AMD had the better processor now they'd be charging the premium while Intel would be going after the value route.
 
ok Flamebait....
I7 pwn all, amd cant keep up, Send me your amd cpu's cause i need something wipe my a$$ with, then ill flush em with extreme prejudice, then they will all be (free water cooled)
should buy a few 955's (nice articles on em) ill smash the F*$())@ Sh*t out of em with a 5 pound sledge hammer with the biggest Damn Sh*t eating grin on my face saying "die you wannabee, Generic Brand X gay watered down trailer park POS"
QOTD- inside every amd is an Intel Wanting to get out and SHINE! DONT HATE
 


What the hell are you babbling on about?!?
 


Oh yeah? i7 overpriced junk. Copying *** from AMD. Intel sucks balls send me a few Q6600 i'll use them to heat my house. Inside every Intel is a relabeled AMD architechture.

AMD4LYFE!@@@@@@@

 
Intel has been 'behind' with technology innovation, such as integrating the memory controller on the processor, and also GPU on the processor. The voltage scaling and 64-bit instructions have also been pioneered by AMD. Due to the legal agreement between the two companies, Intel can use any AMD technology it wants and claim it as their own. That's why you see terms like EM64T and the specsheets do not mention AMD a single time.

On the other hand, Intel has been ahead with production technology, because it has more financial reserves. While AMD usually had a better architecture (a better/higher IPC or Instructions per Cycle) meaning it could do more than Intel-CPU's per MHz. With the Core2 architecture this has changed, and AMD had to launch Phenom II to get close to the IPC Intel offers. At the end the battle is fought with clockspeeds and pricing. Intel is cashing quite nicely at the moment, while AMD is having a hard time keeping head above water.

Its too bad the underdog AMD has so many legal restrictions. I believe they cannot compete in a fair way with Intel. There should be much stronger supervision to ensure competition exists and is conducted fairly. Because if not you would end up with 1 party and this is known to be very negative for the end consumer. Free market economy only out well for the end-consumer when there is sufficient competition and supervision. I believe neither is the case here.
 
1) sharken, *** off.

2) AMD is the B4B manufacturer, but Intel is the Power manufacturer.

I suppose the best way to think of it is, AMD for gaming, Core i7 for apps that use that many threads, Core 2 Quad for everything else.
 


Nope. AMD's current architecture has their roots deep in the server territory, so its horrible for gaming.

The best for gaming right now is actually Core 2 Duo, with minimal data transmission lags and high clocks.
 


http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3533&p=4

That feels better, but all joking aside, we simply experienced better player movement and weapon control during heavy action sequences with our Phenom II processors compared to the Q9550 platform. This was especially true if we were running background applications (IM, File Transfers, AntiVirus, etc.) and especially if CPU usage was over 90%, the Phenom II system never stuttered or gave us a slight pause between level transitions like the Q9550 (editor - Sounds like an SSD review).

It might not be noticeable to everyone and at first we thought it was a placebo effect, but doing a blind test with an A/B box always lead us to the Phenom II. The $64 question is if we had the same user experience with the i7 platform. The answer is yes. The i7 offered an improved game play experience over the Q9550 platform based on the same reasons we listed for the Phenom II. Simply put, integrated memory controller and CSI/HTT platform designs perform better than the previous front side bus platforms with these type of system loads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom