Difference between AMD and Intel?

[Night Fox]

I'm mostly concerned about processors. Like what's the difference between AMD and Intel processors? I've heard that AMD processors are crappier, but when I ask for more details, nobody can give me any. So hopefully, you guys have some answers.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Currently AMD is very competitive in the lower end cpu market (<=$175) but Intel dominates any price point above that and has held the outright performance crown since 2006.

 

[Ste]

You just have to read about specific cpu architecture.

Just google the model you want to know about "i7 Architecture" for example.

 

[Night Fox]

So the only difference is the architecture and the cheaper price?

Like does AMD processor have a shorter lifespan...I've heard that as well.

 

[Hefemeister]

You heard wrong.

AMD and Intel both make excellent chips. Right now Intel has the speed advantage but for real world usage the speed is negotiable. It only makes a difference in processes that require some serious horsepower. (Gaming is not one of them)

 

[aliasaid]

for real world usage the speed is negotiable.

you mean negligible?

 

[Hefemeister]

Nope you can negotiate with Intel and amd to increase your cpu speed.

Doh.

 

[aliasaid]

Ah, well i already knew about that... but you don't negotiate directly, you negotiate through your motherboard AMD gave me a nice bump.

 

[Antec-User]

I've always ran AMD because this is what my friend got me started on.. The more knowledge I gained, the more I was comfortable with AMD and that I don't have the major cash to fork out for an i7 build with dual 265's (double the price, build for build over AMD.) As much as I'd like to try it. AMDs are a great bang for the buck build.



This is a bit of a read, but give you a good amount of history.. I quoted his second or third post.. He can say it better than I can. THis is where I got my history.

Post #3:
Dolk's Guide to the Phenom II - Overclockers Forums

The War between Intel and AMD


This is an old topic for anyone who has been in the computer business for longer than 5 years. The Intel and AMD war has been going on since the late 90s and still goes on today with heated topics of Phenom II vs. the i7. First I am going to state this now: In no way is the Phenom II close to the i7. (Intel fan boys rejoice) The Phenom II was a step up in the AMD world and to compete against the mighty Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad.

In the beginning there was AMD, and this snake Intel… (sorry couldn't resist). Anyway, for a long time Intel was the king of the castle in the CPU market. If you had a computer it had an Intel CPU in it. In 1996 AMD made its way into the PC market with the K5 architecture. There was nothing special about the AMD processors until the K7 came out in October of 2001. For those that remember it, the AMD Athlon XP was one of the best CPUs then. I believe it was this processor that help start the war.

In September of 2003 AMD crushed the mighty Intel with one CPU: AMD Athlon 64. Everyone knows about this processor, it was what started the 64-bit era for the personal computers. The processor was a huge leap into the CPU world, allowing more information to flow without having to increase clock speeds. With the 64-bit processors AMD had nowhere to go but up. Intel tried to catch up by releasing Pentium 4 64-bit CPUs and by claiming that their 3.0ghz CPU could do more than AMD's 2.5ghz CPUs.

For the next, short, few years AMD was the king of the castle, and Intel was nowhere to be seen. During this time, AMD was able to create better Athlon 64 CPUs. The release of the socket 939, and 940 was another blow to Intel. The new CPU supported HyperTransport up to 1000mhz, and an IMC that supported DDR2. Soon after the revised Athlon 64 CPUs came out, Intel took a stab with their Pentium D. Think Celeron + Gateway laptop + Windows ME. In no way was this CPU a good idea. The idea was to put two cores onto one die and still use Netburst as their main architecture. AMD's response: Athlon 64 X2. I do not need to go into much detail with this CPU. I still own a X2 3600+ and an Opteron 185; that is how amazing that architecture was compared to Intel's architecture.

In the year 2006 Intel finally caught back up with AMD, they came out with the Core 2, like the Athlon 64, it destroyed all of the competition. The Core 2 was everything Intel had dreamed when it came to a dual core 64-bit processor. It featured many new architecture features, along with the 65nm die, and very soon the 45nm die.

AMD's response came late with a revised Athlon X2 that featured the new Socket called AM2. The new X2s where nothing new, just a bit faster, using 65nm and on a new socket. As AMD tried to design a CPU to crush Intel's Core2 duo, Intel decided that it would keep going with its victory lap. Intel released the Core2 Quad in November of 2006 and in a couple of months they released a 45nm version of the Core2 Duo. There was nothing AMD could do during these times.

In 2007, AMD launched their first attempt at the Quad core market with the Phenom series. In most eyes the CPU was nothing compared to the god chips Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad. With the release of the Phenom X4, AMD decided to create a new market, one that was in the middle of Average and Extreme. The Phenom X3 was released to the public with the idea that people who used their computer for just about everything, but to the point that it was not extreme.

From 2007 to 2008 these CPUs where basically ignored in the computer industry. The Phenom series was a good CPU in that it did what it was suppose to do, make a computer work. It was not the fastest, and it was not the best, but it did offer a competitive price. During this time AMD could only boast about the idea of Fusion technology and their Spider platform. With the ATI 4800 series, the 790FX + SB750 and Phenom X4, AMD claimed that you would see an improvement with performance.

It was not until January of 2009 when AMD made a comeback. Now most people will disagree with me for this part, but the kidney I speak of has the name “Enthusiast”. Since November of 2008 AMD was boasting that their Phenom II 940 BE could hit 6.0ghz with no problem, and it does just that. From then on the war has been stirred back into overdrive. Across the world of the internet, there are countless arguments saying that X is better than Y with Z factors.

In the world of Enthusiast, the CPU that can be clocked the highest wins. Power, and temperature are considered but are never primary factors. Intel used to be the only one in this market. Their Pentium 4 processors could go as high as 8ghz (with lots of hardware modifications and lots of Liquid Nitrogen). The Socket A, and 939 was AMD's best CPUs for any enthusiast. For a long time Intel held the crown with the Core 2s. For AMD their AM2 processors was not the very best for enthusiasts. Now in 2009, AMD thought of enthusiasts and brought from the heavens the Phenom II 940 (I try to not speak so high and mighty about the processor). As for Intel, they still hold the title for best CPUs, only because their i7 can create some ridicules benchmarks.

 

[Night Fox]

Okay I'm trying to find a motherboard to go with this processor: Newegg.com - AMD Phenom II X4 925 Deneb 2.8GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 95W Quad-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops

I need the motherboard to be able to hold at least 8gb of DDR3 memory, the processor above, and 2 graphics cards (PCIe 2.0 x 16). I found this motherboard on newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131366

However I'm confused because on the PCIe 2.0 x 16 slots it says this: "2 x PCI Express 2.0 x16 slots (single x16 or dual x8)"

What does this mean and could I run two graphics cards?