AMD Processor vs Intel Processor

[str8lazy]

From what I understand the Intel's HT is actually a fix for a screw up in the netburst design, specifically cache misses due to the long pipeline and the high latency. So basically its not like you are getting extra performance, it is the performance that your supposed to be getting anyway. I just thought that you guyz would like to know that.

So basically AMD has no need for HT because they have a smaller and more effiecent pipeline architecture. I am sure that they have a very small amount of cache missing, slowing the processor down a minuet amount (probably hardly measureable). But that thesis is only correct providing that the information that I have is correct.

And another side note that is my personal opinion.

If HT was embedded into the architecture, AMD would totally own, because I am sure that their processor power would be close to doubling, but they dont do this because the cost to benefit ratio doesnt balance out.

And that is were the dual core processing comes into play.

 

[FadingTheory]

By the way... I was off that one day I said I thought the 3.2/3200+ was the sweet spot. I did the math today, and the 2800+/2.8 GHz are far better for the dollar. I can't find my paper work, but I think it was something like 24 MHz for each dollar, compared to the 12 MHz per dollar the 3200+ gets. I used March figures for OEM processors bought in 1000 unit bundles In anycase, just thought I'd correct a mistake on my part.

 

[dhw200]

Ya, but these days, its prolly better to have at least a P4 3.0ghz.

 

[desiboi]

OH GOD!!!! WHAT IF INTEL BOUGHT AMD!!! . End Of the world

 

[senseless]

OH GOD!!!! WHAT IF INTEL BOUGHT AMD!!! . End Of the world

Then all the amd engineers would be working for intel and they wouldnt suck so bad anymore.

 

[waynejkruse10]

lol, good one

 

[Apokalipse]

But those CPUs rely on redunduncy (more then one processor). No AMD CPU has hyper threading, correct?

actually any opteron in the 2xx series and 8xx series can do the same thing hyperthreading does, although they don't give it the name "hyperthreading" or anything fancy like that. only the 1xx series opterons do not have the multi-way support.
Opteron 2xx processors are 2-way (2 virtual CPU's per 1 physical CPU)
Opteron 8xx CPU's are 8-way (8 virtual CPU's per 1 physical CPU)

you can have up to 2 Opterons in one board if any of them are in the 1xx or 2xx series
that means you can have 2 physical X 2 virtual per physical CPU = 4 virtual CPU's if they are both in the 2xx series

you can also have up to 4 Opterons in one board if all are in the 8xx series
4 physical CPU's X 8 virtual per physical CPU's = 32 virtual processors!!!
that's no typo either!!

although if you actually did buy 4 Opteron 8xx CPU's, it would cost a significant amount of money. I believe the only quad 940 board out ATM is from Tyan, which costs about $1500 US (that's just the motherboard!!)

the cheapest Opteron in the 8xx series is the 840, which costs at least $770 each.
now, 770 x 4 + 1500 = $4580
and that's with the lowest end of the 8xx series opterons
if you got the highest end, the 852 it would cost $1474 for each CPU (from monarchcomputer.com, about $300 cheaper than the only other place I saw it)
$1474 x 4 + $1500 = $7396

 

[FadingTheory]

Wow, I didn't know Opterions worked that way.

Cool.

 

[str8lazy]

That is pretty cool, I am glad that you brought that to our attention.

 

[desiboi]

WOW! Intel are really behind! AMD ownz INTEL MUAHAHHA!!!