Someone please just make it very clear to me
- Thread starter True_Orb
- Start date
- Status
I personally think AMD is better, but I do agree that Intel makes a very good chip. Right now, to the average user, Intel is a more common name, it is more expensive, and therefore equals "higher quality" in their mind. Intel has used this to their advantage and created a monopoly in the processor world. They created agreements with companies such as Compaq and HP. I would say 99% of people buy their computers pre-built from a local store or FutureShop, and most of them end up with Intels.
In terms of quality, they are both amazing. It's just that AMD is not such a household name as Intel is.
As for architecture, AMD uses a shorter pipeline, allowing their 2.2 GHz processors to compete with Intel's 3.2 GHz. However, it all comes down to personal preference. As I said, they're both great chips.
In terms of quality, they are both amazing. It's just that AMD is not such a household name as Intel is.
As for architecture, AMD uses a shorter pipeline, allowing their 2.2 GHz processors to compete with Intel's 3.2 GHz. However, it all comes down to personal preference. As I said, they're both great chips.
lol, nice way of putting it BlindApex.
So...Intel makes a faster car, but AMD drives a shorter street?
From what it sounds like they are both good, but with Intel you get at least an equally fast chip that runs cooler and more stable for the extra money.
So right now it seems like Intel > AMD -price consideration and speed efficiency.
So...Intel makes a faster car, but AMD drives a shorter street?
From what it sounds like they are both good, but with Intel you get at least an equally fast chip that runs cooler and more stable for the extra money.
So right now it seems like Intel > AMD -price consideration and speed efficiency.
AMD runs a lot hotter. So they break down faster.That said Prescot was a very disturbing release.It run's hotter and uses more electric then the northwood.Possible Prescot could be a good over clocker but that isnt my thing.
Usualy id say intel cause i like the stablibility but im leaning toward AMD.When Grandale or what ever it is comes up in a month or 2.Ill be firmer of opionen.
Right know i like 3.2C Pent with a Abit IC7-G.
Usualy id say intel cause i like the stablibility but im leaning toward AMD.When Grandale or what ever it is comes up in a month or 2.Ill be firmer of opionen.
Right know i like 3.2C Pent with a Abit IC7-G.
Well ill post those facts any hoot lol
The Pentium 4 is built around what's called the NetBurst Architecture. Essentially this architecture was built with scalability in mind thus giving it long term usage.
It's built with Longer pipes which directly cause lower Instruction's per clock (IPC). The idea was to follow Moore's Law and raise the operating frequency of the processor higher then the competitions defeating the competitions IPC advantage (K7).
Intel succeeded in that task by gaining 2-3% more marketshare.... not bad.
In order for Intel to improve performance they wanted to start with a relatively slow version of the processor with no real chance of achieving higher clock rates (Wilamette on 0.18U). They then began improving and slowly releasing the pieces of the puzzle for this CPU. First there was the shift towards the 0.13U Process and Socket 478 to replace 423. Then there was the Extra Cache and higher Front Side Bus (512KB and 533Mhz) then they added the Hyperthreading feature only to top it all off with another FSB increase up to 800Mhz.
It's not done yet. Prescott goes back to Wilamette. Next will come the better Insulators thus cutting down on the leakage then the 64bit extensions then the clock speed ramp, new socket (LGA775) etc...
In the end the Prescott we know will be but a tiny piece of the puzzle to something faster and better then anyone expected. Why? Because Intel take there time releasing there products... which is kinda like milking the architecture and making back all the money they lost in R&D... ATi does this and so does nVidia (GeForce, GeForce2, GeForce3, GeForce4)
The Pentium 4 is built around what's called the NetBurst Architecture. Essentially this architecture was built with scalability in mind thus giving it long term usage.
It's built with Longer pipes which directly cause lower Instruction's per clock (IPC). The idea was to follow Moore's Law and raise the operating frequency of the processor higher then the competitions defeating the competitions IPC advantage (K7).
Intel succeeded in that task by gaining 2-3% more marketshare.... not bad.
In order for Intel to improve performance they wanted to start with a relatively slow version of the processor with no real chance of achieving higher clock rates (Wilamette on 0.18U). They then began improving and slowly releasing the pieces of the puzzle for this CPU. First there was the shift towards the 0.13U Process and Socket 478 to replace 423. Then there was the Extra Cache and higher Front Side Bus (512KB and 533Mhz) then they added the Hyperthreading feature only to top it all off with another FSB increase up to 800Mhz.
It's not done yet. Prescott goes back to Wilamette. Next will come the better Insulators thus cutting down on the leakage then the 64bit extensions then the clock speed ramp, new socket (LGA775) etc...
In the end the Prescott we know will be but a tiny piece of the puzzle to something faster and better then anyone expected. Why? Because Intel take there time releasing there products... which is kinda like milking the architecture and making back all the money they lost in R&D... ATi does this and so does nVidia (GeForce, GeForce2, GeForce3, GeForce4)
- Status
