Intel > AMD?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SteveGTA

In Runtime
Messages
375
this is what i have heard from someone else idk if they are right but ill let you guys say. i know this forum has a lot of people who like AMD including myself and i would like to see how much of this is true.

Intel has multiple teams designing processors. One stateside in the US and another in Israel. They both work on different designs.

The current Pentium 4 "Netburst" architecture was designed here while the new Pentium M was designed in Israel. Some time in the last 2 yrs it became abundantly clear to Intel that the Netburst architecture wasn't going to hit their goals. They were going to hit the wall much sooner. They promptly cancelled Tejas the next big Netburst upgrade and the successor to the Xeon.

In the meantime the Israel team delivered the Pentium M which traces its lineage not to Netburst but rather the Pentium III. The Pentium M is far more of an efficient processor in IPC and power efficiency. Intel decided that this was the way of the future because dual cores allow them to reduce their focus megahertz and just add more cores.

Thus Intel's roadmap is now completely centered around dual cores and the efficient Pentium M core(Banias). They have a Banias replacement for the Netburst desktop and workstation coming. I'm assuming these chips will likely have 2-4MB of shared L2 cache and a bevvy of other nifty things. I'd love to see a new SIMD unit as well.

AMD has Turion coming but it is no match for Yonah which will be out Q1 2006. I'm also thinking that due to the similarities of the Athlon/Opteron to the G5 it'll be hard for AMD to patch the power efficiency of the desktop and workstation Banias Dual Cores.

Thus not only do I think that Intel will match AMD in speed for the most part but they will do it using far less watts than the comparable AMD part. No more liquid cooling!!
 

Elbatrop1

Memberbot
Messages
4,057
Well, that doesnt say anywhere that Intel is really greater than AMD.

That was a good read, though. Where did you get that from?

We have seen the P-Ms doing waaay better in comparison to Netburst P4s...
 

SteveGTA

In Runtime
Messages
375
also in there was something about AMD not being able to keep up with die size changes and stuff like that. i read them on apple insider's forums.
 

Him

Fully Optimized
Messages
3,190
careful not to let this become an intel amd flame. I have a sneaking suspicion that this will be closed soon... POST WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!

however, that is a very interesting read. Yes, please do cite the source.
 

SteveGTA

In Runtime
Messages
375
another thing to look at though is why would Apple choose Intel over AMD if AMD's products are better? it could be because of marketing and Intel's size but i am sure if AMD looked better in the long run then apple would have gone with them instead. I also would guess that Apple has a lot of information about where the companies are headed. Also from what people were saying on the other forums the Intel dual core CPUs that are out right now are just the first revision and the next ones that will be available early '06 will be a second revision which is supposed to be better than the AMD X2s. I am not sure about almost any of this but just throwing it out there.
 

Him

Fully Optimized
Messages
3,190
Most people prefer AMD. I think the main reason Apple went with Intel, is, like you said, marketing. Intel is huge, and is far more widely known than AMD. For the most part, AMD is really only known inside the computer community. Everytime I am asked to build a system for someone they always tell me they want "Pentium 4" because they know pentium. AMD has no commercials, and no advertisements. It is one of those companies that, for the most part, has been passed around by word of mouth. For a company to live like that, that is very impressive. I applaud AMD for this. But there could also be a method to Apple's madness. I'm sure they gave AMD a blow, and found that Intel works better. Apple is part of the computer community, and so they definetely know about AMD. But I think for the most part it had to do with politics more than anything else.

There is a reason Intel is so big, as there is a reason Microsoft is big. It's simple, it's because they are good at what they do. Is there any other reason they would be so big? No. If they werent good at what they do (Intel: Chips, MS: software) they wouldnt be so huge and Bill Gates certainly wouldnt be as rich as he is.
 

003

Fully Optimized
Messages
3,312
I do not prefer one brand over another. If intel dominates AMD, I will buy intel. If AMD dominates intel, I buy AMD. Same thing goes for ATI/nVidia.
 

desiboi

Daemon Poster
Messages
1,362
003 said:
I do not prefer one brand over another. If intel dominates AMD, I will buy intel. If AMD dominates intel, I buy AMD. Same thing goes for ATI/nVidia.
Even if Intels are 4000 dollars?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top