AMD vs. Intel

[Sup3rman]

Why are AMD SuperPi times slower than Intel?

[lawrywild]

coz intel have p4's that do 7.5ghz and AMD have fx's that do 4ghz

in no way is AMD twice as fast at the same clocks, which would pull Intel ahead...

[RoyaL]

coz intel have p4's that do 7.5ghz and AMD have fx's that do 4ghz

in no way is AMD twice as fast at the same clocks, which would pull Intel ahead...

Intel got dotty that does 4ghz like FX and it`s still faster.

[GoThr3k]

if amd didnt had coldbug, you would see muche lower pi scores

[agenda2005]

AMD L2 cache is very slow. AMD64 used an exclusive cache system which is part of the CPU core but not within in the core. Intel L2 cache is very fast and run at the CPU speed. As you Increase CPU speed, Intel L2 cache scales linearly with the CPU speed and able to process data much faster than AMD L2 cache.

[saaya]

AMD L2 cache is very slow. AMD64 used an exclusive cache system which is part of the CPU core but not within in the core. Intel L2 cache is very fast and run at the CPU speed. As you Increase CPU speed, Intel L2 cache scales linearly with the CPU speed and able to process data much faster than AMD L2 cache.

if you call the a64 l2 cache slow then what do you call the p4 cache? in coma? :p:

superpi, like every benchmark, works faster on some architectures than others, i dont know the exact why and how, but i doubt its just the cache latency.
since its a synthetic test wich works with very little data id rather say cache speed and latency and bandwidth dont really mean that much to superpi.

[Serge84]

A 2.4ghz amd can beat a 3.8ghz intel because of better arcitecure. What do you think happens when a 4ghz FX challanges a 7.5ghz intel (When the intel wasn't benchable from how I understand it.) And intel cheats to get that clock speed. Its not even a real reading like amds are. AMD is number one for a reason. Clock speed doesn't matter anymore. As why a amd can beat a intel chip any day.

Intels over exagerates there products and makes bull clames. Because if that was the case when why can a 2.4ghz amd kick a 3.8ghz intel's ass when its sipose to be around 1.5ghz faster then a AMD... why is it beat in performance. Cus clock speeds don't matter. Its other factors like bandwidth and fsb and all that good stuff that makes the difference. A 4ghz amd will perform prob better then any intel chip nomatter how high you OC it. Silicon has a limit most reach in a OC because of heat and process limits. 10ghz is all we will see then we will go with diminds instead of silicon, diminds being 10 times faster and cooler running at speeds that would blow our cpus away. Intel is 2nd best for a reason.

There are only 3 major desktop/laptop companies cpu wise worth naming, but macks arn't even hafe as good. You can't even name the others because they can't compare to the speeds intel and amd have made. Intel has been having trouble going very much higher with clock speeds. Thats why they cancaled the 4ghz processor. Sure you can OC them but its not stable passed 6ghz or 6.5ghz. Quite impressave but FX's still kick ass. Its like they are performing 50% faster then there clock speeds really are going. Thats why my OC can be nearly half the speed of a pentium 4 at 3.8ghz and still kick its ass. To top that off with the bandwidth I have. ta you would have to be joking, if anybody can think a normal pentium 4 at 3.8ghz can beat my cpu. Not going to happen. nearly 3 times the fsb and bandwidth makes up for the limited L2 and all that. Not very limited at fsb and bandwidth as well as data rate that insanely high.

It ant about clock speed anymore.

AMD's L2 is OCed as well when you put more speed into the cpu, it OC's the bandwidth and timmings. But it gets to be pritty insane. My system bandwidth is 40gb/s on 64 bit mode tho I beleave much higher, never got cupid to work. But 36gb/s on 32 bit mode. Will get a venice soon to make that 50gb/s at 3ghz or more like 3.5ghz. Will perform very close to those big FX 4ghz and intel 6ghz OC's beyond. Plus that data rate is just killer my chipset can pull off. Almost 3ghz data rate. So I wonder why amds are better now. Its the hugh data rates, fsb, and bandwidth they can get. Best advantage of all being nearly 50% slower then intels, they can outperform a intel nearly 2 times faster. So that says alot about something there. So what do you think will happen when amds start coming out with 3ghz and 3.5ghz chips in the next 2 years. Say good buy to intel. Cus amds perform 2 times faster. Newer sockets like socket M2 run 2.5 times faster fsb then intels. OCing much better.

You don't need to know much to know that. Just intel fan boys really like to back up intel... they are good cpus but not very much of all the hype they turn out to be. AMD is the best and much higher quality. Intels run 2 times the heat and watts. AMD's run 2 times less of everything and are consiterably better for the simple fact, to look around and see benchmarks and see them play games better then intels At such lower clock speeds. There isn't any compitition. Intel is more behind in arcitecture then anything. Amds just simply run better because they are better made and desined. Intels trying all at clock speed this time. Made a unpure ver of 64 bit in there chips when amd made pure 64 bit. They are the kings of that. They been at it for alot longer then intel has in dual cores even. All intel did was fuse 2 pentium 4 core together and called them pentium D's.

Will heat up your house real nice in the winter no kidding reviews said. Intels are very uneffecent and are real heaters and power burners. I would rather cook eggs on a intel then use it much less a heater for the winter. They run too hot. Need really good cooling. I am not a intel fan as you can see. Tho they get great OC's its not true clock speed. AMD clocks there speeds right wile if they did it Intels way. AMD's would be clocking faster then intels. Witch amds do at true clock speeds like I said amilion times seemingly slower in number but 2 times faster. Intel cheats too much running cpus until they Overheat. They are desined to run like that. SO they can run as fast as possible with the most heat and power they can take up like water thrown into a pan on a stove set on full blast. Will evaperate that water like it wasn't even there. AMD's run so much cooler the difference is laughable.

And I may talk alot of bull but this bull is the strate simple truth only a intel fan will defend... like its not true when it really is. Its rediculess how intel has poorly made cpus the end of intel maybe pritty close. AND will always rule over all. And I am free to express my opinion about them. So don't rant if ya think this is offencive. Its not, only a simple opinion of intel. I hate intel. No offence to fanboys. They are 2nd best but that is what they will stay, that they will or worse...

I am oviously a amd fan and I just exploded. XDDDDDD >_> OK I'm cool now. lol COUGH... C_C;;;

[Celeron Gamer]

A 2.4ghz amd can beat a 3.8ghz intel because of better arcitecure. What do you think happens when a 4ghz FX challanges a 7.5ghz intel (When the intel wasn't benchable from how I understand it.) And intel cheats to get that clock speed. Its not even a real reading like amds are. AMD is number one for a reason. Clock speed doesn't matter anymore. As why a amd can beat a intel chip any day.

Intels over exagerates there products and makes bull clames. Because if that was the case when why can a 2.4ghz amd kick a 3.8ghz intel's ass when its sipose to be around 1.5ghz faster then a AMD... why is it beat in performance. Cus clock speeds don't matter. Its other factors like bandwidth and fsb and all that good stuff that makes the difference. A 4ghz amd will perform prob better then any intel chip nomatter how high you OC it. Silicon has a limit most reach in a OC because of heat and process limits. 10ghz is all we will see then we will go with diminds instead of silicon, diminds being 10 times faster and cooler running at speeds that would blow our cpus away. Intel is 2nd best for a reason.

There are only 3 major desktop/laptop companies cpu wise worth naming, but macks arn't even hafe as good. You can't even name the others because they can't compare to the speeds intel and amd have made. Intel has been having trouble going very much higher with clock speeds. Thats why they cancaled the 4ghz processor. Sure you can OC them but its not stable passed 6ghz or 6.5ghz. Quite impressave but FX's still kick ass. Its like they are performing 50% faster then there clock speeds really are going. Thats why my OC can be nearly half the speed of a pentium 4 at 3.8ghz and still kick its ass. To top that off with the bandwidth I have. ta you would have to be joking, if anybody can think a normal pentium 4 at 3.8ghz can beat my cpu. Not going to happen. nearly 3 times the fsb and bandwidth makes up for the limited L2 and all that. Not very limited at fsb and bandwidth as well as data rate that insanely high.

It ant about clock speed anymore.

AMD's L2 is OCed as well when you put more speed into the cpu, it OC's the bandwidth and timmings. But it gets to be pritty insane. My system bandwidth is 40gb/s on 64 bit mode. 36gb/s on 32 bit mode. Will get a venice soon to make that 50gb/s at 3ghz or more like 3.5ghz. Will perform very close to those big FX 4ghz and intel 6ghz OC's beyond. Plus that data rate is just killer my chipset can pull off. Almost 3ghz data rate. So I wonder why amds are better now. Its the hugh data rates, fsb, and bandwidth they can get. Best advantage of all being nearly 50% slower then intels, they can outperform a intel nearly 2 times faster. So that says alot about something there. So what do you think will happen when amds start coming out with 3ghz and 3.5ghz chips in the next 2 years. Say good buy to intel. Cus amds perform 2 times faster. Newer sockets like socket M2 run 2.5 times faster fsb then intels. OCing much better.

You don't need to know much to know that. Just intel fan boys really like to back up intel... they are good cpus but not very much of all the hype they turn out to be. AMD is the best and much higher quality. Intels run 2 times the heat and watts. AMD's run 2 times less of everything and are consiterably better for the simple fact, to look around and see benchmarks and see them play games better then intels At such lower clock speeds. There isn't any compitition. Intel is more behind in arcitecture then anything. Amds just simply run better because they are better made and desined. Intels trying all at clock speed this time. Made a unpure ver of 64 bit in there chips when amd made pure 64 bit. They are the kings of that. They been at it for alot longer then intel has in dual cores even. All intel did was fuse 2 pentium 4s together and called them pentium 4's.

Will heat up your house real nice in the winter no kidding reviews said. Intels are very uneffecent and are real heaters and power burners. I would rather cook eggs on a intel then use it much less a heater for the winter. They run too hot. Need really good cooling. I am not a intel fan as you can see. Tho they get great OC's its not true clock speed. AMD clocks there speeds right wile if they did it Intels way. AMD's would be clocking faster then intels. Witch amds do at true clock speeds like I said amilion times seemingly slower in number but 2 times faster. Intel cheats too much running cpus until they Overheat. They are desined to run like that. SO they can run as fast as possible with the most heat and power they can take up like water thrown into a pan on a stove set on full blast. Will evaperate that water like it wasn't even there. AMD's run so much cooler the difference is laughable.

And I may talk alot of bull but this bull is the strate simple truth only a intel fan will defend... like its not true when it really is. Its rediculess how intel has poorly made cpus the end of intel maybe pritty close. AND will always rule over all. And I am free to express my opinion about them. So don't rant if ya think this is offencive. Its not, only a simple opinion of intel. I hate intel. No offence to fanboys. They are 2nd best but that is what they will stay, that they will or worse...


Woah, my fanboy meter just exploded...:)

[sin0822]

same!

[GoThr3k]

he is mostly right imo, he only has forgotten about the dothan/yonah cores that kicks amd ass in some benches

[Celeron Gamer]

Let's just hope Crotale, or FUGGER does not see this thread, or it's going to be some good ol' fashion brawl.

[zabomb4163]

*reports to moderator*

that rant from Serge84 looks like classic trolling.

[wwwww]

A 2.4ghz amd can beat a 3.8ghz intel because of better arcitecure. What do you think happens when a 4ghz FX challanges a 7.5ghz intel (When the intel wasn't benchable from how I understand it.) And intel cheats to get that clock speed. Its not even a real reading like amds are. AMD is number one for a reason. Clock speed doesn't matter anymore. As why a amd can beat a intel chip any day.

Intels over exagerates there products and makes bull clames. Because if that was the case when why can a 2.4ghz amd kick a 3.8ghz intel's ass when its sipose to be around 1.5ghz faster then a AMD... why is it beat in performance. Cus clock speeds don't matter. Its other factors like bandwidth and fsb and all that good stuff that makes the difference. A 4ghz amd will perform prob better then any intel chip nomatter how high you OC it. Silicon has a limit most reach in a OC because of heat and process limits. 10ghz is all we will see then we will go with diminds instead of silicon, diminds being 10 times faster and cooler running at speeds that would blow our cpus away. Intel is 2nd best for a reason.

There are only 3 major desktop/laptop companies cpu wise worth naming, but macks arn't even hafe as good. You can't even name the others because they can't compare to the speeds intel and amd have made. Intel has been having trouble going very much higher with clock speeds. Thats why they cancaled the 4ghz processor. Sure you can OC them but its not stable passed 6ghz or 6.5ghz. Quite impressave but FX's still kick ass. Its like they are performing 50% faster then there clock speeds really are going. Thats why my OC can be nearly half the speed of a pentium 4 at 3.8ghz and still kick its ass. To top that off with the bandwidth I have. ta you would have to be joking, if anybody can think a normal pentium 4 at 3.8ghz can beat my cpu. Not going to happen. nearly 3 times the fsb and bandwidth makes up for the limited L2 and all that. Not very limited at fsb and bandwidth as well as data rate that insanely high.

It ant about clock speed anymore.

AMD's L2 is OCed as well when you put more speed into the cpu, it OC's the bandwidth and timmings. But it gets to be pritty insane. My system bandwidth is 40gb/s on 64 bit mode tho I beleave much higher, never got cupid to work. But 36gb/s on 32 bit mode. Will get a venice soon to make that 50gb/s at 3ghz or more like 3.5ghz. Will perform very close to those big FX 4ghz and intel 6ghz OC's beyond. Plus that data rate is just killer my chipset can pull off. Almost 3ghz data rate. So I wonder why amds are better now. Its the hugh data rates, fsb, and bandwidth they can get. Best advantage of all being nearly 50% slower then intels, they can outperform a intel nearly 2 times faster. So that says alot about something there. So what do you think will happen when amds start coming out with 3ghz and 3.5ghz chips in the next 2 years. Say good buy to intel. Cus amds perform 2 times faster. Newer sockets like socket M2 run 2.5 times faster fsb then intels. OCing much better.

You don't need to know much to know that. Just intel fan boys really like to back up intel... they are good cpus but not very much of all the hype they turn out to be. AMD is the best and much higher quality. Intels run 2 times the heat and watts. AMD's run 2 times less of everything and are consiterably better for the simple fact, to look around and see benchmarks and see them play games better then intels At such lower clock speeds. There isn't any compitition. Intel is more behind in arcitecture then anything. Amds just simply run better because they are better made and desined. Intels trying all at clock speed this time. Made a unpure ver of 64 bit in there chips when amd made pure 64 bit. They are the kings of that. They been at it for alot longer then intel has in dual cores even. All intel did was fuse 2 pentium 4 core together and called them pentium D's.

Will heat up your house real nice in the winter no kidding reviews said. Intels are very uneffecent and are real heaters and power burners. I would rather cook eggs on a intel then use it much less a heater for the winter. They run too hot. Need really good cooling. I am not a intel fan as you can see. Tho they get great OC's its not true clock speed. AMD clocks there speeds right wile if they did it Intels way. AMD's would be clocking faster then intels. Witch amds do at true clock speeds like I said amilion times seemingly slower in number but 2 times faster. Intel cheats too much running cpus until they Overheat. They are desined to run like that. SO they can run as fast as possible with the most heat and power they can take up like water thrown into a pan on a stove set on full blast. Will evaperate that water like it wasn't even there. AMD's run so much cooler the difference is laughable.

And I may talk alot of bull but this bull is the strate simple truth only a intel fan will defend... like its not true when it really is. Its rediculess how intel has poorly made cpus the end of intel maybe pritty close. AND will always rule over all. And I am free to express my opinion about them. So don't rant if ya think this is offencive. Its not, only a simple opinion of intel. I hate intel. No offence to fanboys. They are 2nd best but that is what they will stay, that they will or worse...

I am oviously a amd fan and I just exploded. XDDDDDD >_> OK I'm cool now. lol COUGH... C_C;;;

My Intel chip runs at 2.8Ghz, consumes 65W, and gets 25.6 seconds in superpi. That disproves just about every point you made.


Only thing Intel exaggerates are their TDPs they rate my chip at 27W - even at stock it consumes around 38W. AMD's TDP's appear to be more realistic.

[GMX]

A 2.4ghz amd can beat a 3.8ghz intel because of better arcitecure. What do you think happens when a 4ghz FX challanges a 7.5ghz intel (When the intel wasn't benchable from how I understand it.) And intel cheats to get that clock speed. Its not even a real reading like amds are. AMD is number one for a reason. Clock speed doesn't matter anymore. As why a amd can beat a intel chip any day.

Intels over exagerates there products and makes bull clames. Because if that was the case when why can a 2.4ghz amd kick a 3.8ghz intel's ass when its sipose to be around 1.5ghz faster then a AMD... why is it beat in performance. Cus clock speeds don't matter. Its other factors like bandwidth and fsb and all that good stuff that makes the difference. A 4ghz amd will perform prob better then any intel chip nomatter how high you OC it. Silicon has a limit most reach in a OC because of heat and process limits. 10ghz is all we will see then we will go with diminds instead of silicon, diminds being 10 times faster and cooler running at speeds that would blow our cpus away. Intel is 2nd best for a reason.

There are only 3 major desktop/laptop companies cpu wise worth naming, but macks arn't even hafe as good. You can't even name the others because they can't compare to the speeds intel and amd have made. Intel has been having trouble going very much higher with clock speeds. Thats why they cancaled the 4ghz processor. Sure you can OC them but its not stable passed 6ghz or 6.5ghz. Quite impressave but FX's still kick ass. Its like they are performing 50% faster then there clock speeds really are going. Thats why my OC can be nearly half the speed of a pentium 4 at 3.8ghz and still kick its ass. To top that off with the bandwidth I have. ta you would have to be joking, if anybody can think a normal pentium 4 at 3.8ghz can beat my cpu. Not going to happen. nearly 3 times the fsb and bandwidth makes up for the limited L2 and all that. Not very limited at fsb and bandwidth as well as data rate that insanely high.

It ant about clock speed anymore.

AMD's L2 is OCed as well when you put more speed into the cpu, it OC's the bandwidth and timmings. But it gets to be pritty insane. My system bandwidth is 40gb/s on 64 bit mode tho I beleave much higher, never got cupid to work. But 36gb/s on 32 bit mode. Will get a venice soon to make that 50gb/s at 3ghz or more like 3.5ghz. Will perform very close to those big FX 4ghz and intel 6ghz OC's beyond. Plus that data rate is just killer my chipset can pull off. Almost 3ghz data rate. So I wonder why amds are better now. Its the hugh data rates, fsb, and bandwidth they can get. Best advantage of all being nearly 50% slower then intels, they can outperform a intel nearly 2 times faster. So that says alot about something there. So what do you think will happen when amds start coming out with 3ghz and 3.5ghz chips in the next 2 years. Say good buy to intel. Cus amds perform 2 times faster. Newer sockets like socket M2 run 2.5 times faster fsb then intels. OCing much better.

You don't need to know much to know that. Just intel fan boys really like to back up intel... they are good cpus but not very much of all the hype they turn out to be. AMD is the best and much higher quality. Intels run 2 times the heat and watts. AMD's run 2 times less of everything and are consiterably better for the simple fact, to look around and see benchmarks and see them play games better then intels At such lower clock speeds. There isn't any compitition. Intel is more behind in arcitecture then anything. Amds just simply run better because they are better made and desined. Intels trying all at clock speed this time. Made a unpure ver of 64 bit in there chips when amd made pure 64 bit. They are the kings of that. They been at it for alot longer then intel has in dual cores even. All intel did was fuse 2 pentium 4 core together and called them pentium D's.

Will heat up your house real nice in the winter no kidding reviews said. Intels are very uneffecent and are real heaters and power burners. I would rather cook eggs on a intel then use it much less a heater for the winter. They run too hot. Need really good cooling. I am not a intel fan as you can see. Tho they get great OC's its not true clock speed. AMD clocks there speeds right wile if they did it Intels way. AMD's would be clocking faster then intels. Witch amds do at true clock speeds like I said amilion times seemingly slower in number but 2 times faster. Intel cheats too much running cpus until they Overheat. They are desined to run like that. SO they can run as fast as possible with the most heat and power they can take up like water thrown into a pan on a stove set on full blast. Will evaperate that water like it wasn't even there. AMD's run so much cooler the difference is laughable.

And I may talk alot of bull but this bull is the strate simple truth only a intel fan will defend... like its not true when it really is. Its rediculess how intel has poorly made cpus the end of intel maybe pritty close. AND will always rule over all. And I am free to express my opinion about them. So don't rant if ya think this is offencive. Its not, only a simple opinion of intel. I hate intel. No offence to fanboys. They are 2nd best but that is what they will stay, that they will or worse...

I am oviously a amd fan and I just exploded. XDDDDDD >_> OK I'm cool now. lol COUGH... C_C;;;

Go to AMD Zone.

[MaxxxRacer]

Let the flame wars begin...


(Parental Advisory: I am not in any way, shape, form or manner condoning, starting, or participating in flamming)

[wwwww]

Oh and Intel using an unpure 64bit?

Guess what - Athlon64s are 32bit CPUs with 64bit extensions.
IIRC, Sun made the first pure 64bit CPU.

Don't quote me on any of this though - just my limited understanding of what I've read.

If we made a pure 64bit chip it wouldn't be compatible with 32bit and thus be silly to release as a desktop chip as it wouldn't be compatible with any general software around when the a64 was released.

GMX do I know you? OCAU?

btw,

Barramundi vs Salmon...

Been a Barramundi person for the last 6 months, but just had salmon tonight, and now I dunno..

[MaxxxRacer]

WWWW, afaik 64bit merely means it has 64 bit registers. Merely a wider registe. Just becasue its 64bit doesnt mean that you HAVE to use the entire width. AMD and Intel just made it so that the extra register width can be turned on and off based on the OS. Atleast this is my understanding.

[wwwww]

WWWW, afaik 64bit merely means it has 64 bit registers. Merely a wider registe. Just becasue its 64bit doesnt mean that you HAVE to use the entire width. AMD and Intel just made it so that the extra register width can be turned on and off based on the OS. Atleast this is my understanding.

Isn't it also an extension to the instruction set? Like you can have more instructions given the 64bit instruction length?

anyone know what the 855GME graphics drivers are called?

[Celeron Gamer]

WWWW, afaik 64bit merely means it has 64 bit registers. Merely a wider registe. Just becasue its 64bit doesnt mean that you HAVE to use the entire width. AMD and Intel just made it so that the extra register width can be turned on and off based on the OS. Atleast this is my understanding.


From my knowledge, Sun did make the first 64bit native CPU. The current ones are emulated by instruction sets, and are 32bit native.

If I'm not mistaken 64bit native has no ability to work back with 32bit software. So if AMD64 are actually hard coded 64bit, then all it could do is run Vista, XP-x64, play Far Cry, and run paint and calculator.

[wwwww]

From my knowledge, Sun did make the first 64bit native CPU. The current ones are emulated by instruction sets, and are 32bit native.

If I'm not mistaken 64bit native has no ability to work back with 32bit software. So if AMD64 are actually hard coded 64bit, then all it could do is run Vista, XP-x64, play Far Cry, and run paint and calculator.


yAy - I was right :) - I love it when I speak about something I know nothing about and I happen to be right :D *grins*

[IluvIntel]

yAy - I was right :) - I love it when I speak about something I know nothing about and I happen to be right :D *grins*

Ha ! you make me laugh wwwww :D see you back on OCAU !

[saaya]

why cant amd vs intel threads stay at a reasonable level? :shakes:

thread closed...