Intel Vs. Amd

[nikita69]

Originally posted by adamp2p@7 September 2003 - 07:14
The real issue about Intel and AMD is what you can do the most with for less.

agree,

no offence to anyone, by I'm still using my XT and loving IT.

[lynx]

Amd: add 2 numbers together
Loads two numbers and prepares adding unit all at same time.

Intel: add 2 numbers together
Loads two numbers then prepares adding unit.

Obviously doing more things at the same time speeds things up, which means the processor can do the same amount of work wih a lower clock speed. However, doing more things at the same time also means that the processor gets hotter - work is what causes heat, not overclocking.

I hope that is simple enough for those of you who believe that GHz is a true measure or processor power. (It is not an exact example, merely to show the sort of things that go on in a processor).

Intel have been around for a long time, but they have never been particularly good at designing efficient processors, their sheer size has been a large factor in keeping them going, but they manage to stay at the front only by constantly raising the processor speeds. If someone combined Intel processor technology with AMD design technology, the result would wipe the floor with the processors of both Intel and AMD, but cooling such a beast would certainly be something of a headache.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by boyzeee@6 September 2003 - 23:56
AMD Athlon Processors run hotter than intels because they are just ALL overclocked to begin with coz AMD Couldnt or just cant be arsed to make a processor from scratch that will compete with the P4's speed.

btw, this is a complete misunderstanding of what "overclock" means. you, the customer, do not decide what an overclock is. the manufacturer decides. it's as simple as that. they test the chips and decide how high the clock frequency can go while still remaining acceptably cool and stable, and then they rate it for a certain frequency. any clock frequency chosen by the manufacturer cannot be described as an overclock, because the manufacturer has the last word on what counts as a default clock or an overclock.

if YOU raise the frequency above the manufacturer's rating, it's an overclock. why? because the manufacturer says so.

[boyzeee]

I know what you are saying but what i meant was instead of amd designing new processors they basically increase the clock speed of the ones they got already with the exception of barton, the design of the xp2.0 is basically the same as the 1400 but amd themselves have just overclocked it and still continue to do so.

[lynx]

Originally posted by boyzeee@7 September 2003 - 10:44
I know what you are saying but what i meant was instead of amd designing new processors they basically increase the clock speed of the ones they got already with the exception of barton, the design of the xp2.0 is basically the same as the 1400 but amd themselves have just overclocked it and still continue to do so.

Amd raise their clock speeds in exactly the same way that Intel do, by refining the manufacturing process of chips of a certain design, but there comes a point where that design cannot be improved further, so a new model/generation has to be designed to provide further benefits.

The P4 3Ghz is exactly the same chip as the P4 2Ghz, why aren't you complaining about Intel overclocking their chips? Just another poor deluded person who has fallen into Intels Ghz trap.

[3RA1N1AC]

if a company creates a CPU in 2003 and it only has a difference of a few hundred mhz between their first chip and their final one, and they can't take it any higher before needing to create a completely new design... they should consider it a failure, because research & development is pretty darned expensive, and CPU designs are meant to last for a while.

the reason Intel designed the P4 was not out of the goodness of their hearts, because they wanted to do a favor for their loyal customers, or in the interest of science. they designed the P4 because the P3 ran into a wall. the P3 got to a point where it either was unable to go any faster, or it wasn't performing well enough at its highest clock speeds to justify continuining with it. that's just bad luck for Intel. the P3 didn't have longevity. i don't know how high P4 clock frequencies are supposed to eventually go, but it appears to be a design that will end up dealing very well with extremely high clock speeds.

AMD is not guilty of overclocking, and neither will Intel be when they're still selling P4s that run at 4ghz-5ghz. it's actually a good thing, when they come up with a design that can scale well to significant increases in clock speed. that's just good research & development, and proof that they didn't waste their money on a bad chip design.

[boyzeee]

"The P4 3Ghz is exactly the same chip as the P4 2Ghz, why aren't you complaining about Intel overclocking their chips? Just another poor deluded person who has fallen into Intels Ghz trap."


wtf? i repair pc's for a living mate so dont preach to me. i cant remember the last time i had a faulty intel based system that it was the processor that was f**ked, usually its other h/ware of config software issues. AMD based systems on the other hand (and ive just checked my book to be definate) i have had 6 xp2.0 systems where chip has died, 4 xp1700, and 1 xp 1800. I have had 20+ amd systems where they keep crashing and freezing due to poor cooling and dirty fans. so what does that tell me? they are running TO DARN HOT BECAUSE OF OVERCLOCKING OR WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT. I said in my first post that i myself run on an amd but have bloody good cooling, they are ok if they are running cool. STFU

[lynx]

Originally posted by boyzeee+7 September 2003 - 11:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (boyzeee &#064; 7 September 2003 - 11:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I have had 20+ amd systems where they keep crashing and freezing due to poor cooling and dirty fans.
[/b]

So poor cooling is to blame.

<!--QuoteBegin-boyzeee
so what does that tell me? they are running TO DARN HOT BECAUSE OF OVERCLOCKING OR WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT.[/quote]
Or is it overclocking ? Can you make up your mind ?

How much does it take to get through to you that WORK creates heat, and obviously that heat has to be removed. AMD chips get hotter for the same clock frequency because they are doing more work - this is not overclocking, it is efficient processor design.

I think you are being a little unfair to blame AMD for the many undersized and incorrectly fitted cooling systems on the market, and most decent motherboards come with overtemperature prevention systems. It is hardly the fault of AMD if people do not set them up correctly or buy boards without this sort of protection. The only area where I would fault AMD is in not providing this sort of protection on-chip in the way that Intel do (which is presumably why you haven&#39;t seen many Intel chips which have blown through overheating).

Edit: removed flame, it was causing overheating and could have lead to hyper-threading.

[3RA1N1AC]

btw, boyzeee, my responses are not meant to be insulting. i&#39;m just trying to explain that it&#39;s the goal of both Intel and AMD to create a CPU design that they can continue to refine and speed up for a few years, rather than throw it away and have to design a new one. that&#39;s just the most profitable situation for them, if they can raise the clock speeds for a few years and still see significant increases in benchmark scores & such. because eventually there is a point of diminishing returns, for increases in clock speed vs actual processing power... and neither Intel nor AMD wants to see their CPUs cross that point too early.

as far as heat, that is an issue which can be dealt with by making adjustments/improvements to the manufacturing process. it&#39;s not a problem inherent to the design. personally, my 2ghz athlon maintains lower temperatures (approx 40C-45C) than my 1ghz athlon did (more than 50C), and the cooler isn&#39;t very much larger at all (edit: actually, it&#39;s the standard cooler packaged by AMD along with their retail CPUs).

[boyzeee]

I do know what i am talking about and i am not saying that you dont&#33; my reference to "overclocking or whatever" is from 3RA1N1AC posts refering to my terminology. i said in my first post you get what you pay for and intel do a better job ( in my humble opinion) at making "quality" processors and when i say quality i mean they dont give up on you because of a dirty cooler&#33; I am not blaming AMD for the cooling issues in the pc&#39;s i have had in for repair and when i have sent back burnt out processors under warranty they have NEVER questioned it&#33; that in itself speaks volumes to me. I dont doubt the performance of amd&#39;s thats why i run on one&#33; the average user isnt going to notice much difference anyway. I actually recommend AMD&#39;s when i am building a pc but always install enough cooling to cope. And amd keep intel on there toes which is a good thing. I just think Amd seem (to me) to have pushed it to far with its processors, I mean just how big a cooler will we end up having to use&#33;