Re: amd .vs intel....

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 13:42 +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote:
> Jeff Vian wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 11:04 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
> > 
> >>At 8:30 AM -0700 12/13/05, Robin Laing wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>To me the cutting edge is better dual core functioning and better
> >>>memory handling.  Also lower power consumption is a nice feature.  How
> >>>about 64 bit processors?  How easy is it to get an Intel 64 bit
> >>>processor?  At what cost/benefit ratio?
> >>
> >>Ease up on the advocacy (from another AMD user).
> >>
> >>Note that AMD has been able to raise their prices and still keep a useful
> >>cost/benefit ratio over Intel, but at a higher cost.
> >>
> > 
> > The cost/benefit is lower, thus better value in spite of the actual $
> > spent. This is what users see and want.
> > 
> > 
> >>>I like how Intel is now following the AMD line stating that processor
> >>>speed isn't as important as processing power.  Hasn't AMD been stating
> >>>that for years?  And hasn't Intel been bashing them over it for years.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> > 
> > 
> >>AMD started that fight in the first place, and had to switch to PR
> > 
> >                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Chose to utilize performance as the comparison since theirs was
> > obviously able to do more at a lower clock speed.
> > 
> > 
> >>(Performance Rating, Public Relations, you pick) when their next faster
> >>chips got more performance at an initially lower clock rate.  Intel hasn't
> >>said a word about AMD PR, because AMD PR compares performance to an
> >>original Athlon, not any Intel chip.
> > 
> > AFAIK it compares to a P4 at the stated speed.
> > 
> > 
> >>Intel chose the P4 architecture over several alternatives because 1) the
> >>architect thought it had legs and 2) it would always trounce AMD in the
> >>clock speed race.  Intel left the P4 (and the architect left Intel) when
> >>the P4 ran out of legs
> > 
> > 
> > I don't think that is fair to Intel.  The 32bit processor for all makers
> > has reached near EOL.  Intel (and AMD) are focusing on their new 64bit
> > processors which is a natural replacement for the P4.
> > 
> > Clock speed actually means nothing for performance comparisons.  I
> > believe mips is a much better measure of performance.  AMD wins hands
> > down there because a Sempron 3000+ actually runs at 2ghz and outperforms
> > a P4 at 3ghz, with similar results for all the Athalon and Sempron +
> > series chips.  AMD also wins on the power/heat area as well. 
> > 
> > The facts are that AMD has better performance at lower speed and takes
> > advantage of that as a marketing tool.  It takes PR to let people know
> > that clock speed is not a valid measurement.  You have to compare
> > athalon to athalon or P4 to P4 for clock speed to be valid. Performance
> > is the only valid measurement for comparison when comparing different
> > manufacturers processors.
> > 
> > NOTE: I am an AMD user, but I think arguments should be fair and factual
> > not biased or based on innuendo.
> > 
> 
> I (almost) agree fully. We build both AMD and Intel boxes here. There is 
> just one point I'd like to make.
> 
> You mention a Sempron 3000+ outperforming a P4 3GHz. I just want to 
> mention this is NOT our experience with building these boxes.
> 
> For the sake of arguments remaining fair, this would have to be corrected.
> 
> No doubt the new AMD (X2 especially) series absolutely spank whatever 
> Intel has to offer at the moment, but our Winstone/Performance/Burn-In 
> tests our PCs MUST complete before leaving the office, do not support 
> your Sempron statement.
> 
> All your other arguments get my vote.
> 
Thanks Ed.

I am going by what I understand of the PR statements and have not done
testing myself.

I guess I should get the testing tools, but since I usually only build
for myself it has not been that important to me so far.

Sorry if I have been misled in that area.

> Regards,
> Ed.


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux