Author Topic: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?  (Read 7627 times)

Offline fohfoh

  • Member
  • Posts: 12031
  • Mod AznV~ We don't call it "Live Action"
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #40 on: July 21, 2009, 06:39:49 AM »
Yeah.. but no one gives a shit about desktops.Those are MEANT to be abused.

What was a T3400 supposed to clock at? What bios "updates" brought it to 2.0Ghz. (I know my T7200 has been running 2.0 since 2005 or 2006 so)
This is your home now. So take advantage of everything here, except me.

Offline bloody000

  • Member
  • Posts: 1401
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #41 on: July 21, 2009, 07:35:12 AM »
Yeah.. but no one gives a shit about desktops.Those are MEANT to be abused.

What was a T3400 supposed to clock at? What bios "updates" brought it to 2.0Ghz. (I know my T7200 has been running 2.0 since 2005 or 2006 so)
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLB3P
All you have to do is study it out. Just study it out.

Offline kyanwan

  • Member
  • Posts: 1880
  • 口寄せ・穢土転生!
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2009, 06:56:35 PM »
How come you didn't read my post?


----------------
***:
a. Overclocking is about bragging rights and e-penis.
b. You don't need the extra performance. Even if you do it's not worth it.
c. Moderate OC is not OC and is for pussies. Real man does Extreme OC(TM).

Make up your fucking mind and try again.

( I don't bother with OCing - I don't have the time, or need.   ^_^ )

Those intel CPUs have 2X and 3X the Cache of the AMD competitor.   You're paying for that - do you know how expensive that cache is?

By design, the cache preloads code into the CPU - the on-CPU cache executes far faster than RAM, far faster than anything your system has.   By design, these CPUs run much faster than the AMD counterpart.

For the amount of cache they have on hand, this only proves to me there is nothing superior about the design of the CPU.   The only thing Intel has done, is made a larger line of CPUs with big cache.   That's all they're doing.

I've got to look into Opterons vs Intel.   B/c, just logically - by what I see on the numbers of these CPUs - something's fishy.  ( Fishy as in - let me equate this to cars.   Lexus vs Mercedes.   IMO - Mercedes > Lexus easy.   So - Lexus - instead of comparing them to Mercedes, will compare themselves to Ford Focus - and say, "look how good we are!" )

I shall augment my argument by providing this completely irrelevant link:

http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2009/07/21/lady-gagas-muppet-fashion-fixation/

( I am now laughing my ass off at confused / high / retarded / insane / insanely-smart person and their strange choices in fashion.    Alright everyone - all together now:  WTF? )
« Last Edit: July 21, 2009, 07:08:22 PM by kyanwan »
Nothing.

Offline sdedalus83

  • Member
  • Posts: 2867
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #43 on: July 21, 2009, 07:31:51 PM »
On opterons vs. i7 xeons - intel still doesn't produce a good multisocket platform and has rather poor support for third party coprocessors.

Until QPI matures, AMD will remain on top at the high end.

Offline Tatsujin

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 15632
    • Otakixus
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #44 on: July 21, 2009, 07:52:06 PM »
You know what, screw all of you. I'm gonna go back on my Pentium II and overclock that shit with my 128 MB Memory, Mobo video card. Raw power. Beat that shit.  :D


¸¸,.-~*'¨¨¨™¤¦ Otakixus ¦¤™¨¨¨'*~-.,¸¸

Offline relic2279

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 4479
  • レーザービーム
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #45 on: July 21, 2009, 07:57:02 PM »
Go with the old Pentium Pro :D

It's not the netburst architecture, it's actually what the new core architecture is based on.

Offline Tatsujin

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 15632
    • Otakixus
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #46 on: July 21, 2009, 08:00:08 PM »
They're all talking about X's and Y's and G's and B's and Squares and pies and sands and missles and porn. Well, I'll tell you what. Pentium II > Amd 64x2 + Phenomn x4 + Quad 2 Extreme Q9850 + Core i7.


beat.that.shit.


¸¸,.-~*'¨¨¨™¤¦ Otakixus ¦¤™¨¨¨'*~-.,¸¸

Offline Lupin

  • Member
  • Posts: 2169
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #47 on: July 21, 2009, 09:51:34 PM »
They're all talking about X's and Y's and G's and B's and Squares and pies and sands and missles and porn. Well, I'll tell you what. Pentium II > Amd 64x2 + Phenomn x4 + Quad 2 Extreme Q9850 + Core i7.


beat.that.shit.

Mendocino Celeron will beat your shit anyday.

Offline Tatsujin

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 15632
    • Otakixus
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #48 on: July 21, 2009, 10:03:45 PM »
They're all talking about X's and Y's and G's and B's and Squares and pies and sands and missles and porn. Well, I'll tell you what. Pentium II > Amd 64x2 + Phenomn x4 + Quad 2 Extreme Q9850 + Core i7.


beat.that.shit.

Mendocino Celeron will beat your shit anyday.
Fuck that little half ass processor. That thing will die before it can run on a mobo.


¸¸,.-~*'¨¨¨™¤¦ Otakixus ¦¤™¨¨¨'*~-.,¸¸

Offline Lupin

  • Member
  • Posts: 2169
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #49 on: July 21, 2009, 10:12:52 PM »
Fuck that little half ass processor. That thing will die before it can run on a mobo.
I've been running that proc at 450MHz (original: 300MHz) for 4 long years before upgrading my computer to an Athlon XP (another good processor that kicked netburst's ass for quite some time). I can still boot-up that machine until now, 10 years after I started using it.

Offline bloody000

  • Member
  • Posts: 1401
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #50 on: July 21, 2009, 10:56:52 PM »
( I don't bother with OCing - I don't have the time, or need.   ^_^ )
Those intel CPUs have 2X and 3X the Cache of the AMD competitor. You're paying for that - do you know how expensive that cache is?
By design, the cache preloads code into the CPU - the on-CPU cache executes far faster than RAM, far faster than anything your system has. By design, these CPUs run much faster than the AMD counterpart.
For the amount of cache they have on hand, this only proves to me there is nothing superior about the design of the CPU. The only thing Intel has done, is made a larger line of CPUs with big cache. That's all they're doing.

That's the kind of arguments like "Real Quad Core(TM) vs. 2 x dual core", things that only make a difference in people's head.

Q8400 2.66 2x2M_L2  $175
Q9400 2.66 2x3M_L2  $200
Q9550 2.80 2x6M_L2  $220($230)

PII 920    2.80 4x512K_L2 6M_L3  $150($190) AM2+
PII 940BE 3.00 4x512K_L2 6M_L3  $190 AM2+
PII 945    3.00 4x512K_L2 6M_L3  $225 AM3
PII 955BE 3.20 4x512K_L2 6M_L3  $239($255) AM3

If you compare them in that AnandTech page you will find that similar priced ones have similar performance.
--------

Now, i7 920(and every i7) has the least amount of L1, least but fastest L2 and the biggest L3(appears to be the fastest too) out of the bunch, runs at 2.66G, overclocks like there's no tomorrow at stock voltage, costs $280($289) and beats the 955BE in virtually every test. It also isn't a dead end like LGA775. But the obvious drawback is of course the prices of X58 boards.
All you have to do is study it out. Just study it out.

Offline kyanwan

  • Member
  • Posts: 1880
  • 口寄せ・穢土転生!
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #51 on: July 21, 2009, 11:22:41 PM »
They're all talking about X's and Y's and G's and B's and Squares and pies and sands and missles and porn. Well, I'll tell you what. Pentium II > Amd 64x2 + Phenomn x4 + Quad 2 Extreme Q9850 + Core i7.


beat.that.shit.

THERE WE GO ~

We're comparing 2mb cache chips to ones with 6mb cache = AMD.  

Why AMD won't fucking pump up the cache on their regular CPUs - I have no clue.   They've been doing this forever.  Ever since the original Pentiums.

*shrug*

Why people get all emo over CPUs I fail to see.   Like my jackass brother.   "Zomg 360 is so better tahn PC - ur PC sux0rs."

Right.  PC sux for him because MAW knows if he had a PC in his room all he'd be doing is FAPPING ALL FUCKING DAY XD   ( What a dumbass. )

Nothing.

Offline queenmetroid

  • Member
  • Posts: 1169
  • Uuuuuuuu! Uuuuuuuuu! UUUUUUUU!!!
    • Metal Slug Database
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #52 on: July 21, 2009, 11:31:36 PM »
Quote from: kyanwan

Right.  PC sux for him because MAW knows if he had a PC in his room all he'd be doing is FAPPING ALL FUCKING DAY XD   ( What a dumbass. )

That's purely a need to know type of thing. xD

Personally, I put my reliance on Intel down to brand loyalty. AMD hasn't done so hot for me in the past, and I can't stand unreliable silicon. The only boards I've ever fried have been...AMD. I don't OC much, but when I do, I like to be assured of reliability. The only Intel board I've ever had die on me was because the heat sink fell off (my fault). I've had no less than SIX AMD boards die on me for various (or no) reason. I'm willing to pay for a comparably priced Intel CPU because the performance gap will be so small anyway. I don't need to squeeze out an extra 20 megahertz, it really won't matter much in the end.

Like Lupin said, I had a P3 board ( with a 450 mhz CPU) that lasted 8 years. It survived the USB ports catching on fire. That type of stuff brings me solidly to Intel's side.
Quote from: queenmetroid
Quote from: esreveR
Seriously queen, can't you read?
What makes you think I actually read your posts?

Offline kyanwan

  • Member
  • Posts: 1880
  • 口寄せ・穢土転生!
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #53 on: July 21, 2009, 11:50:17 PM »
For my own systems - I always plan my systems to last at least 3-4 years.   I built two based on the FX55 - way back when.   They're still going strong enough for me.   The next two, I made on socket AM2.... this is right before Core2 came out.   :|    So I was disappointed, kinda. 

I've used whatever was available and at a decent price point / performance - course, to last a few years.   

I tell you, if I were to buy a new system right now - a bit back in the post I mentioned two CPUs - one Intel, one AMD - side by side - with a $5 price difference.   I would buy the Intel for myself.

( * I have 2 EOL'd AMD systems that can't be upgraded.  Can't do anything with em.  Unless I see a real reason to replace those systems with AMD - which I really don't - I would consider Intel.    Same thing with AMD K6-2 - I completely dropped AMD at that time, lol, for the P2- I bought a P2-350 / 100mhz - which I was VERY VERY happy with.   Yeah, the P2 was truly a kick-ass CPU in its day. )
Nothing.

Offline relic2279

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 4479
  • レーザービーム
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #54 on: July 22, 2009, 12:39:23 AM »
For my own systems - I always plan my systems to last at least 3-4 years. 

Ditto. I bought my e6400 2 years and 5 months ago to date. Glad I chose that cheap chip because I was able to watch HD content on my HD TV (dual monitor FTW) which I didn't initially foresee. Streaming shit from my computer to my HD bigscreen is the most important thing I do on my PC right now. :P
I will be upgrading in august/sept though. And I'm DEFINITELY buying another intel chip.

Offline kureshii

  • Former Staff
  • Member
  • Posts: 4485
  • May typeset edited light novels if asked nicely.
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #55 on: July 22, 2009, 10:07:27 AM »
( I don't bother with OCing - I don't have the time, or need.   ^_^ )

Those intel CPUs have 2X and 3X the Cache of the AMD competitor.   You're paying for that - do you know how expensive that cache is?

By design, the cache preloads code into the CPU - the on-CPU cache executes far faster than RAM, far faster than anything your system has.   By design, these CPUs run much faster than the AMD counterpart.

For the amount of cache they have on hand, this only proves to me there is nothing superior about the design of the CPU.   The only thing Intel has done, is made a larger line of CPUs with big cache.   That's all they're doing.
Just to point out something minor, it's the LGA775 generation of Intel chips (excluding the Celerons of course) that have larger cache. To my understanding, this is to offset the slightly higher latency involved in accessing main memory due to the Northbridge-bound memory controller (vs AMD chips which have the memory controller on-die).

[edit] In fact, now that I check, AMD Phenom II X4 955 has double the L1/L2 cache of Intel Core i7 920, but less L3 (6MB on 955 vs 8MB on 920). Q9550 has half the L1 and double the L2 size of the X4 955.

The i7 series actually have less L1+L2 cache than the Core 2 Quad series (about half of it), and IIRC from the Anandtech article/interview this was because Intel had improved the access time for their caches (mostly due to the now-integrated memory controller). The lack of cache storage was offset by adding a shared L3.

I've used whatever was available and at a decent price point / performance - course, to last a few years.
I do the same thing; buying whatever's best for what I intend to use it for (which isn't always building a personal desktop). Right now the only devices I can safely say I'll always buy Intel for, are laptops.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2009, 03:39:25 PM by kureshii »

Offline Tatsujin

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 15632
    • Otakixus
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #56 on: July 22, 2009, 02:18:11 PM »
( I don't bother with OCing - I don't have the time, or need.   ^_^ )

Those intel CPUs have 2X and 3X the Cache of the AMD competitor.   You're paying for that - do you know how expensive that cache is?

By design, the cache preloads code into the CPU - the on-CPU cache executes far faster than RAM, far faster than anything your system has.   By design, these CPUs run much faster than the AMD counterpart.

For the amount of cache they have on hand, this only proves to me there is nothing superior about the design of the CPU.   The only thing Intel has done, is made a larger line of CPUs with big cache.   That's all they're doing.
Just to point out something minor, it's the LGA775 generation of Intel chips (excluding the Celerons of course) that have larger cache. To my understanding, this is to offset the slightly higher latency involved in accessing main memory due to the Northbridge-bound memory controller.

The i7 series actually have less L1+L2 cache than the Core 2 Quad series (about half of it), and IIRC from the Anandtech article/interview this was because Intel had improved the access time for their caches (mostly due to the now-integrated memory controller). The lack of cache storage was offset by adding a shared L3.

I've used whatever was available and at a decent price point / performance - course, to last a few years.
I do the same thing; buying whatever's best for what I intend to use it for (which isn't always building a personal desktop). Right now the only devices I can safely say I'll always buy Intel for, are laptops.
Extremely super newb question, what's L1/2/3 Cashe? I never understood that.


¸¸,.-~*'¨¨¨™¤¦ Otakixus ¦¤™¨¨¨'*~-.,¸¸

Offline sdedalus83

  • Member
  • Posts: 2867
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #57 on: July 22, 2009, 02:48:19 PM »
High speed local memory for the CPU.  Instructions are fetched from RAM and stored in cache until executed.
L1 is for data the cpu will process immediately, L2 for data which has been predicted to be needed in the near future, L3 is generally a high latency extension of L2, but with newer designs, specifically with individual cores having dedicated L2, it stores data which has yet to be assigned a core.  It helps make L2 more efficient by minimizing the need for inter core communication.

Offline Lupin

  • Member
  • Posts: 2169
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #58 on: July 22, 2009, 02:55:04 PM »
Extremely super newb question, what's L1/2/3 Cashe? I never understood that.
It's a small amount of memory found inside your processor. Data/instructions are fetched from your main memory (RAM) and placed in your cache which are much faster than your RAM (because it's much closer to the processor). There are different levels of cache, L1 being the fastest and L3 the slowest. Intel and AMD have different implementations of the cache. AMD has a big L1 cache (compared to Intel's) and smaller L2/L3 cache (again compared to Intel's) but is exclusive (meaning data in the L1 cache cannot be found in L2/L3 cache. Intel is the exact opposite--very small L1 cache but LARGE L2/L3 cache. Cache maybe also be shared between cores.

Just to point out something minor, it's the LGA775 generation of Intel chips (excluding the Celerons of course) that have larger cache. To my understanding, this is to offset the slightly higher latency involved in accessing main memory due to the Northbridge-bound memory controller.
Very true. It was during the Prescott days when Intel increased the external cache of their processors simply because it can't compete with AMD's on-die controller if it didn't.

Offline kureshii

  • Former Staff
  • Member
  • Posts: 4485
  • May typeset edited light novels if asked nicely.
Re: Intel kicking AMD to the curb?
« Reply #59 on: July 22, 2009, 03:06:30 PM »
Extremely super newb question, what's L1/2/3 Cashe? I never understood that.
As explained earlier by Lupin and sdedalus, it's essentially very fast (but very small) memory that sits on the processor die (i.e. packaged with the processor), and is used by the processor to store data and instructions that it works with. Data that it can't find in the cache will have to be pulled from main system memory or your storage devices, which slows things down tremendously.

The main difference between processor cache and your system memory is that your caches consist of SRAM, while system memory consists of DRAM. Without reading those articles, all you need to know is that SRAM requires more components, is more complicated to make and thus is more expensive (so you only have a little of it). DRAM is simpler and cheaper to make, so you have more of it (just compare the circuit diagrams of SRAM and DRAM to get an idea of that).

In addition, DRAM has the disadvantage of being "leaky" (as it's based on capacitors) so it has to be refreshed every so often. Of course, during this refresh no data can be read or written, which further adds to access delay.

If I've successfully piqued your interest, Gustavo Duarte has an excellent writeup of the various things in your computer's processing pipeline that slow it down. In particular, note the latencies involved in accessing cache, memory, hard disks, and the Internet, as well as the respective sizes of the caches. Hope that's enough reading for you ;)

[edit] In case that's not enough, here's a book/writeup discussing it in more detail, and with comparison graphs to boot.
Link: What every programmer should know about memory (PDF version)
« Last Edit: July 22, 2009, 03:17:12 PM by kureshii »