__THISRES__100357.jpg "Trick or Treat by °chanelqueen17 1 month 2 weeks ago")
Intel or AMD Processor
It is not 2 dies on the same package, it is one die on one package. The actually implementation are two duo cores, but it is still one die.
Why is it at all relevant that it is not a "true" quad core? In the world of computers there is only 1 important rubic, speed.
Lastly, again even if no one brings it against Intel, the tech roadmap will keep it on the road. And I am pretty sure IBM will step in =)
Why is it at all relevant that it is not a "true" quad core? In the world of computers there is only 1 important rubic, speed.
Lastly, again even if no one brings it against Intel, the tech roadmap will keep it on the road. And I am pretty sure IBM will step in =)
Right from Anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3137&p=2
Right from Xbitlabs
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_2.html#sect0
The reason it matters is latency between the cores. True quads don't have that latency meaning even more performance. Nehalem will be a CPU to behold. No more Northbridge latency. No more FSB and system memory latency between the two dies. Now we can only pray that AMD's Shanghai core can keep up giving us a great price war...
And IBM couldn't care less about the desktop market anymore. Hell they don't even care about the laptop market. Otherwise they never would have sold both of them off.
-S1
Yorkfield is quad-core Penryn for the desktop, Wolfdale is simply dual-core. Yorkfield isn't actually a different die, because a Yorkfield chip is just made up of two Wolfdale die on the same package (just like current quad-core Kentsfield Intel CPUs). This won't change until Nehalem.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3137&p=2
Right from Xbitlabs
It is built with two dual-core semiconductor Wolfdale dies stuffed into a single processor packaging. These dies communicate with one another via the front side bus and system memory, just like the dies of the quad-core Kentsfield processors.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_2.html#sect0
The reason it matters is latency between the cores. True quads don't have that latency meaning even more performance. Nehalem will be a CPU to behold. No more Northbridge latency. No more FSB and system memory latency between the two dies. Now we can only pray that AMD's Shanghai core can keep up giving us a great price war...
And IBM couldn't care less about the desktop market anymore. Hell they don't even care about the laptop market. Otherwise they never would have sold both of them off.
-S1
Well, IBM is dropped because of laptops first and desktop second because powerpc processor sucked power like crazy.
Also, I am not sure why latency is such a big problem. It is pretty rare for a single program to extend behond a single core.
I am pretty sure you won't have to pray for a price war, if things go as they have been recently, it will be fine. As of right now, someone can pay $250 for a processor that is completely top notch, this has never happened before. I am pretty sure the Nehalem core will be avalible in a wide spectrum of products allowing one to purchase a low end and overclock! yatta!
Also, I am not sure why latency is such a big problem. It is pretty rare for a single program to extend behond a single core.
I am pretty sure you won't have to pray for a price war, if things go as they have been recently, it will be fine. As of right now, someone can pay $250 for a processor that is completely top notch, this has never happened before. I am pretty sure the Nehalem core will be avalible in a wide spectrum of products allowing one to purchase a low end and overclock! yatta!
#755590 Quote Report Edited by ~TheMadManAzn 1 year 7 months ago
It depends i guess on what you want i currently have two pcs..
one which has an AMD Athlon X2 Dual Core 5000+ which runs fine but the lack of cache lets it down a bit only having 640kb per core so 4kb under 1mb of cache but with 3gb of ram it does run great accept for gaming it lacks up a bit.
the other computer has a Core Duo 2.66ghz with 6mb of cache also with the same amount of ram running apps etc theres not much difference between the intel and the amd but when i chuck on a game i never get lag both pc's run nvidia 8800GTS video cards so i think if you want a cheaer cpu that performs great for everyday use go AMD but if you want something a little more reliable and play games etc ild go with intel Cpu's they seem to run at a lower operating temp then the amds.
one which has an AMD Athlon X2 Dual Core 5000+ which runs fine but the lack of cache lets it down a bit only having 640kb per core so 4kb under 1mb of cache but with 3gb of ram it does run great accept for gaming it lacks up a bit.
the other computer has a Core Duo 2.66ghz with 6mb of cache also with the same amount of ram running apps etc theres not much difference between the intel and the amd but when i chuck on a game i never get lag both pc's run nvidia 8800GTS video cards so i think if you want a cheaer cpu that performs great for everyday use go AMD but if you want something a little more reliable and play games etc ild go with intel Cpu's they seem to run at a lower operating temp then the amds.
I don't want to interfere too much.. ("If you play with fire you can burn yourself"..and this is a flame war.. I think .. :P) I using Intel since the first PC, just as my father did. I tried few AMD based PCs, but they were slower than our celerons. There are 3 active PC in the house, my using an Intel Core2Quad Q6600, other PC > Intel Pentium D 2.8ghz 2x2 , last one is just a Core2Duo @ 2.66ghz. I really don't know why AMD worth its cost, cause if you have a look on Tomshardware tests, Intel beats them anyway, and the top-amd CPUs are not too cheap.. even costs more than the better Intel CPU. By the way, I have Linux with SMP PREEMP + multithread kernel, what can use all of the 4 CPUs (8core). It gives extreme performance. 0.1 load, 34celsius on default or even on full load... I never been able to give 400% Cpu load for them.
By the way, I prefer AMD only cause the 45W power consumption. Yes it's sempron, and it's just 1100mhz. BUT its perfect for a Debian homeserver or anything like that.
By the way, I prefer AMD only cause the 45W power consumption. Yes it's sempron, and it's just 1100mhz. BUT its perfect for a Debian homeserver or anything like that.
I aint complaining about my cpu, however it needs to be upgraded soon (Intel Core2duo E6600)
i have used AMD before, but neither of the two im complaining about.
but as far as im concerned, high teched games are mostly developed with intel technology. and will use intel processors more efficiently.
but it's the same with games designed with Nvidia, it still works fine on Ati cards.
so they choice eventually lays to you, how big is your wallet. and what is your experience with them.
as far as im concerned, the intel processors, on the somewhat 'higher' levels have a lot more performance than AMD processors.
i have used AMD before, but neither of the two im complaining about.
but as far as im concerned, high teched games are mostly developed with intel technology. and will use intel processors more efficiently.
but it's the same with games designed with Nvidia, it still works fine on Ati cards.
so they choice eventually lays to you, how big is your wallet. and what is your experience with them.
as far as im concerned, the intel processors, on the somewhat 'higher' levels have a lot more performance than AMD processors.
/off/ I answer to your post Axilya ... but this will be a bit offtopic: I don't prefer Ati for anyone who want to use Linux. Or who doesn't very happy with high electricity bills. /off/
Now now, this isn't a flame war, we are just doing a bit of comparing apples or oranges =P (and I am not talking about amd and intel =P)
Yepp I said this too..but sometimes the flame just growing and growing then comes the war.. :) By the way I mentioned that I just using the X and I prefer X, and why doesnt the Y.. You can guess what is what^^
Alright, an update for anyone who still cares!
Live and learn, what I love to do! Today I learned that IMB makes a server processor based of a AMD 64 processor thats x86. =P I think google may have some of them or something.
Live and learn, what I love to do! Today I learned that IMB makes a server processor based of a AMD 64 processor thats x86. =P I think google may have some of them or something.
1 year 6 months ago
Both have some good lineups with cpu's both hardcore and budget these days. but i would say looking at the choices you would wanna go with a intel cpu, i just feel that they are a little more thrustworthy somehow when it comes to deliver what you need both for desktop jobs and gaming. they are usually a little better to overclock also.
Intel have taken the edge back from AMD lately, better prices for more with their Core 2 Duo line, I had an AMD but then turned to an Intel processor, as a processor of equal speed and quality was fairly more expensive than the Intel as well as me finding a very nice Intel targeted motherboard.
Both are pretty good. But I prefer an AMD CPU mainly because they're cheaper than Intel CPUs.
Price comparison:
For an average Dual Core...
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (2.6GHz): $89.99
Intel Core 2 Duo E4700 (2.6 GHz): $138.99
Difference of $49
And for a Quad Core...
AMD Phenom 9850 (2.5 GHz): $235
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 (2.5 Ghz): 274.99
Difference of $40
I just have a feeling that someday, AMD will become the leading CPU Manufacturer... And AMD also have Triple Core Phenoms foe those less powerful computers.
Price comparison:
For an average Dual Core...
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (2.6GHz): $89.99
Intel Core 2 Duo E4700 (2.6 GHz): $138.99
Difference of $49
And for a Quad Core...
AMD Phenom 9850 (2.5 GHz): $235
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 (2.5 Ghz): 274.99
Difference of $40
I just have a feeling that someday, AMD will become the leading CPU Manufacturer... And AMD also have Triple Core Phenoms foe those less powerful computers.
This post has been filtered for improved legibility #766095 Quote Report Edited by ~SirKnight 1 year 6 months ago
SirKnightPrice comparison:
For an average Dual Core...
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (2.6GHz): $89.99
Intel Core 2 Duo E4700 (2.6 GHz): $138.99
Difference of $49
And for a Quad Core...
AMD Phenom 9850 (2.5 GHz): $235
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 (2.5 Ghz): 274.99
Difference of $40
Are you comparing the prices of the chips based on just their frequency, or have you looked at the performance comparisons?
+++ So long, and thanks for all the fish +++
I based it on their frequency. I thought the performance would be the same as well.