Processors - Debate & Discuss!

[rich_505]

Personally I'm an Intel guy, I like their processing power and find them good reliable processors that I can put through pretty much anything without it having any trouble. I've had Pentium since Pentium 1 then Pentium 2 MMX then I got an amazing Pentium 3 900MHz and that really did take some beating, then I got a PC with a Pentium 4 3.2GHz processor in it and hated it quite a lot actually. Now I've got a Pentium D, last of the Pentiums I do believe. I'm hoping to get a new PC in the next year or so, and I'm sure I'll be sticking with Intel.

My only major concen about Intel was and still is the abysmal Celeron processors, now they really do just suck to the point of no return! Every celeron I've ever used has been in a very poorly built machine, except for one which was in a pretty decent machine... The Celeron seriously slowed it down when you did more than MSN or Internet Explorer. For people who want to email and view webpages the Celeron is fine, for School use for example too it's fine. But why oh why are they sold in business/mid-range home machines!?!

What about AMD? Anyone use their processors? Only time I've used them once in a PC I was learning how to use Sage Line 50 Accounts on and it had 3 processor changes within the 2 weeks I was using it. They seem really poor to me, anyone care to change my mind?

[YellowPoofBall]

I prefer AMD. I've built several computers with Athlon processors. Athlons clock better speeds and are much more affordable. Paying for Pentium is basically just paying for the brand name everybody knows. It's a whole lot cheaper to just add a good heatsink than to pay the difference between Athlon and Pentium, and a good heatsink is advisable either way. I think AMD technology is growing faster than Intel's as well. They've got on-chip memory controllers on higher end processors that increase performance.

[rich_505]

That's true, AMD always has grown their technology a lot faster than Intel have. AMD have always had faster processors out, or in developments than Intel.

I've used one of their Sempron processors before actually in a laptop, and that had some serious overheating issues but then again it was a Compaq so who can blame the poor thing for wanting to die!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by YellowPoofBall

I prefer AMD. I've built several computers with Athlon processors. Athlons clock better speeds and are much more affordable. Paying for Pentium is basically just paying for the brand name everybody knows. It's a whole lot cheaper to just add a good heatsink than to pay the difference between Athlon and Pentium, and a good heatsink is advisable either way. I think AMD technology is growing faster than Intel's as well. They've got on-chip memory controllers on higher end processors that increase performance.

The Intel Core 2's out perform AMD's current line up for the most part (in power consumption and performance). The next few months will be interesting as Intel are about to debut it's 45nm processors, with AMD playing catch up (though AMD has a proper Quad Core chip, Intel have one slated for Q1 or Q2 2008 i think).
AMD's on chip memory won't really be an issue until they catch up with Intel, who are already looking towards the 32nm fabrication process. The more tranistors you can squeeze onto a piece of silicon the faster a chip will go i.e. Moore's law.

Originally Posted by rich_505

That's true, AMD always has grown their technology a lot faster than Intel have. AMD have always had faster processors out, or in developments than Intel.

I've used one of their Sempron processors before actually in a laptop, and that had some serious overheating issues but then again it was a Compaq so who can blame the poor thing for wanting to die!

Intel had longer development cycles than AMD in the past. However Intel have changed that to compete with AMD and it seems to have worked.
The old notions of AMD chips running cooler than Intel chips is a bit moot these days. Intel have given up with the more ghz is best plan, to concentrating on performance and power consumption. The less power a chip consumes, the less heat it produces.

[styphon]

OK, most arguments of AMD topping Intel in the post are a bit outdated. Pentium 4 vs Athlon XP then yea they count. Over the many years I've always been an AMD guy. Then the Core 2's changed my mind. I wont even concider AMD's processors until the price matches the power. Intel's Core 2's beat AMD x64's in every benchmark I've seen. They're also cheaper. Hands down, Intel have pulled themselves around 180 from the P4's (disaster chips).

Until AMD can at least match Intel's price/power they're relying on name and history alone to survive. Intel have done a very good job, but their history, especially amongst gamers, has led to a slower recovery than they deserve.

[Kevin]

AMD is basically playing catch up with Intel at this point in time. Which is a good thing, the lack of competition was one of the reasons for Intel's P4 disaster (it had a long build up, AMD just nailed the final nails into the coffin of the more Ghz is better ethos of Intel).
As long as AMD or Intel is pushing the other, then it's better for us the consumer.

[styphon]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As long as AMD or Intel is pushing the other, then it's better for us the consumer.

Agreed, Intel didn't take AMD seriously and got caught with their pants down. Now Intel are pushing AMD and it's going to be interesting seeing if they catch up and surpass Intel again.

[rich_505]

I've got to agree about the Pentium 4s, my Pentium 3 was totally bomb proof and seemed just about unstoppable so for me to go from P3 900Mhz to a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 I thought I'd see a massive difference and in all honesty the Pentium 3 seemed faster!

The Pentium D I've got now is definitely a lot better than the Pentium 4.

[styphon]

It's hard to compare Pentium's. In my book they were all terrible. Pentium never matched anything AMD put on the market since P3. The only Intel chip even worth looking at is the Core 2's. The 32-bit market was dominated by Intel for one reason, hardly anyone but computer enthusiasts ever chose AMD.

[ScrewDelicacy]

I've never loved a processor like I love my Intel Core Duo. It's never let me down in a year and a half of abusing it.
Love.

[YellowPoofBall]

Funny thing, I think Sony's cell processor may just beat Intel and AMD out. It certainly seems to be extremely powerful.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by YellowPoofBall

Funny thing, I think Sony's cell processor may just beat Intel and AMD out. It certainly seems to be extremely powerful.

The cell processor is poweful, but it's not going to turn up on the average consumer PC, unless IBM want to compete directly with Intel and AMD in the desktop arena. It's a different story with servers though.
The thing with the cell processor is that in the PS3 it isn't going to change that much (other than the size of the silicon dies i.e. 90nm to 45nm process).
So the chances of us seeing a cell processor on a desktop PC is very limited.

You also have to keep in mind that any benchmarks you see for a processor do not translate that well into real world performance. Especially as the PC market itself has various hardware configurations (from chipsets to motherboards to processors). Where as the Cell is locked to a few hardware configurations i.e. PS3, Blade servers and Supercomputing projects.

Basically what looks good on paper may not always translate into useful performance on varying platforms i.e. desktops, servers etc.
From a technology stand point the Cell processors design probably does beat Intel and AMD's chip designs, but as you probably know technology does not stand still.
What looks powerful today looks and old slow tomorrow.

[SactoMan001]

I'll go with the Intel Core 2 Duo CPU for my next desktop computer for two reasons:

1) Lower power consumption, so I don't need an "overkill" power supply.

2) Good support for X86-64 instructions, so I can run things like Windows Vista or the latest Linux distributions in true 64-bit memory mode.

[YellowPoofBall]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The cell processor is poweful, but it's not going to turn up on the average consumer PC, unless IBM want to compete directly with Intel and AMD in the desktop arena. It's a different story with servers though.
The thing with the cell processor is that in the PS3 it isn't going to change that much (other than the size of the silicon dies i.e. 90nm to 45nm process).
So the chances of us seeing a cell processor on a desktop PC is very limited.

You also have to keep in mind that any benchmarks you see for a processor do not translate that well into real world performance. Especially as the PC market itself has various hardware configurations (from chipsets to motherboards to processors). Where as the Cell is locked to a few hardware configurations i.e. PS3, Blade servers and Supercomputing projects.

Basically what looks good on paper may not always translate into useful performance on varying platforms i.e. desktops, servers etc.
From a technology stand point the Cell processors design probably does beat Intel and AMD's chip designs, but as you probably know technology does not stand still.
What looks powerful today looks and old slow tomorrow.

Ah, that is good reasoning. So does this mean that, in application, the power of the cell processor will not conclude in the same amount of power for a consumer PC? Sorry if that's just restating what you said. I was just under the impression that the cell processor was vastly different in style (for lack of a better word) than the current competition between AMD and Intel. I assume from your post, though, that it would take some large modifications to use the same processor for home computing rather than dedicated?

[styphon]

Originally Posted by YellowPoofBall

Ah, that is good reasoning. So does this mean that, in application, the power of the cell processor will not conclude in the same amount of power for a consumer PC? Sorry if that's just restating what you said. I was just under the impression that the cell processor was vastly different in style (for lack of a better word) than the current competition between AMD and Intel. I assume from your post, though, that it would take some large modifications to use the same processor for home computing rather than dedicated?

I'm not 100% sure on the difference in architecture between the standard PC CPU and the Cell CPU but I would think that the architectural differences would be such that a major conversion would be needed.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by YellowPoofBall

Ah, that is good reasoning. So does this mean that, in application, the power of the cell processor will not conclude in the same amount of power for a consumer PC? Sorry if that's just restating what you said. I was just under the impression that the cell processor was vastly different in style (for lack of a better word) than the current competition between AMD and Intel. I assume from your post, though, that it would take some large modifications to use the same processor for home computing rather than dedicated?

The Cell processor has one core that handles general processing tasks, and then it has coprocessors that handle different tasks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_processor

You'd just have to translate the server configurations into a desktop configuration and run linux that is optimised for the cell processor (the PS3 has it's own linux distro). However Intel and AMD have pretty stable systems (chipsets change, but things basically stay the same motherboards wise, apart from old standards being replaced i.e. PCI to PCI Express, DDR to DDR2, DDR3 is not far off now). So really it's a matter of cost vs profit for IBM.
You also have to consider that most people use windows or OSX. It's only us geeks that do silly things like run Linux or hack OSX to run on generic Intel PC systems (it's illegal and i won't be going into details. I don't want Steve Jobs beating me up with a mac mini or two).

The only way you'd able to tell how good the Cell is against an Intel or AMD system is to benchmark them doing everyday normal tasks that a PC would do in normal useage.

[haiya227]

hehe Q6600 G0 steppings FTW!!! OC them and they are supercomputers!

[insenergy]

I'm a huge AMD person, always have been and always will be. It really comes down to Ghz/$, when you buy an AMD processor you get more Ghz for less $. I have an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 in my laptop, its a great processor. But AMD are reliable and come out with new technology before Intel and are usually more advanced(not necessarily faster), so i trust AMD technolgy to be less buggy, but for my next machine I'm going to have a core2duo/quad depending on my budget, its a solid processor, I'm just not ready to take the jump into phenom territory for another year or so.

[styphon]

Originally Posted by insenergy

I'm a huge AMD person, always have been and always will be. It really comes down to Ghz/$, when you buy an AMD processor you get more Ghz for less $. I have an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 in my laptop, its a great processor. But AMD are reliable and come out with new technology before Intel and are usually more advanced(not necessarily faster), so i trust AMD technolgy to be less buggy, but for my next machine I'm going to have a core2duo/quad depending on my budget, its a solid processor, I'm just not ready to take the jump into phenom territory for another year or so.

No it doesn't come down to GHz/$. It comes down to who can do what with the GHz. Typically Intel always had faster running processors. This was because the AMD architecture was better designed and could do more per GHz than Intel. However that all changed with the Intel Core 2 Duo. Not only do they have the fast processing power, they also have the much improved Architectural design. Infact, they have capped AMD quite conciderably. The AMD X2 series just cannot compete with the Intel Core 2 on any level. The big difference is AMD wern't true Dual Core, just two single cores on a chip. Intel have produced true Dual Core chips from their initial release of the Core 2 design. ATM, AMD just cannot keep up with Intel in technalogical terms. A feet that Intel have aimed for the last 10 years or so.

Right now is a bad time to be an AMD fan boy. We'll have to wait for true Quad Core designs to come out for the next level of technology. Currently both AMD and Intel use 2 Dual Core processors on one chip, not true Quad Core.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by insenergy

I'm a huge AMD person, always have been and always will be. It really comes down to Ghz/$, when you buy an AMD processor you get more Ghz for less $. I have an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 in my laptop, its a great processor. But AMD are reliable and come out with new technology before Intel and are usually more advanced(not necessarily faster), so i trust AMD technolgy to be less buggy, but for my next machine I'm going to have a core2duo/quad depending on my budget, its a solid processor, I'm just not ready to take the jump into phenom territory for another year or so.

GHZ is old news. It's all about performance and power consumption these days (more calculations per clock cycle and less power consumption equals better performance). Which AMD kicked off and Intel played catch up in and then surpassed AMD with the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo chips.

AMD is lagging behind Intel in several important areas from processor design down to the fundamental Moores Law. Intel aims to launch 32nm processors in 2009 (they've already displayed a test 32nm chip back in 2007). It's now AMD's turn to play catch up.

*Has an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 based system.