AMD vs. INTEL

[davd_bob]

Edit: added 3 July. I know AMD is ahead of Intel in the 64 bit arena but thats not what this post is discussing Please compare AMD vs Intel on equipment thats been out for at least a year.


Guys,
I am going to stir up a can of worms but I have to ask and relate my personal opinion...

I was going to add this to the Apple announcement but the post grew into a thread hijack so I decided to post a new topic.


This is really only for those that have used and over/under clocked more then one AMD and also more then one INTEL cpu system:

1) When pushed to the max which creates more heat/heat related problems?
2) When pushed which seems to have a greater cushion between the rated speed and what it can be pushed to without exotic cooling?
3) Which is actually more reliable when NOT overclocked?

In my experience starting with a K6-3 and including Athlons and Durons, AMD rates their chips closer than Intel to the maximum they can handle. This seems like Intel is price gougeing, but on the other hand it also seems like AMD is fudging when offering comparable ratings.
(SisSandra rates a P-II/350@350 at pr421)
(SisSandra rates a K6-3/400@400 at pr400)
I wish I could find a mb and componants that would allow me to push that P-II350 up to 465 and see what SisSandra reports it at.

All my AMD systems with built in L2 cache generate more heat then INTEL when running at rated speed.

Also I have had only one Intel cpu system fail but nearly all my systems that use AMDs get flakey sooner or later. I have started following the rule of UNDERclocking AMD systems if I really need longevity and stability without constant attention whereas my INTEL systems just keep going without having to watch for problems at their rated speed.

Based on the above, even though I hate big business and love the little guy(since I own an independant business I am a little guy)
I would choose Intel for my platform if I was Apple.

What do ya all think?

[Billl]

I tend to agree with you Dave. Intel does indeed under rate their chips. I've spent a lot of time overclocking Intel chips and i have to say they are very reliable even when pushed hard. I have a Celeron 533 that was OC'ed for over 3 years with no problems at all. The machine I'm typing this on is a P4 2.8C OC'ed to 3.3 GHZ. Been running rock solid for well over a year now. If you can OC an AMD you never get much out of them at least in comparison to Intel's chips. I'm sure were about to start a flame war here LOL! But that has been my experience.


Billl

[davd_bob]

I tend to agree with you Dave...I'm sure were about to start a flame war here LOL!

Quoting Fantistic 4's Jonny Torch.
FLAME ON !!!

[davd_bob]

Billl,
Maybe everyone else is 'scared of the heat so they are staying out of the kitchen.

I really wanted to hear facts(instead of wishes) from techs(instead of wannabes like me) that support or challenge my opinion.

Anyone else gonna risk a reply?

[Dave Rave]

with current technology, .
AMD vs Intel HT
the AMD's are always hot(ter) but cheaper
the Intels are somewhat more expensive, but with relation to boinc / seti , HT is always better, as it's nearly as good as two cpus, not quite, but pretty close enuff.

[purrkur]

My .02c worth...

1) When pushed to the max which creates more heat/heat related problems?

I have had issues overclocking both Intel and AMD CPU's and I can't really say that it is safe to say that AMD has *always* been worse overclockers than Intel. My rules and thoughts on the matter are a bit different (I'll explain better below). Saying that AMD creates more heat just doesn't make sense since you would have to specify *what* AMD processor you are talking about compared to what Intel CPU. If you specify models then I will go directly to the heat documentation from the makers to see what heat dissipation they are rated at.

2) When pushed which seems to have a greater cushion between the rated speed and what it can be pushed to without exotic cooling?

Again, what CPU's are you refering to? If you are saying this in general in terms of AMD vs Intel then I would have to disagree (see my thoughts on this below).

3) Which is actually more reliable when NOT overclocked?

This question is a bit strange. I have yet to have reliability issues with CPU's, regardless of make when not overclocked. Reliability issues I have experienced have usually been related more to chipsets and poor drivers than actual CPU's. I will admit that until only recently, the Intel chipsets found for Intel chips have been more reliable and of higher quality than what has been out there for AMD. VIA for example has had a history of making questionable chipsets (mostly because they have sometimes rushed their products to market) but VIA chipsets have sucked for both CPU makers.

In my experience starting with a K6-3 and including Athlons and Durons, AMD rates their chips closer than Intel to the maximum they can handle. This seems like Intel is price gougeing, but on the other hand it also seems like AMD is fudging when offering comparable ratings.
(SisSandra rates a P-II/350@350 at pr421)
(SisSandra rates a K6-3/400@400 at pr400)
I wish I could find a mb and componants that would allow me to push that P-II350 up to 465 and see what SisSandra reports it at.

OK, in my opinion, K6-3 (specifically the first ones rated at 400 and 450MHz) were terrible overclockers. Please remember that the K6 series of CPU's were terrible cpu's in terms of maths capability. In everything else they were definitely on par with the PII's but floating point maths on the K6 was horrible. I have also done extensive harddisk testing on a couple of super 7 motherboards (with VIA chipsets) and found that the IDE implementation on those is pretty horrible. Would you believe that a PII machine running at 266MHz beats the socks of a 500MHz K6-2 system with exactly the same harddisk (in harddisk performance that is)?

So you don't mention what SisSandra test you ran and what that included. The figures look correct to me.

All my AMD systems with built in L2 cache generate more heat then INTEL when running at rated speed.

You might be correct, but that AMD and Intel systems are you talking about? Again, lets take a look at specific examples and check what the manufacturers say about their heat dissipation. General statements like this do nothing for me.

Also I have had only one Intel cpu system fail but nearly all my systems that use AMDs get flakey sooner or later. I have started following the rule of UNDERclocking AMD systems if I really need longevity and stability without constant attention whereas my INTEL systems just keep going without having to watch for problems at their rated speed.

That is not my experience. My webserver is a Super 7 system that is now close to 7 years old and it is still running strong (with a 500MHz CPU). However, I do remember early Athlon motherboards being flakey (specifically ones from VIA) and I remember friends having flakey problems with those. However, my main system is a 2GHz Athlon system which I overclock (from 133MHz fsb to 166) and it is a rock solid system. I almost never shut it off and uptimes of 60-90 days is usual. This system is simply rock solid. Remember that I run Gentoo on this system so I compile everything that is on it. I would say that this system sees more 100% CPU usage than most gaming rigs from hardcore gamers.

Based on the above, even though I hate big business and love the little guy(since I own an independant business I am a little guy) I would choose Intel for my platform if I was Apple.

I think there was more behind Apples decision than what you have mentioned above, specifially their laptop and mobile technology which is actually the big problem Apple has. The dual 2.7 GHz G5 machines are pretty capable but IBM has not delivered on laptops. Intel definitely has the upper hand in mobile technology with their Centrino based stuff.

OK, so what do I think about overclocking, heat generation and general performance? I would say that Intel and AMD are pretty identical there but hear me out before anybody starts taking this personally!

If you are looking at very old CPU's I think it is pretty easy to say that AMD was always playing catch up and I would think it is safe to say that they were pushing the envelope quite heavily in order to stay in the game. Then the Athlon came along and the PIII and the game turned around. AMD had a faster CPU and Intel found themselves being the followers (remember that AMD was first with a GHz CPU for example, and faster bus speeds). The biggest problem with the Athlon stuff from that time wasn't the CPU but the buggy and shitty chipsets that were being used. Anyway, after that both companies went their own paths (Intel with P4 and AMD continued developing the Athlon and eventually bringing out the Opterons). The AMD platforms also gained in the chipset part so stability got better.

As for overclocking, it all depends on the CPU. If you want general rules (and these are just my opinions) then I think it is safe to say that the lowest clocked version of a certain cpu type (as in coppermine, tualatin etc) are better overclockers than the higher clocked versions. A budget variant of a certain higher end CPU (like Celerons and Durons) are usually a lot better overclockers because they don't contain the same amount of transistors which means they generate less heat. Celerons have pretty much been good overclockers throughout time. I remember certain PIII's being good at overclocking as well. As for AMD, certain Durons have been tremendously good at overclocking (like the 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8GHz Durons made from Applebred Athlons). I also remember the second generation XP1700 being a fantastic overclocker and so was the XP2500 Barton (these are ones that I have personal experience from). As for the latest dual core CPU from AMD running at 2GHz, there are reports out there saying that it will do 2.7 GHz with air cooling!!

As for heat generation, I would just refer to the heat dissipation figures that the makers publish. If you take a look at the latest stuff out there than you will find that AMD has the edge here. Intel Prescott run horribly hot, are horrible overclockers and so are the dual core CPU's from Intel. Heat generation is always a result of the amount of transistors in the CPU, the size of the transistors and speed. This is why the current P4 is reaching the end of the road. Too many transistors and too much (useless) speed. When Intel brought out the horrible Prescott based on a .09 micron technology, they were barely able to extract more speed than from (pretty much) the same cpu based on .13 micron technology.

Having said that, I would also like to say that I think Intel did a lot of good stuff with regard to heat and current regulation by setting up heat sensors and current sensors that could dethrottle or shut down the CPU in case of trouble. AMD was horribly slow in bringing out comparable technology.

[Billl]

OK, so what do I think about overclocking, heat generation and general performance? I would say that Intel and AMD are pretty identical there but hear me out before anybody starts taking this personally!

Gee you couldn't be refering to me, now could you? LOL

If you are looking at very old CPU's I think it is pretty easy to say that AMD was always playing catch up and I would think it is safe to say that they were pushing the envelope quite heavily in order to stay in the game. Then the Athlon came along and the PIII and the game turned around. AMD had a faster CPU and Intel found themselves being the followers (remember that AMD was first with a GHz CPU for example, and faster bus speeds). The biggest problem with the Athlon stuff from that time wasn't the CPU but the buggy and shitty chipsets that were being used. Anyway, after that both companies went their own paths (Intel with P4 and AMD continued developing the Athlon and eventually bringing out the Opterons). The AMD platforms also gained in the chipset part so stability got better.

As for overclocking, it all depends on the CPU. If you want general rules (and these are just my opinions) then I think it is safe to say that the lowest clocked version of a certain cpu type (as in coppermine, tualatin etc) are better overclockers than the higher clocked versions. A budget variant of a certain higher end CPU (like Celerons and Durons) are usually a lot better overclockers because they don't contain the same amount of transistors which means they generate less heat. Celerons have pretty much been good overclockers throughout time. I remember certain PIII's being good at overclocking as well. As for AMD, certain Durons have been tremendously good at overclocking (like the 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8GHz Durons made from Applebred Athlons). I also remember the second generation XP1700 being a fantastic overclocker and so was the XP2500 Barton (these are ones that I have personal experience from). As for the latest dual core CPU from AMD running at 2GHz, there are reports out there saying that it will do 2.7 GHz with air cooling!!

As for heat generation, I would just refer to the heat dissipation figures that the makers publish. If you take a look at the latest stuff out there than you will find that AMD has the edge here. Intel Prescott run horribly hot, are horrible overclockers and so are the dual core CPU's from Intel. Heat generation is always a result of the amount of transistors in the CPU, the size of the transistors and speed. This is why the current P4 is reaching the end of the road. Too many transistors and too much (useless) speed. When Intel brought out the horrible Prescott based on a .09 micron technology, they were barely able to extract more speed than from (pretty much) the same cpu based on .13 micron technology.

Having said that, I would also like to say that I think Intel did a lot of good stuff with regard to heat and current regulation by setting up heat sensors and current sensors that could dethrottle or shut down the CPU in case of trouble. AMD was horribly slow in bringing out comparable technology.

For once we're pretty much in agreement. At this point AMD (except mobile) has Intel on the ropes. I have no idea what they are thinking with the Prescots. The 64 bit AMD's are really the way to go at this point. Only thing I would add is that for the S.E.T.I. crunchers out there. Its hard to beat the P4's with HT. None of my AMD chips can touch it.


Billl

[purrkur]

OK, so what do I think about overclocking, heat generation and general performance? I would say that Intel and AMD are pretty identical there but hear me out before anybody starts taking this personally!

Gee you couldn't be refering to me, now could you? LOL

No, actually not. There was this other guy roaming the forums though who was pretty touchy but I think he is gone now

For once we're pretty much in agreement. At this point AMD (except mobile) has Intel on the ropes. I have no idea what they are thinking with the Prescots. The 64 bit AMD's are really the way to go at this point. Only thing I would add is that for the S.E.T.I. crunchers out there. Its hard to beat the P4's with HT. None of my AMD chips can touch it.

Yeah, if you read CPU comparisons out there then there are always a test or two where the AMD stuff will loose out. Possible explanations for that is compiler optimizations (like using Intels own stuff which will not turn on SSE instructions for AMD processors even though they support it) and other compiler optimizations which would optimize code for HT. I guess it is like nVidia and ATI and their GPU's which are good at different games.

It is good to see AMD turn on the heat on Intel. In the end it is us consumers that gain from this. I know that Intel will bounce back though. It is just a matter of time before they start doing something like dual core Pentium M's for desktops which will be fantastic! I am writing this on an IBM T42 with a Pentium M (1.8GHz) and 1GB of memory and it is a schweeet system!

[Tim_K]

I've never had a chance to overclock any high end Intel CPUs.

But my current main system is an Abit NF-7 V.2.0 motherboard with a 2500 unlocked multiplier Barton processor. Stock, it runs at 1.83 Ghz, but I've had it at 2.2 (11X200) for about a year now with no problems. And it's been doing 100% load folding@home for almost 9 months now too.