View Single Post

**Praetor** · 07-03-2005, 10:55 PM

Section 5 - Commentary: AMD vs Intel
By apj101

What is the difference

The main point to understand is that Athlons and Pentiums are different types of chips each one to be used for differing tasks. This is the question that needs to be addressed when deciding which chip to purchase. "What will i be using it for?"
Pentium and AMD do make chips which can roughly be stacked up against each other. It is important to note that there is no point comparing differnt class of chips such as an AMD Athlon64 3500+ to an Intel Celeron 2.40. Such an exercise would be useless.
A better comparision, however would to compare an AMD Athlon64 4000+, with say an Intel Pentium4 550 (running at 3.4ghz). But what would such a comparison yield? Well if you compare the specs side-by-side you are not going get an complete understanding of their differences, so how about real world examples?

You can benchmark each chip against a varety of taks you will tend to get only one truth raining through. In a "single-core and single-thread" or "dual-core and single-application-multithread" (i.e., one application firing up lots of threads) environment, one thing becomes apparent: AMD's processors, whether it be their Athlon64 lineup or their Athlon64 X2 lineup come out on top. For "single-core multithread" or "dual-core multi-application-multithread", Intel's processors tend to come out on top.
- In English, this means that for single-core processors AMD's processors are hands down superior for gaming and that Intel's processors are superior for multimedia or statistical analysis or rendering.
- For dual-core, AMD tends to win the performance race however (1) Athlon64 X2 processors cost noticeably more than Pentium D's and (2) Intel Pentium D/EEs still take the lead when things become excessively multithreaded and multitasked
The greatest advantage that AMD has in the gaming arena is their integrated memory controller, meaning (in lay terms) that the cpu has more direct control over memory bandwidth resulting in better bandwidth and better performance in bandwidth demanding tasks such as gaming. Technically speaking all this means is that, the CPU doesn't have to "go anywhere" to get access to the memory (Intel systems, for the time bearing, have to communicate with the Northbridge to access memory)
And so the differences become clear:
- If you are a hard core gamer then AMD is the route to go
- If you are a hard core multitasker then Intel will light your path (for single core processors) and both Intel and AMD will be sufficient for dual-core routes
- If all you are using your computer for is checking emails, surfing the web, word processing, and playing the occasional game or two then IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH YOU GET.

Simple, well kinda

Recap

Each chip type is used for different tasks so a direct comparison is not possible nor feasible nor meaningful
We can't universally say one is best
AMD Athlon64 processors are definitely the route to go for gamers
Intel Pentium 4 processors for single-cored multitasking
For dual-core comments, see Section 3

Why buy an AMD processor when and Intel one has a higher clock speed?
It is true that AMD's processors run at slower clock speeds (i.e., AMD Athlon64 3500+ runs at 2.2GHz, and a comparitive, the Intel Pentium4 550 runs at 3.4GHz). It is also true, as noted above, this does not matter. The point is that Clock speeds are not the be all and end all factor to determine performance

The architecture of the 2 manufacturers products are totally different. AMD's chips are designed such that they have a shorter pipeline, this being a sort of conveyor belt of instructions, than Intel's chips. This means, again in lay terms, that AMD's processors can perform more work per cycle which is why they get away with slower clock speeds and still offer comparable (and sometimes superior). So you see that clock speeds are not to be used to compare between the two chiptypes.

Back in the days of the AthlonXP, AMD took to naming their chips using something called a performance rating. Officially this was meant as a meant of measuring the performance of the chips, however consumers began using the numbers to compare the XPs against the Intel's Pentium4 processors(which was AMDs real intent for the naming system). Thus, people often drew a comparison between, say an AthlonXP 3000+ and a Pentium4 3.0GHz, likewise the AthlonXP 2800+ was to be compared to the Pentium4 2.8GHz. To a degree, these comparisons were valid and held however there are many exceptions (i.e., the ratings do not compare as evenly as the clock speeds begin to get higher)

Interestingly Intel who long named there chips after clock speed, also use an indexed scale for processor designation. See
Intel's website for more details. If it's not obvious, this should be an indication that clock speed alone is having a less and less role in overall chip performance.

Recap

Clock speed don't solely determine performance
AMD operate at lower clock speeds
AMD and Intel use a performance rating naming system.

Which are Cheaper?
It used to be the case that AMD chips were much cheaper than their Intel counter parts, and indeed that was an effective market position for AMD to take at the time.

However those days have long gone and AMD and Intel are roughly equally priced (and often, Intel processors are cheaper), of course only if you compare like for like. For example at the time of writing you could pick up a AMD64 3500+ for 267USD, and a comparable Pentium4 550 3.4 for 271USD

So while your budget will have an effect on the class of processor you will get, it will not have an effect on deciding the manufacturer who makes it. This of course does not apply to the low-end and upper-end chips (where, generally, Intel processors have a lower pricetag as Intel has a much more well established fabrication process)

Which should I Buy?
If you have read all this, apart from being committed, then you will already have a good base knowledge of the differences between the manufacturers and there chips. When deciding on a processor there are 3 things to consider

The golden question of "What is my processor to be used for?"
It is also important to know what motherboard you have, as the type of CPU socket you have will determine your chip choice (but thats another topic altogether). This is of course assuming you are upgrading rather than building a new system from scratch.
The budget. As much as we all want the top line everything, we can't always afford it

An example
Praetor has around 350USD to spend on a processor. He already has a motherboard that is a DFI lanparty nF4 SLI-DR Skt 939 and will mainly be playing all the latest games, especially as he just bought 2 6800ultras for his SLI board. His budget for the processor is in the ballpark of 400USD Therefore his best choice is something like an AMD Athlon 64 3800+ [Venice]

Then there is Mr Cromewell who is building a system to just to play around with a bit, check mail, go online and feed his internet poker addiction. He hasnt bought the motherboard yet and has a strict budget of 175USD (for the processor). Some options for him are an Intel Pentium4 2.8 [Prescott/Northwood] and grab a S478 motherboard OR an AMD Athlon64 3200+ [Venice] with a S939 motherboard There is some flexibility and leeway with respect to the platform of choice here is becase he is not doing anything with the machine that benifits directly from a feature provided by either AMD nor Intel, so either is fine

07-03-2005, 10:55 PM	#8 (permalink)
Praetor Administrator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canada Age: 24 Posts: 19,946	A commentary from apj101 Section 5 - Commentary: AMD vs Intel By apj101 What is the difference The main point to understand is that Athlons and Pentiums are different types of chips each one to be used for differing tasks. This is the question that needs to be addressed when deciding which chip to purchase. "What will i be using it for?" Pentium and AMD do make chips which can roughly be stacked up against each other. It is important to note that there is no point comparing differnt class of chips such as an AMD Athlon64 3500+ to an Intel Celeron 2.40. Such an exercise would be useless. A better comparision, however would to compare an AMD Athlon64 4000+, with say an Intel Pentium4 550 (running at 3.4ghz). But what would such a comparison yield? Well if you compare the specs side-by-side you are not going get an complete understanding of their differences, so how about real world examples? You can benchmark each chip against a varety of taks you will tend to get only one truth raining through. In a "single-core and single-thread" or "dual-core and single-application-multithread" (i.e., one application firing up lots of threads) environment, one thing becomes apparent: AMD's processors, whether it be their Athlon64 lineup or their Athlon64 X2 lineup come out on top. For "single-core multithread" or "dual-core multi-application-multithread", Intel's processors tend to come out on top. In English, this means that for single-core processors AMD's processors are hands down superior for gaming and that Intel's processors are superior for multimedia or statistical analysis or rendering. For dual-core, AMD tends to win the performance race however (1) Athlon64 X2 processors cost noticeably more than Pentium D's and (2) Intel Pentium D/EEs still take the lead when things become excessively multithreaded and multitasked The greatest advantage that AMD has in the gaming arena is their integrated memory controller, meaning (in lay terms) that the cpu has more direct control over memory bandwidth resulting in better bandwidth and better performance in bandwidth demanding tasks such as gaming. Technically speaking all this means is that, the CPU doesn't have to "go anywhere" to get access to the memory (Intel systems, for the time bearing, have to communicate with the Northbridge to access memory) And so the differences become clear: If you are a hard core gamer then AMD is the route to go If you are a hard core multitasker then Intel will light your path (for single core processors) and both Intel and AMD will be sufficient for dual-core routes If all you are using your computer for is checking emails, surfing the web, word processing, and playing the occasional game or two then IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH YOU GET. Simple, well kinda Recap Each chip type is used for different tasks so a direct comparison is not possible nor feasible nor meaningful We can't universally say one is best AMD Athlon64 processors are definitely the route to go for gamers Intel Pentium 4 processors for single-cored multitasking For dual-core comments, see Section 3 Why buy an AMD processor when and Intel one has a higher clock speed? It is true that AMD's processors run at slower clock speeds (i.e., AMD Athlon64 3500+ runs at 2.2GHz, and a comparitive, the Intel Pentium4 550 runs at 3.4GHz). It is also true, as noted above, this does not matter. The point is that Clock speeds are not the be all and end all factor to determine performance The architecture of the 2 manufacturers products are totally different. AMD's chips are designed such that they have a shorter pipeline, this being a sort of conveyor belt of instructions, than Intel's chips. This means, again in lay terms, that AMD's processors can perform more work per cycle which is why they get away with slower clock speeds and still offer comparable (and sometimes superior). So you see that clock speeds are not to be used to compare between the two chiptypes. Back in the days of the AthlonXP, AMD took to naming their chips using something called a performance rating. Officially this was meant as a meant of measuring the performance of the chips, however consumers began using the numbers to compare the XPs against the Intel's Pentium4 processors(which was AMDs real intent for the naming system). Thus, people often drew a comparison between, say an AthlonXP 3000+ and a Pentium4 3.0GHz, likewise the AthlonXP 2800+ was to be compared to the Pentium4 2.8GHz. To a degree, these comparisons were valid and held however there are many exceptions (i.e., the ratings do not compare as evenly as the clock speeds begin to get higher) Interestingly Intel who long named there chips after clock speed, also use an indexed scale for processor designation. See Intel's website for more details. If it's not obvious, this should be an indication that clock speed alone is having a less and less role in overall chip performance. Recap Clock speed don't solely determine performance AMD operate at lower clock speeds AMD and Intel use a performance rating naming system. Which are Cheaper? It used to be the case that AMD chips were much cheaper than their Intel counter parts, and indeed that was an effective market position for AMD to take at the time. However those days have long gone and AMD and Intel are roughly equally priced (and often, Intel processors are cheaper), of course only if you compare like for like. For example at the time of writing you could pick up a AMD64 3500+ for 267USD, and a comparable Pentium4 550 3.4 for 271USD So while your budget will have an effect on the class of processor you will get, it will not have an effect on deciding the manufacturer who makes it. This of course does not apply to the low-end and upper-end chips (where, generally, Intel processors have a lower pricetag as Intel has a much more well established fabrication process) Which should I Buy? If you have read all this, apart from being committed, then you will already have a good base knowledge of the differences between the manufacturers and there chips. When deciding on a processor there are 3 things to consider The golden question of "What is my processor to be used for?" It is also important to know what motherboard you have, as the type of CPU socket you have will determine your chip choice (but thats another topic altogether). This is of course assuming you are upgrading rather than building a new system from scratch. The budget. As much as we all want the top line everything, we can't always afford it An example Praetor has around 350USD to spend on a processor. He already has a motherboard that is a DFI lanparty nF4 SLI-DR Skt 939 and will mainly be playing all the latest games, especially as he just bought 2 6800ultras for his SLI board. His budget for the processor is in the ballpark of 400USD Therefore his best choice is something like an AMD Athlon 64 3800+ [Venice] Then there is Mr Cromewell who is building a system to just to play around with a bit, check mail, go online and feed his internet poker addiction. He hasnt bought the motherboard yet and has a strict budget of 175USD (for the processor). Some options for him are an Intel Pentium4 2.8 [Prescott/Northwood] and grab a S478 motherboard OR an AMD Athlon64 3200+ [Venice] with a S939 motherboard There is some flexibility and leeway with respect to the platform of choice here is becase he is not doing anything with the machine that benifits directly from a feature provided by either AMD nor Intel, so either is fine __________________ ASUS P5K Premium WiFi-AP, Q6600@3.7 / ASUS P5ND, E6400@3.8 4GB OCz Platinum XTC 8500 / 4GB CorsairXMS2 6400 5x500GB Seagate 7200.10 / 2x500 Seagate 7200.10 OCz 8800GTX 768MB @ 630/800 / 2x Galaxy 8800GT SLI Last edited by Praetor; 07-04-2005 at 12:48 AM.