Intel Quad VS AMD Phenom

[HopJokey]

Originally posted by: oscar6
"Alright AMD .... , just take the glue, put a little hear and there. Easy as pie. *whistling*

I'm not an expert, but I believe that an MCM type solution is more difficult to achieve (compared to Intel's solution) with AMD parts due to the separate IMC's on each die.

 

[covert24]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i think intel's method is working better from a business standpoint and they will certainly be in business next year.

You do realize that if AMD went out of business Intel would rape everyone since they would have a monopoly on the cpu market. So while intel is making everyone bend over ill just stick to my bike and forget about computers since they would be to expensive anyway.

You ALSO do realize that if intel went out of business AMD would rape everyone since they would have a monopoly on the cpu market

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: Phynaz
AMD (Hector Ruiz) said once in an interview that he wished he had, but he didn't have the money to fund the development.

Fund the development? But.. wait a minute.. covert24 basically said that Intel didn't do any development for their quad-core chips; they just "glued together" existing chips. :roll:

don't forget, intel has their own 'native QC solution'

[/quote]

im sorry i cut into your Intel relationship zsdersw but it just makes more sense to put all for cores on one die. Personally i think it would be easier to cool one centralized area as opposed to 2 different locations. And yes the IHS might help a bit but the heat is still coming from 2 places. And when did i say that Intel didn't do any development? I said AMD is putting more development and engineering into there chips and thats part of the reason they are not out yet. And putting 2 core 2 duos together is exactly what they did. You have nothing to base your opinion on whether Core 2 Quads are better than the AMD quads. From my standpoint AMD will take the crown yet.

your standpoint is from an unabashed admiration of AMD - disregarding their oh-so obvious faults.[/quote]

at THIS point in time, intel has the performance crown - despite your best "wishes"
-that is the reality of the situation ... it doesn't matter "how" the 4 cores are developed ... at THIS point in time, intel 'wins' ... pretty easily.

and i HOPE that AMD is a solid competitor again ... and i HOPE they take the performance crown from intel with Barcelona
-but at this point - from everything we KNOW - it appears to be a vain hope

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: covert24

Originally posted by: apoppin
i think intel's method is working better from a business standpoint and they will certainly be in business next year.

You do realize that if AMD went out of business Intel would rape everyone since they would have a monopoly on the cpu market. So while intel is making everyone bend over ill just stick to my bike and forget about computers since they would be to expensive anyway.

You ALSO do realize that if intel went out of business AMD would rape everyone since they would have a monopoly on the cpu market

If? Are you people so new to computers that you don't remember the $300 X2 3800 prices from slightly more than 2 years ago? And what about the $550 X2 4400's & $850 4800's?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: covert24

Originally posted by: apoppin
i think intel's method is working better from a business standpoint and they will certainly be in business next year.

You do realize that if AMD went out of business Intel would rape everyone since they would have a monopoly on the cpu market. So while intel is making everyone bend over ill just stick to my bike and forget about computers since they would be to expensive anyway.

You ALSO do realize that if intel went out of business AMD would rape everyone since they would have a monopoly on the cpu market

If? Are you people so new to computers that you don't remember the $300 X2 3800 prices from slightly more than 2 years ago? And what about the $550 X2 4400's & $850 4800's?

i am dealing in speculatives in direct [C&P] response to the poster [simply adding "also" and substituting "AMD" for "intel" into HIS quote - as in "fixed"]
... you just gave a concrete example of what corporations do ... what AMD did

 

[zsdersw]

im sorry i cut into your Intel relationship zsdersw but it just makes more sense to put all for cores on one die. Personally i think it would be easier to cool one centralized area as opposed to 2 different locations. And yes the IHS might help a bit but the heat is still coming from 2 places. And when did i say that Intel didn't do any development? I said AMD is putting more development and engineering into there chips and thats part of the reason they are not out yet. And putting 2 core 2 duos together is exactly what they did. You have nothing to base your opinion on whether Core 2 Quads are better than the AMD quads. From my standpoint AMD will take the crown yet.

Since when does the obvious benefits of single-die quad-core have *anything* to do with what we were talking about? I was referring to the terminology used by some--the "true quad-core" nonsense--and that's it.

As for the IHS and cooling, I'd wager it's a 6-in-one-half-a-dozen-in-the-other scenario. Cooling 2 dies with a IHS and cooling one bigger die with an IHS is a crapshoot and is going to depend a lot more on the particulars of the chip's architecture and its inherent power management capabilities than on the single-die vs. 2-die aspect.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: covert24
Also 4 cores on one die will be a lot easier to cool than 2 dies apart from eachother since the heat will be coming from one centralized place rather then 2 big locations.

Another metric for determining the difficulty of cooling is power density. So given two 100W processors, on the cooling standpoint they would prefer that 100W to be spread over the largest area possible. (unfortunately on the fabrication standpoint, a bigger core equates to poor yield and hence more $$$)

So yeah, if you want to argue that point, it's actually easier to have the heat source spread out than in one smaller centralized place.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
well... until Intel came out with their "Core" series or CPUs AMD always had the Lead in the CPU battle through the P4 series

False, AMD only had the lead for the most part if your talking about price and that was only before AMD Athlon 64x2 which AMD charged premium amounts for. In terms of performance Intel tied with Northwood B and surpassed AMD's Athlon XP's with Northwood C, so always is in correct, once you got the Athlon 64's it depends on what you were doing FP intensive and gaming went to AMD while system responsiveness and fluidity and encoding went to Intel.

Originally posted by: AllGamer
clock by clock intel was a no fight.

Only if you were talking about Pentium 4 vs Athlon XP/Athlon 64's the Pentium M and Core Duo's gave the Athlon XP's and Athlon 64 a run for their money in terms of clock for clock performance.

Originally posted by: AllGamer
but now that the Core series are out, they are sort of at par, but Intel has the lead.

To clarify they are on par at the same price points with Intel gaining the lead once you reach the E6550 vs Athlon 64x2 6000+, beyond that, AMD has no effective competitors against Intel's products.

Originally posted by: AllGamer
as of this moment current Dual Opteron Duo or Quad, does perform a little better at games and business applications, than the current line of Core Duo Xeon or Xeon Quads setups.

I don't see where this is true, Quad FX Athlon FX-74 which basically a pair of 3.0GHZ Opteron 2222 SE for consumers (with the advantage for non ECC non registered memory) for the most part is on parity to the the Core 2 Quad Q6600 or worse.

http://www.techreport.com/revi...e2-qx6800/index.x?pg=4

Originally posted by: AllGamer
the only lead Intel has againts AMD is on the number crunching and video encoding area.

Intel leads effectively across the board with the Core 2 Extreme QX6700, QX6800.
As explained above Intel has the lead across the board, view the benchmarks and see for yourself.

Originally posted by: AllGamer
That being said... if the new AMD CPUs really delivers, it'll definitely leave the Intel Core series in the Dust.

We will have to see, as that yet remains to be seen, I hope for AMD's survival and continued prosperity and not life support existence that their future endeavors are successful.

Originally posted by: AllGamer
and i do hope that becomes real, because that's the only way to keep both Intel, and AMD in the fight

is like going up the ladder, if both give up, or if either one fell off the ladder, then it becomes a Monopoly, both in market and in Innovation.

and everyone knows having a Stagnated CPU industry is bad for science.

If we want to see more sophisticated AI, machines, CPU, etc, you better hope each company keeps wining one round after another, if either of them wins too many rounds in a row.... that's a unhealthy sign

This is the only part of what you said which I can agree with without modification.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Phynaz
AllGamer,

AMD did not always have the performace lead over the P4. During the last year and a half of the P4's life they did. Otherwise is was see-saw thing. For example, the Northwood P4 left the Athlon in the dust.

That isn't what he said. He said "well... until Intel came out with their "Core" series or CPUs AMD always had the Lead in the CPU battle through the P4 series. clock by clock intel was a no fight. " He was saying that AMD's chips have always had a clock-for-clock speed advantage. And yes, except for the last 1/3 of the PIII's lifespan, AMD has always had the clock-for-clock advantage, since the original Athlon debuted at 500 Mhz.

The clock for clock part was seperated, so Phynaz was reasonable to assume that he meant the Athlon had a performance lead over the Pentium 4's and was not referring to clock for clock performance.

As said it wouldn't make sense anyway, winning clock for clock is irrelevant, it's the overall performance of the solution that matters, and that the implementation is feasible. Without sufficient frequency headroom to back it up, clock for clock performance by itself is worthless.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
By the time Phenom is in mass-production and widely available it will be 2008. I can't see it beating out what intel has at that point, but I suppose time will tell.

It's not really a fair comparison seeing as the intel quads have been on the market for a long time.

If you want to compare features:

- Barcelona will be able to independantly adjust clockspeeds/voltages for each core. This could allow for higher overclocks.

- Barcelona is a true 'quad core' implementation whereas intel has simply stuck two dual-cores together

- Barcelona has a little more power at a given frequency

Just because you can cloct core0 to 3.4Ghz doesn't mean it's immediately faster than Intel's Q6600 with all 4 cores running at 3.2. Thing is...just cause one core will go to like 3.4Ghz doesn't mean all 4 will...so when you are working in applications that use 2+ cores you could be crippling the performance. The days of 1 core being fast are dead...give me all 4 at once.

Think about that a minute.

 

[Amaroque]

This is some good discussion. Also, a bit too much arguing...

I just read through the entire thread. Most ppl (with the exception of a few) agree that competition is good.

One of the posters was talking about 'native' quad core Vs two duals slapped together. Technically you might be correct, to some degree. But that doesn't really matter when AMD has a slower performing product in MHz, and IPC.

Even if Barc is faster clock for clock (IPC), Intel will have a huge clock speed advantage; witch will nullify any CPU offerings.

I like AMD, but unless they pull a rabbit out of their hat, they look like they are dead in the water.