AMD Vs. Intel, Which is Better?

Hey guys this is a thread for posting amd and intel stuff, since this is in the fight club we post amd and intel stuffs here and specifications, and see whose better. hope this thread helps people

Whatever provides the best Price-Performance ratio

I use Pentium 4, but I prefer Athlon64 now

Core 2 Duo is good, but Athlon 64 is cheeper....

Value for Money is all tht matters

hence the reason of the thread

in desktops
p4<athlon64<pentium Ds<athlon 64 x2<c2d< c2q< barcelona
in lappys
celeron m< sempron m< pentium m< turion x2< c2d

N

c2d for lappys.and the same for desktops till there's some wonder by AMD.

Intel is now atleast one year ahead of AMD.C2Ds gave AMD a harsh beating.I don't know ahat will happen when Intel releaser their upcoming 45nm processors.

I have to say currently Intel core2duo's rocks.Regarding price i don't care even if intel is costlier than amd.

N

I myself own an Athlon64 but C2D simply rox..

i wonder how the next gen amd wud be, and ive hear that intel is releasing octo core( 8 cores) i think is this true

Amd is good for me . Waiting for Barcelona core

pathiks said:
in desktops
p4<athlon64<pentium Ds<athlon 64 x2<c2d< c2q< barcelona

Barcelona isnt even out yet, isnt it a bit too early to include it. If Intel can make a mess with Net burst, who says AMD is god!

N

entrana said:
i wonder how the next gen amd wud be, and ive hear that intel is releasing octo core( 8 cores) i think is this true

Actually,Intel has plans of an 80-core processor called The Teraflop. 'Twas announced in IDF Fall 2006.

*naveendageek.blogspot.com/2006/09/idf-fall-2006-day-1it-rocked.html

i wonder what anyone wud do with 80cores, and i dont even think liquid cooling will be able to keep 80 cores cool

N

server side release

i dont think even server needs 80 cores man and how are they gonna fit damn 80 cores on 1 tenuous chip, 1nm technology?

N

lol .. no .. i think itll be pretty big in size but theyre gonna use 45nm technology.. the announcement has already been made. I gave u a link to the post in my blog ... here agn *naveendageek.blogspot.com/2006/09/idf-fall-2006-day-1it-rocked.html

amd turion64 rocks

N

dd_wingrider said:
amd turion64 rocks

no way .. Turion <<C2d

Nav11aug said:
no way .. Turion <<C2d

buddy i am extremely happy with my turion performance, moreover i am not comparing or degrading c2d, it may be better. Hope you get the point.

N

yup..

if ur happy with ur current proccy, good for you. but c2d is really powerful right now , and amd is trying to counter that with their upcoming chip lets see what happens then

i have just bought Core 2 D E6550 and its simply awsome.

Dont know about AMD but intel has following new family

Core 2 duo-- 2 ( i dont know what is the 2 , 4 and 8 stands for?, it may be cores or cpus)
core 2 quad - 4 cores
core 2 extreme -8 cores.

And there is amd 5000+ who has some little bit more performance than some of the core 2 duo processors below from E4400 processor.

core 2 extreme is not equal to 8 cores , extreme means domination ( at least intel defines it by that) , so a core 2 extreme quad is more powerful & costly then a core 2 quad. also core more like cpus more cores better multitasking & if the game benefits from the more cores it will give better perfomence.

Also not to hurt anyone but if any person goes buys an AMD64 X2 i would call him stupid unless he wants to buy very cheap proc. sloution , if anyone wants to buy a proc. now he should go with core 2 quad because its future proof or he should wait for barcelona but a core 2 quad E6600 is very good choice , reviews show that C2Q E6600 can beat C2D E6850 in overclocking & in many other application, games etc.. so people go buy a quad , even though it costs more its 100% future proof.

where is celeron :lol:

i think buying a celeron proccy now is awful.one should go for atleast a E2140

intel will always rock as they hav large amount of money to support the research team.

N

smit said:
core 2 extreme is not equal to 8 cores , extreme means domination ( at least intel defines it by that) , so a core 2 extreme quad is more powerful & costly then a core 2 quad. also core more like cpus more cores better multitasking & if the game benefits from the more cores it will give better perfomence.

Core 2 Extreme has extra cache makes all other processors bite the dust. The performance is TRULY mind-boggling

But when do you need such powerful performance?Its simply useless unless you have very deep pockets.

exactly a core 2 duo shud suffice

N

ofcoz ofcoz... only if u hv the cash :mrgreen:

BTW what is the cost of core2extreme?

^^kya pata.1yr back it was 50k

it was even available 1 yr back?
anyways i think the 3 ghz one costs round 1k dollars, thats round 40k rupees
but dude that much power is a sheer wastage of money just buy what u need now

entrana always remember in the world of technology , the more you invest today (i.e if you bought the Core 2 Extreme Quad E6850 right now which is very costly) you will never need to upgrade it for 4 years or more but if you go for a C2D E4300 or E4400 you will have to upgrade it next year for sure if you want to play those beautiful games....with max or high details...so investing in a high end pc isn't a bad idea after all...

its not always like that

Dude you can assemble a very good pc for 50k.We don't know what will come next year forget next 4 years.WE have got 60nm core now 45nm core is just round the corner so maybe a 10nm core in 4year.

yes but what im saying to say is just buy the things u need now because l8er the good stuff would be cheaper, and when ur current thing becomes old then only replace it

^^+1 that's what I am saying buy it you need it today,no need for waiting or buying highly priced products just to be future proof because you don't know what future holds for you.

entrana said:
its not always like that

Wrong its always like that, at least technology it is the case , here is an example for instance i bought an AMD X2 4400 + 3 years ago at that time buying a X2 would burn a pocket , i mean i could buy a decent single core computer at time for the price of a X2 but since i bought an X2 then i didn't have to upgrade it for the last 3 years see this the meaning of FUTURE PROOf
hardware, but if you are one of those guys (like me) who upgrades his pc every year or two then they should go for the mid range hardware like C2D E6400 period.

The_Devil_Himself said:
Dude you can assemble a very good pc for 50k.We don't know what will come next year forget next 4 years.WE have got 60nm core now 45nm core is just round the corner so maybe a 10nm core in 4year.

i can even bet that 50 k pc won't even last the year 2008, i am sure at mid 2008 many games,application etc.. will come out that your pc can't handle, i.e not being able to play on max settings, like i gave an example above if you buy an C2E quad E6850 right now i am sure you won't even need to buy the 8-core proccer which intel is currently working on , yes it is naturel that an 8 -core E6600 will be as powerful as a C2E quad E6850 but it will have enough power that you won't need upgrade to a 8 core solution so anyone out there buying an C2E quad E6850 should only upgrade there CPU when either intel or AMD would launch there 16 core solution

I agree with you man but first of all not many people can spend that much cash and secondly its always like that,you buy the best and soon it becomes outdated.It's a wild goose chase.Look at my case I bought c2d e6300 when it just debuted in India at pretty high price and now there are plenty of options within that price range and better than that.

^^yup dude not everynoe can afford a core 2 extreme for 40k now can they? for now they core 2 duo would suffice wont it? it would suffice for 2 years now wont it? after two years u could get a core 2 extreme now cant you? it will be cheaper than going for it right now. making pcs future proof just burns a hole in ur pocket, an unnecessary hole

entrana said:
^^yup dude not everynoe can afford a core 2 extreme for 40k now can they? for now they core 2 duo would suffice wont it? it would suffice for 2 years now wont it? after two years u could get a core 2 extreme now cant you? it will be cheaper than going for it right now. making pcs future proof just burns a hole in ur pocket, an unnecessary hole

C2D would suffice for 2 years ??? of course not a C2D E6600 won't even be suffice after 6 months from now on , right now quad has already hit the market games like suprme commander can already benfits from the 4- cores & many dual core optimized games are being benfited greatly from the 4 -cores & delvopers are now working on games that are optimized for 4 cores so buying a C2D right now is waste of money unless you like to upgrade your CPU every 6 months or so...

i know when people the price of 40 K they saY 'OH MY! how can i pay so much money for C2E !!' so they go with a cheaper solution but they have to upgrade often or they will lose behind in this wild chase (i.e again not being able to play on max or high settings) so at end of 2 years they would have spend just as much money as they would gone with the C2E then but you see many people won't see this, because they are used to pay money quartly just like the E.M.I schemes right now...

& why would anyone buy C2E after 2 years , i mean when software will optimized for 8-cores why would anyone would go with 4 cores, why would someone would buy an dying tecnology , would you buy an 8800 GTS 640 MB when 9800 GTS hit the market & they just cost 4k more , of course not you would go with 9800 GTS ..

so anyway i hope you will understand now..

@ smit,

dude, U plz try to understand..
Let say, I brought a C2Q E today for 40K (for future proof)
I can get a good C2D with 10K
==> I can buy 4 C2D now instead of C2Q E

U say, C2Q E will be last for 4 years.
So, I can upgrade my C2D every year with LATEST AVAILABLE technology which may be cheap.
Who say, @ 4th year, I'll get C2Q E in 10K ??? ;-)

So, I will enjoy a brand new Processor EVERY YEAR which is obviously NEW TECHNOLOGY !!

Got the point ??

BTW, do anyone know, when Barcelona is going to release ?? I heard it's on next Monday! Is it ??

shirish_nagar said:
@ smit,

dude, U plz try to understand..
Let say, I brought a C2Q E today for 40K (for future proof)
I can get a good C2D with 10K
==> I can buy 4 C2D now instead of C2Q E

U say, C2Q E will be last for 4 years.
So, I can upgrade my C2D every year with LATEST AVAILABLE technology which may be cheap.
Who say, @ 4th year, I'll get C2Q E in 10K ???

So, I will enjoy a brand new Processor EVERY YEAR which is obviously NEW TECHNOLOGY !!

Got the point ??

BTW, do anyone know, when Barcelona is going to release ?? I heard it's on next Monday! Is it ??

no you don't get my point , when i said C2E cheaper in the longer run i really had made my point there, also C2E quad E6850 will only last around 3.2 years not 4 years.

Anyway let me explain my point , i will have to make 2 rigs for it

Future Proof PC

intel C2E quad E6850 - 40k , good MObo - 12k , 4 GB ddr 3 ram - 12k , 9800 GTS - 30 k
Total amount - 94 k round about

Upgrade every year PC
1st year
intel C2D e6600 - 11k good mobo - 10k 2 gb ram ddr 2 - 5k , 8700 GTS gfx card - 10k , Total :- 36k

2nd year
intel C2q e6600 - 11k , good mobo :- 10k, 4 gb ddr 3 :- 6k , decen GFX card :- 10k , Total : -37 k

3rd year
intel 8 core - 11k , good mobo :-10k , 4 gb ddr 4 :-6k , decent GFX ( PCI 2.0) :- 10 k Total :- 37 k

Grand Total : - 110 k

now let me make a run down on both PC, when i will buy the future proof PC , it can 100% let me play games on max setting on 1600 x 1400 for 2 years at least , i might have to switch the res to 1280 x 1024 but thats ok

now your upgrade ever year PC :-
1st
since you are talking about buying a C2D now & since ddr 3 rams are hard to find right now & they are i have given it 2 gb ddr2 ram which should be enough for now & i haven't give high end graphics card like 8800 GTS because it is a dying tecnology & a 9800 GTS would be bottleneck due to the CPU.

2nd

you will really need switch to C2Q this year , so you need to buy a new mobo & it will DDR3 ram & you will need more ram for the future games , also you would need to buy a new card cause 8700 GTS would not be suffice for you to play the games at 1024 x 768 on high settings

3rd year

you will go with a 8 core proccer , so you will need to buy a good mobo, again you will switch to DDR 4 this year & will buy a decent PCI 2.0 card which will perfrom some what better than my 9800 GTS.

so this last upgrade will make your PC nearly as powerful as my 3 year old pc or more, but with this upgrade route it will cost you more , you will never get the benefit of playing games on high res, you will never get a time when you never have freedom to set AA/AF on the level which you want to set.

so i think my future proof PC wins in the longer run , yes i have to pay more as a one time payment but i will be happy because i will have a future proof system.

dude no one upgrades that much every year man ur exaggerating if that happens in ur case, well sad
people may upgrade once in 2 years man
or some people only upgrade if its abosolutely obsolete, u think anyone wud REALLY spend that much money every to upgrade just to run everything at maximum

shirish_nagar said:
I can upgrade my C2D every year with LATEST AVAILABLE technology which may be cheap.

who is exxagerating ?

YOU!!!
u dont expect any sane person to upgrade that much every year do you!!

of course that's my point no sane person would upgrade every year to play games on max details at just 1024 x 768 , he would go & buy a high end system or the person will lower his details or res to 800 x 600 but i am not here to tell what the person should if he has no money.

my point is your theory that a C2D would be suffice for 2 years is very wrong & if he does not upgrade he will have to turn down details in everything or else he can't enjoy it.

i have also proved my point that going with a med- high or high end is way to go if you want to brake a cycle but if you don't want to fine, its your opinion but it doesn't make you right.

I would rather play my games at lowest settings than spend 100k+ money on PC.And besides I don't have that kind of money anyways.I got a very decent PC now and I am not gonna upgrade for next 2-3 years not because I don't like upgrading but because I can't afford.And most people can't afford actually.

But the main point is if you got enough money than go for all the bells and whistles man.If you don't have that kinda cash stick to what you can afford or you have and be happy about it.And trust me dude a lot of people still survives on celeron processor and 128MB ddr ram.

^^exactly noone wants everything in max
no one can afford that much smit u have to understand that

and, this is INDIA !!!

Those days are still to come, when I'll buy a separate Gaming PC of 100K !! :-(

Which processor from AMD gives performance comparable to C2Qs????none of them. :evil:

the amd fx 64 comes close....

shady_inc said:
Which processor from AMD gives performance comparable to C2Qs????none of them.

can u please wait for Barcelona ?? ;-)

shirish_nagar said:
can u please wait for Barcelona ??

That's the thing with AMD.They always lag behind Intel in making better processors.Who knows,by the time AMD launches Barcelona,Intel must be contemplating the release of,say,8-core CPUs. :mrgreen:

I think, Barcelona is going to release next Monday, though I'm not sure about it !

shady_inc said:
Which processor from AMD gives performance comparable to C2Qs????none of them.

This is one of the reasons why I don't recommend hardware sites to the general public. All they talk about is extracting the last MHz by overclocking the crap out of a poor little piece of silicon. Not everyone overclocks, and only geeks care about the difference between 67 and 69 FPS in Quake 4. Hah!

AMD is much better given the prices of their affordable boards and relatively powerful onboard graphics for generic home and office usage. And, all their processors are feature-rich, fast, and balanced - without costing the average Joe his arm and leg.

So stop reciting the same old beaten rhetoric that you probably learned from a fanboy.

arre Yamraj bhai we are just saying c2d have no real competitor in the market at present and the prices of c2ds are really very competitive.AMD is cheaper and value for money but atleast 1 year behind Intel.

amd is just following intel
whatever intel releases amd releases after a while so i doubt that amd will ever get past intel

entrana said:
amd is just following intel
whatever intel releases amd releases after a while so i doubt that amd will ever get past intel

The_Devil_Himself said:
arre Yamraj bhai we are just saying c2d have no real competitor in the market at present and the prices of c2ds are really very competitive.AMD is cheaper and value for money but atleast 1 year behind Intel.

Exactly what I wanted to say. :razz:

This is one of the reasons why I don't recommend hardware sites to the general public. All they talk about is extracting the last MHz by overclocking the crap out of a poor little piece of silicon. Not everyone overclocks, and only geeks care about the difference between 67 and 69 FPS in Quake 4. Hah!

I didn't say a word about overclocking,Did I??? :?:

.Intel processors perform better than AMD even without overclocking.

AMD is much better given the prices of their affordable boards and relatively powerful onboard graphics for generic home and office usage. And, all their processors are feature-rich, fast, and balanced - without costing the average Joe his arm and leg.

Seems like you haven't got an update of hardware prices for about a year.Decent GPUs costing as little as 4k-5k are easily available.You may argue that AMD motherboards with onboard gfx cost about the same as these cards.But then,with in Vista and Dx10 era,having onboard graphics is so......well u understand...

So stop reciting the same old beaten rhetoric that you probably learned from a fanboy.

Accept the reality.AMD may be good for PCs of shoestring budget,but nothing beats Intel in performance department.

shady_inc said:
Exactly what I wanted to say.

Nonsense 2 Duo.

shady_inc said:
I didn't say a word about overclocking,Did I??? .Intel processors perform better than AMD even without overclocking.

Since when? AMD X2 4400+ consistently beats Intel C2D 4300, which is actually dearer by 1000/-, in almost all tests. And you can pair it with an AMD 690G board for less than 3000/- with onboard graphics much better compared to any Intel solution available.

You're seriously off the track.

shady_inc said:
Seems like you haven't got an update of hardware prices for about a year.Decent GPUs costing as little as 4k-5k are easily available.You may argue that AMD motherboards with onboard gfx cost about the same as these cards.But then,with in Vista and Dx10 era,having onboard graphics is so......well u understand...

Seems like you don't understand the concept of "Personal Computers" at all. Vast majority of all the computers sold worldwide rely on onboard graphics solutions. AMD, with nVIDIA nForce and AMD 690G boards, scores well above Intel here.

And if you didn't know, nForce 6150+430 and 7050PV fully support Vista Aero, and even come with features like hardware T&L and SM3.0 for the casual low-end gamer. Besides, if you missed the news - Vista isn't all that popular and DX10 is struggling still with buggy implementation and news of DX10.1 cards emerging from the horizon.

Again, gaming is all you can think of.

shady_inc said:
Accept the reality.AMD may be good for PCs of shoestring budget,but nothing beats Intel in performance department.

Been dreaming much lately?

Sometimes I think that we must just wait and watch till the dust settles and reveals the true aftermath of this conflict.

^^well said lets wait for barcelona

Yea lets wait and see.
BTW when is this barcelona gonna be released?

N

The_Devil_Himself said:
Yea lets wait and see.
BTW when is this barcelona gonna be released?

i dont think even AMD knows that

even if its released and if it performs better than intel (which it surely will) why do u think intel is not gonna release a new processor?i mean to say that by the time it gets settled intel will b ready with a new one.and this thread will keep running in circles.i prefer intel for quite stable prices they have.there's no steep fall there.like AMD-FX 55 was for 50000 bucks when i purhased.it was just a matter of monts for its price to fall to half.this is something i dont like while selling my stuff

Nobody likes that nish.
I purchased my c2d when it was just launched in India and now it is not even priced half of what i purchased it for.BUT i am happy with it.

I think Intel is ready with their 45nm processors.

amd can never compete with intel
in the end, amd is just a cheaper alternative to powerful processing that intel offers

N

The_Devil_Himself said:
I purchased my c2d when it was just launched in India and now it is not even priced half of what i purchased it for
I think Intel is ready with their 45nm processors.

whoa..!! which C2d? and when is intel releasing new processors?if its early i should wait for a mobo upgrade?

the 8 core is based on the 45nm technology

entrana said:
amd can never compete with intel
in the end, amd is just a cheaper alternative to powerful processing that intel offers

Grow up buddy !!! Where are you ?? Just think twice before writing !

AMD can never compete Intel? huh... Let me tell you, many of the AMD's processors performs better than their counterpart Intel...

And, Bcoz of AMD is cheap, Intel has to cheap!
Otherwise, it was really hard to get C2Ds <10Ks

Hope u understand what I mean ....

what i meant was the most powerful processor of amd cant compete with the most powerful processory of intel, as of now lets see what the future holds for us

Intel = Glittering Diamonds.
AMD = Lump of dried up Dog excreta.

^^ no no dude amd isnt that crappy

I know, but the cost effectiveness thing is not going to convince the enthusiasts.

Intel is way ahead of AMD in terms of performance. The Core 2 Quad Extreme
at stock will blow away any AMD make, including the FX-74. And the C2Q
extreme overclocked to 4.4 GHz (Ryan Gartner, highest score ever in 3dMark)
will...........forget it. I don't even want to compare.

But keep in mind I'm not an Intel fanboy. My CPU is a AMD 5200+. But facts
are facts, and I have no shame in stating that Intel is much better. Period.

@sockcucker : Intel is great make, thats no doubt.. 80% of the world uses INtel inside.. that fine.. but i know what capabilities AMD has.. AMD is also in the same league.. even if you compare PD orr C2D with many AMD proccys , AMD leads the way for Performance users.. (i mean people who look for good performance in a limited price range) and the FX-74 you are talking about has two CPU's and till date the motherboard made for it only has a single CPU support, that means half the performance.. and then AMD was the first to make a Quad CPU, and even a 64-bit.. in desktop market.. and even the inovation was also AMD's.

Well Both the makes originate from same country and are leading the world in Proccessor market..
I love both.. and can carry anytask on both.. but i am sure of one thing that AMD has better multitasking and overclocking capabilities..

they are releasing opteron 4 cores just checked their website

i think you wrong here , they have already released the core 2 quad....as for cost of core 2 quad in india well first they hard to find & if find one they cost lot as for now, so waiting for barcelona should be the best bet untill the price falls for the core 2 quad .

im talking about amd man
amd opteron 4 cores!!!!

shantanu said:
@sockcucker : Intel is great make, thats no doubt.. 80% of the world uses INtel inside.. that fine.. but i know what capabilities AMD has.. AMD is also in the same league.. even if you compare PD orr C2D with many AMD proccys , AMD leads the way for Performance users.. (i mean people who look for good performance in a limited price range) and the FX-74 you are talking about has two CPU's and till date the motherboard made for it only has a single CPU support, that means half the performance.. and then AMD was the first to make a Quad CPU, and even a 64-bit.. in desktop market.. and even the inovation was also AMD's.

Well Both the makes originate from same country and are leading the world in Proccessor market..
I love both.. and can carry anytask on both.. but i am sure of one thing that AMD has better multitasking and overclocking capabilities..

I totally agree with you, that AMD beats Intel when it comes to the price-to-performance ratio. No arguments there really, especially considering the 6400+.

But Shantanu, I was speaking from the perspective of an enthusiast. If one is after the pinnacle of performance, then I'm afraid Intel is the answer.

So, keeping in mind what you said, I'll conclude this:

AMD: Common man's winner
Intel: Enthusiasts' winner.

I hope you'll agree.

yeah i think you just repeated what is said.. Some time back... intel had no answers to X2 and FX series.. so they worked and developed the C2D and C2Quad series.. , now AMD is working and i am sure that theyw ill also coe up with something which will make it the enthusiast choice.

i am using Intel Quad core and i know that its what i want ! but then not everyone is a enthusiast. Your Points are upto mark, but that does not make AMD a 2nd grade thing is any ways..

and its just a discussion. not a fight

N

shantanu said:
and the FX-74 you are talking about has two CPU's and till date the motherboard made for it only has a single CPU support, that means half the performance.. and then AMD was the first to make a Quad CPU, and even a 64-bit.. in desktop market.. and even the inovation was also AMD's.

Well Both the makes originate from same country and are leading the world in Proccessor market..
I love both.. and can carry anytask on both.. but i am sure of one thing that AMD has better multitasking and overclocking capabilities..

there are already boards for multiple FX-74s.u can use upto 4 cpus.check this-
www.tyan.com

wow... just wow

Seriously. And then there are machines with 32 Xeon cores, and 128GB Ram.
(or 256 GB if that's too less for you).

I'm planning to buy one of those, very soon.

wow, why do u bbother buying any of them now
i realized these must be servers my friend was talking about, he says each of their server in his company cost 8 lakh

8 lakh? for 8 lakh you only get a Precision 690 by dell. The ones I'm mentioning
will cost the same as a nice house. lol

i doubt it

well i didnt find any board with 4 CPU support..
there are boards with socket 1207F with Quad core opetron support..

and who knows tyan ? in india ?

N

entrana said:
wow, why do u bbother buying any of them now
i realized these must be servers my friend was talking about, he says each of their server in his company cost 8 lakh

8 lakh.. no way..theyll cost u in crores(atleast 1) :mrgreen:

i dont think it will cost crore dude

About 40 to 50 lakhs for the pristine make.
(32 xeon cores, 256 GB ram, Array of Quadro FX GPUs)

And this is not fiction. Check out the systems used for creation of Toy
Story etc.

sure 40-50 lakhs but not 1 crore man

Soon desktop PCs will ship with 256 Terabytes DDR10 Ram, and hexacore IBM cell processors capable of 2000 ExaFlops.

Sounds yummy?

amd's barcelona is coming to rule!!!! and there is the phenom series too

Once the IBM's cell comes into the desktop computing domain (in another 10 years, hoefully), IT WILL BLOW AWAY INTEL AND AMD.

And that's because the cell is capable of doing the graphics on its own, and
not necessarily with the support of a 3rd party GPU.

IBM? i dont think so

Ok, the joint venture of IBM, Toshiba and Sony for all you purists.

^^thats possible

Currently , the quad core processors by Intel are the best available

but barcelona could change all that

dudes a quad core processor is a quad core procesor... whether from intel or amd

If you think barcelona can do some wonders for AMD then wait for 45nm processors from INTEL they will kill any competition.

i didnt say anything did i read my post CAREFULLY
i said a quad core is a quad core, barcelona = c2q theoretically
did i say anything about this being a competition for intel, hmm!!

Arre bose I dint mean you so chill out.I was justa saying that intel's 45nm processors are going to come very soon and AMD is still stuck with their 60nm processors.SO technically AMD is far behind intel as of now.

^^kismat dhoka de rahi hai AMD ko :lol:

aise mat bol bhai, acha khasa company hain amd jaroor kuch to karega par intel ke piche hi rahega

any new newz guys?
anyways amd quad core released, opteron 64

with 32nm fabrication technology,Intel is gonna rule for sure..

32nm!! when how?

*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32_nanometer

wow they havent even achieved 45nm and thinking about 32nm, great intel

Yeah huge companies like them need to plan the future, the far future.

too much future, right now they shud concentrate first on 45nm technology

intel ones heat more

N

both will heat if u dont have proper cooling.

^^ but, "comparatively" Intel heats more !!! ;-)

N

thats because of AMD's thermal architecture.but the thing is temperatures dont rise that much to toast your rig.so thats not an issue deciding which one's better.my intel and AMD run almost 24*7 and i dont think they ever create a problem.

none of them create a problem, its just that intel heats up more than amd

I dunoo guys 60nm is supposed to produce far less heats than 90nm so I guess C2D generate lesser heat.Anyways the heat is never sufficient to fry your proccy(I mean normally).

exactly thats just what i said, anyways people shud still be careful while overclocking

any new topics guys?

shashank4u said:
with 32nm fabrication technology,Intel is gonna rule for sure..

abey 45 nanometer toh aane de baaki baad mein dekhi jaayegi

what about the phenom octa cores launched by AMD about 4 days ago.. ?

^^do u mean something like octahedral

dual core : 2 cores
quad core: 4 cores
octa core : 8 cores

simple as that

^^knew that.i was just joking

penta core: 5 cores :lol:

wowsers.. when did they launch the octa core?

AMD Rocks. Intel takes the 64 bit technology from AMD for lease. And who can forget the Mighty K8 architecture, it really beat the hell out of Intel's but until Core 2 Duos arrived. And now Barcelona will kick Core 2 Duos.

Basically intel was always losing to AMD, then they decided to do what AMD had always been doing, but they did it quite a bit better.

I am 100% sure that AMDs quad core, being a single die-4 core chips is going to kick the core2quad's 2-die,4-core a**.

What the......when did they launched the octacore. Man AMD is just doing everything quietly....without telling it to anyone.

Anyways

Props for my homies!!!!!!!

This is a kick A$$ thread!
Waiting for something like this from ages but never noticed.

Love for AMD because of less power consumption.
Can't wait to see Phenom desktop series kick Intel just like Athlon did!

B

Amd's support is just great..they shipped me a replacement cpu in just one week...

OMG its going to be K10 or K10.5 PHENOM........old news but deep impact!
*www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=553&Itemid=1

AMD's Sandtiger, a chip that has 8-cores on a single die will be launched in the first quarter of 2009, it will be built on 45 nm architecture. And I read somewhere that AMD has also launched a tri-core chip, is it true?

S

^^ yup... actually is a four core chip in which one of the core has been short circuited... thats it!! wen intel slashed its ual core prices, AMD is about to bring in its 3 core proccy to take on intel....

I'm eager to see the performance difference between a 2 and a 3 core chip.

@shwtanshu
Welcome back pal. Its been ages since I saw you!!!

Wait few days Intel lovers Your game will be over soon

T

i own pentium-d processor.but i like the amd 64 bit processors.and i also have been excited about the amd baracelona processor.

AMD processors runs much cooler than Intel's!

AMD's new octaf core will kich every Intel proccy @$$. [octaf=8core + a haf core for fun].

hows the comparision of amd barcelona and intel c2d and quad cores .....

Heard that AMD will also be having Tri Core series named Phenom X3/ Phenom 7 series with 3X512 L2 Chache, 2 MB L3 Shared Chache code named Toliman.
6 Series will be Dual cores and 9 series will be Quad cores!

S

@infra_red thnx dude... been busy with exams.... thats y nt gtting tym nowdayz.... engg sux to the core!!

Intel surely made AMD look like a thing of past with their Core 2 Duo chips, but the fact remains tht AMD gave major competition to Intel and hopefully tht will be the future story.

What I think is that AMD is better value for money and Core 2 Duo's by Intel ar marginally better than AMD x2, which , according to me isnt a very good thing for Intel.

AMD x2 has been arnd for 2 yrs now and C2D being a totally new product shld have done better than x2s. And for the price diff b/w both of them its perfectly clear that AMD is far more better for a budget conscious coustomer.

So im surely with AMD , for making single core an item of history and i am pretty much sure that sooner AMD will lead the Quad core market with their tactical pricing

well id like to clear away a few doubts...

some forum members have mentioned that

AMD just copies what intel does...

this in itself is entirely wrong; AMD brought 64 bit computing to the consumer level, which intel followed by incorporrating EM64T in its Single core Processors featuring netburst architechture... most notably the Pentium 4, Celeron D, and Pentium D...

AMD featured 3dnow instructions before intel had anything comparable.. the MMX instructions werent much improvement and SSE came a little too late...

thats why AMD processors were best during the time INTEL severely lagged behind due to its much hyped but less working netburst architechture...

ATHLON XP was clearly ahead of Pentium 4 during the time... ahead in all kida benchmarks: business winstone, content winstone, 3d mark...

visit sites like Toms hardware and view the archived old section...
if i find time i'll post it here

they have shown that to actually beat an athlon clocked @ 2.6 ghz, P4 Northwood had to be extremely overclocked under N2 and made to reach 5 Ghz.. lol .. the fault? Netburst again......

actually the early 423 pin Willamette core P4 @ 1.6 ghz even lagged behind intel's own P3 @ 1.13 ghz based on the older and less complex but surprisinlgy technically superior P6 architechture...

that p4 even lost out to budget AMD duron processors

it was only when 478 pinned 1.7 ghz P4 was launched with northwood core that the P4 showed a clear lead over older P3...

and the p4 time saw the downfall of intel and rising of athlon 64...

intel surprisingly had tried to innovate into 64 bit computing earlier with its ITANIUM processors for server market but it was a MASS failure, i repeat MASS FAILURE on intels part, much because it lacked support for emulation of 32 bit apps which Intel thought could bottleneck the itanium's performance but instead came out with something even worse, and by the time intel inculcated support for 32 bit in ITANIUM, costomers had already gone for cheaper AMDs hammer(dont know the exact name) 64 bit CPUS...
server market had been lost out and fewer people had faith in intel due to its failure in producing a workable 64 bit server solution.......

think about it, the ITANIUM's architecture prevented it from being clocked to more than 1200 MHZ...lolz.. n you call that performance !!!

Unsold Itanium Processors had been dumped in around 2003, the same place where intel had dumped thousands of flawed pentium (1) chips that were actually shipped and not replaced until intel was sewed in around 1998.

AMD has no history of shipping flawed chips...

It was around the same time P4 had started being manufactured...
So intel was hit twice. at the same time...

Athlon 64 as you all may know, revolutionised PC by bringing server style resource allocation to mass public.... raising new standards..

And AFAIK Ati was acquired by AMD at the same time...
and that was the time ATIs Radeon R300 and the like had won over Nvidia's Geforce FX..

thus AMD had huge benefits...
And you may be surprised how intel survived such losses?...

well Intel never had to incur much losses in the PC market... why?
because the pentium line-up was really hyped and had been good performing until of course P4... and people had to believe that p4s were bigger-and-better kind.
And Intel had huge sums of money since Ints x86 era. Its Pentium line were sold upto a large extent and P3 was a good performer..

Actually if you get deeper into this then you'll know that the Core architecture is somewhat based on older P6 architecture... you can say that the Monster core 2 duos and quads had been derived from P3..lol
Netburst was a great fault.... in fact intel said netburst would allow it to make pentiums of the range upo 10 GHz... though they never reached 4 ghz...3.8 was max as otherwise TDP would increase to more than 130 watts which was not permissible..lolz.. :))

anyways back to topic, ..erm what was i saying??

Intel was providing a universal platform and stable platform back in the x86 age and upto pentium 3 i'd say ...
as a matter of fact, you may argue that intel went over 32 bit before AMD, so it is the father, the supreme kind...lol...well you can argue but back then AMD had not been into PC processor technology...

Actually i'd even more praise AMD for it...
because processor manufacturing was by all means Intels league...
And jumping into some-one elses league and providing equally performing and perhaps better solutions is not easy.. Intel got time to evolve through as back then it didnt have much competition. AMD had to hurry up and get past INTEL in intel's own technology... Not easy to do

now lets come todays scenario...

AMD went dual core (the actual two processors on one die) before intel did... AFAIK

And intel solutions do perform better than AMD... as of today by a noticable margin....

but its a kind of market/industry phenomenon...
One produces a thing, the second produces better, then again the first adds up something and it goes on...

AND any innovation if it becomes a mass HIT, then it has to be followed by other competitors if they have to stay in league... hence saying that AMD is copying INTEL or intel is copyin amd will not be well justified...

Say intel made quad cores, amd cannot go different way by increasing clock speed or say FSB by 4 times.. for heavens sake, Multicore is the way to Go...

And data addressing will olaso keep on increasing, from 16 bit to 32 bit in 1982 and from 32 bit to 64 bit in 2002 :))

maybe we have better things in near future!!!

By any means AMDs X2 is not SLOW.. please..... you wont call it simply SLOW!!! and you cant pit it against those intel warriors for comparision... both are in their own league..

AMDs new lineup will im sure provide better things than intels current lineup...
its a market equilibrium.. if not maintained one will be surely thrown out of the market...

as far as i am concerned...
im quite okay with a celeron 2.4 ghz with 256 kb cache and 1 gb ddr 400 with geforce FX 5200..

n for me this is a kickass config, though id go for a better gfx card!!

PS: Never owned AMD my whole life.. thou its just been 16 yrs... :))

and any corrections would be welcome,

also as a proof of athlon's superiority over p4,
read this *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4

regards
bikalp

..
..
..
..
..
..

my post final answer to this dispute or what ??? LOLZ....

no rebuttals??.. no-one intrested... heh :))

shall i take it for granted that ive said everything right and left no place for any dispute?...

in short : did i win? :))

haha..

jus kiddin guys...
but be bit more responsive

regards
bikalp

@bikdel

Really gr8 post yaarr.....

Yeh...Well explained bikdel...

plz help me...whether should i keep my upgrade from athlon 3000+ to c2d as on or get it postponed?

AMD is good but Intel is ahead now

^^ FAaar Ahead
but u cant beat AMd in Cost

Actually Intel beats AMD in price today. AMD's 6000+ procy is priced at 7.8k whereas Intels e6750 is priced at 8.2k. Just 400ruppee difference but 400mile difference in performance. So currently Intel beats AMD in all ways..

^^ perfectly Agree but if u see lower End proceessor's its not like that
but ya i agree Intel Lead's the Way

INTEL's high end processors are better value for money while AMDs lower-mid level processors are better!

^^ +1

nvidia8800 said:
Actually Intel beats AMD in price today. AMD's 6000+ procy is priced at 7.8k whereas Intels e6750 is priced at 8.2k. Just 400ruppee difference but 400mile difference in performance. So currently Intel beats AMD in all ways..

You can get a decent AMD X2 board with all the mainstream features, plus onboard nVIDIA/ATi GPU under 4000/-. Decent C2D boards are selling in the 10-15k range.

I'm using AMD X2 6000+ coupled with ASUS M2NPV-VM and extremely satisfied with the setup.

^^^^ yeah you caught the point...

people in tight budget can really build a good enough AMD system at dirt cheap... intels case is different and AFAIK most computer users are those who need a computer to use it for basic tasks like word processing and net surfing for which even lowly celerons will do.... and i come across people daily who have Pentium 3, 128 mb ram, 20 gb hdd, onboard gfx, at their homes just because they done need anything better... and thats true...
its the end user's choice...

and those kinda people who look for upgrades, AMD fits in.... giving unbeatable VFM...

For people who have dough and will... Go Intel... Im not a Pro-AMD buff whos gonna make his day by drifting customers to intel.. :))

....

and whatever i was talking about... i didnt actually mean to compare AMD and Intel products side by side....

I mean to compare Intel and AMD as COMPANIES, INDUSTRIES...

i mean im comparing their history, market records, influential and a bit of hit products....

and as Intels had enough of Monopoly in Processors like Microsoft in OS market, i thought AMD is a better in terms of COMPANY.. at least till date...

intel can do wrong and get time to correct it and again do it and set it right... (many of us know about the bugs in earlier core 2 duos as well)

its had enough lead earlier when AMD was not there!! so that works out like insurance.....

its like a Linux distro coming UP and occasionaly beating windows... i mean thats what i would compare it with whenever AMD provides better solutions...

regards
bikalp

AMD is now Light Years behind Intel Now .......

Which one is sasta is better ..

In desktop .. - AMD Athlon64 X2

In Laptop - If everything else is same, as in size and other specs .. - Which one is cheap is better either Turion or Core2Duo

...

As for my personal exp,

Have been using AMD desktop for almost 7 years now ...
No complaints, ya No heating problems even in the year 2000 when I bought that old K6-2.

So, AMD rulz bcoz of VALUE FOR MONEY

ssdivisiongermany1933 said:
AMD is now Light Years behind Intel Now .......

i feel light years is still not a proper parameter to highlight the performance differences...

^^

lolz

Value for money-AMD
And since we live live in India...I must say AMD is better.Btw I was a p4 user till one week ago now use AMD 2X 64 bit 4400+ so I am impartial.I have used both

N

Even Intel gives Value for Money but if you are tight on cash ,AMD definitely doesn't hurt

J

Intel will outperform AMD in both performance & features... Still AMD wont disappoint anyone..

+1 for whoever said
VFM -AMD Athlon X2
Performance Intel C2D/C2Q/C2X

Intel...I feel that for gaming purposes, Intel has slightly better performance than AMD. For productivity apps however, AMD usually was the more powerful processor. Of course, with the Core 2 Duo, things have shifted...and since I don't give a d@mn about money when I buy a computer (I don't compromise on the things I love! :))

...its Intel for me!!

Just wait for FUSION from AMD.. :))

Whats FUSION?

nvidia8800 said:
Just wait for FUSION from AMD..

why not wait for Nehalem :grin:

*www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=882&chart=419

see amd vs intel c2d king of hail

as already you hav mentioned

If you need Cheaper PC
than
I love AMD, its cheap and better!!!!

If you need the Best
Everyone knows its InTeL iNsIdE

I like Intel for My PC

keith_j_snyder2 said:
Whats FUSION?

another great innovation by AMD...
AMD has got a habit of doing unique things that too differently

its a project to combine CPU and GPU... one unit to do both..
it was initiated almost 5 years ago secretly and has taken a leap after AMD acquired Ati... though it will still take time, unofficial sources tell that Fusion will debut sometime in Q4 2009
and it is the hardest job in hardware industry according to me...

actually another effort to make PCs more compact, more cost effective and a great effort to sabotage Intel... :))

AMD has lost a lot of its market share due to Intel COre 2 duo...

now i guess it will do anything to regain it..

but im not criticizing any party...

OFFTOPIC..

I think this is the most debatable topic in computer hardware..(today)

Guys why not make it a Sticky??

i dont know where to go and whom to ask for that purpose...

can you guys help it out......

N

bikdel said:
another great innovation by AMD...
AMD has got a habit of doing unique things that too differently

its a project to combine CPU and GPU... one unit to do both..
it was initiated almost 5 years ago secretly and has taken a leap after AMD acquired Ati... though it will still take time, unofficial sources tell that Fusion will debut sometime in Q4 2009

And why was the GPU invented in the first place? To take the load off the CPU, nah?

^^ point...... but that was because at that time (20 yrs or so) the CPU was too weak to handle graphics intensive applications....

Nav11aug said:
And why was the GPU invented in the first place? To take the load off the CPU, nah?

have you seen a CPU supporting Pixel/Vertex Shader ? Have you seen a CPU supporting OpenGL?... i am yet not sure about Direct X, .. but OpenGL 2.0 is the minimum the Fusion CPU will support..

Open GL claims come out first because its much more scalable and is 'open', thats why...

like initially if you had to listen to music, sound card was needed.. but nowadays you get better than anything onboard sound cards, isnt it?.. that has cut down costs by a great margin... and its not hitting performance..

The AMD fusion technology wont be a simple 64 bit desktop computer processor..
it willl have almost 40 percent algorithms dedicated to graphics processing...

Now you may tell that we do have onboard Grafix.... but the AMD innovation is to make a universal processor.... in onboard gfx you still have a dedicated GPU on the motheboard... things will change with Fusion.....

i doubt that present applications will work properly on the platform.. nevertheless something highly technical is being done and is good...

I would say its an effort to build upon its current share in low to mid end market...

And of course the laptop market.. this one will reduce power consumption and make the machine more compact

EDIT : Id likle to add up to say that kinds of fusion are already available in the market... though in a different platform!

any guesses what it may be? I mean tell me where both CPU and GPU work are done by a single processor :))

AMD's FUZION is far greater than the FUSION technique in DBZ!! But only until they turn SS.

I heard about fusion almost 2 years back but never though that it comes to life so quickly.

T

Been using AMD Procs for 4 years now and there are no such problems as such for DirectX or OPenGL.

keith_j_snyder2 said:
I heard about fusion almost 2 years back but never though that it comes to life so quickly.

its not yet out...
i read unofficial sources saying that it will be released in Q4 2009..

don't actually believe this because the thread in which it was posted doesnt even exist... so no commitments...

but at least its on the way.. its coming and will debut soon.. that will earn lots of praises for AMD...

unless intel already got something up its sleeve :))

ax3 said:
bt does any problem occur 4 opengl & directx with AMD pcs ?

do games played on AMD work same as on INTEL ?

common.. why are you saying that?..

most of the gamers have used AMD PCs for gaming..
just 2 years ago gamers looked at nothing other that AMD Athlon XP or AMD ATHLION 64 clubbed with Nforce chipset for gaming...

AMD was ruling gamin earlier ... how come a problem will arise all of a sudden

?

as of today Intel is the winner... but that does not mean you will not get to play games on AMD PCs

just ♥ AMD!

ax3 said:
bt does any problem occur 4 opengl & directx with AMD pcs ?

do games played on AMD work same as on INTEL ?

And what role does proccy has on DX nd OpenGL???
AMD is the first to use 3D Now, which boosted game performance. But now a days the main work is done by GPU.

P

whever u say intel still rocks
blazing performance

AMD PHENOM has new sets of multimedia instructions i.e SSE4a too where as INTEL QX9770 still doesn't have this one!

Hope there will be new breed of Quad cores with AMD!

AMD is the best. If the same performanc we can get in a cheaper price then why not go for it. I m using it for years and without any problem.