For the record, I wasn’t taking aim at you; I thought you raised a worthy consideration (regarding the heat issue). Sorry if it came off like I was; I was trying to say I think they’re pretty evenly matched in all but bang for the buck (on which I believe AMD wins).
In the past, yes, AMD chips were fairly notorius for running hot and sucking wattage. I don’t think that’s the case any more; in fact, IIRC, the P4 sucks (more) major power to support all that “hyper-threading”, branch prediction, and pipeline clearing. Also, IME (limited as experience always is), the only people that insist you must buy Intel are those impressed by the shiny “Intel Inside” stickers on a newly bought Dell – in other words, corporate lackeys.
Now that is really interesting. Bizarre to me, but I don’t doubt you. I wonder why that would be?
Most head-to-head benchmarks I see also tend to have AMD outperforming Intels that have clock speeds equivalent to the AMD CPU’s “named” speed. (e.g., An Athlon 3200+ generally outperforms a 3.2 GHz Pentium.) As with all things, YMMV.
Thanks to all who replied. I’m not a gamer, but I do run photoshop pagemaker and corel draw. I want the media center for the tv tuner dvd burning and pvr capabilities. I also like to play with music mixing. So far it seems what I choose won’t matter, except that some say the equivalent speed AMD performs better. So I’ll go for bang for the buck. Thanks all!
Well, it would seem to me that whatever the programs were written in simply could not be handled by the AMD when broken down all the way to machine. I thought, though, that there shouldn’t be a problem with a processor designed to be x86 compatible.
Sounds to me like jasonh300 was dealing with lousy coding on the part of the programmers more than any inherent problems with the AMD chip itself. After all, if someone writes a webpage that only properly renders in IE because of the way that IE plays fast and loose with the standards, we generally don’t say that it’s a problem with Firefox or Safari or Opera but laziness on the part of the programmer.
It might be that for a particular accounting program, it was only “certified” to be mathematically correct when using Intel chips. Not that it wouldn’t work correctly with AMD, but that the certification process is too expensive for it to be worth doing again for AMD.
I’ve been looking into getting a new PC so I was looking for information on AMD vs Pentium and I found a review on cnet that compared dual core processors of the two brands and the AMD outperformed the Intel brand across the board. I am definitely looking for a AMD dual core for myself.
Okay, that does make sense (though it seems funny when you remember the floating point error the early Pentiums had.) At least it explains the system requirements. But it still doesn’t really explain the problems the program had simply running with the AMD, unless the code used was specifically designed for the exact architecture of Intel CPUs.
The original Pentium bug may well have initiated the certification process. If the software developer did a lot of testing to make sure the program worked correctly with a P4 Northwood and but not a P4 Dothan, the could easily code a check for that specific processor and not run on anything but a Northwood. Add in Wilamette, Prescott, Gallatin, Prestonia, Gallatin, Foster, Nocona, Deerfield, etc. and I could easily see not running on all Intel chips in addition to AMD. I imagine it would be controlled by market share of the particular chip.
To be *completely *fair, it’s 4 and a half years old. Which in cpu time is ancient history
Intel and AMD have had many chips that ran very hot because they were maximizing performance at a particular die size. They have both had chips that run very cool and very overclockable.
Weird article. I guess that’s why I stopped reading Tom’s Hardware.
Nope. There are IEEE standards for the operation of floating point units, and both should (and I’m sure do) meet them.
It is possible that software isn’t tested on AMD chips. It’s possible that a software developer gets advertising $ from Intel, and for some reason doesn’t support AMD. (Dell would have to give up a discount to go AMD - one of the reasons they don’t). Or it is possible that they’re using undocumented instructions, or only support one of the graphics instruction sets. But yeah, it’s the software that’s screwed up.
The buzz in the processor design industry is that AMD, for the first time ever, has taken the technical lead, and that Intel is playing catchup. This is unprecedented. Hector Ruiz is doing a great job getting them to execute better. Intel is doing a crappy job of execution (design, not manufacturing) and has been delaying things, and even canceling projects because of power. They were slow with multicore, and slow with 64 bits, due to the evil influence of Itanic. Looks like the OP is making the right choice.
Disclaimer: I now work for neither of these companies, but have worked in processor design.
No - the reason they are running hotter is information theory - more speed means more power, and nanometer processes have more leakage, thus more current, thus more heat. Processor designs have had tricks for a long time to shut down parts of the chip not doing anything to save power.
Multicore designs can have equivalent thoughput at less clock speed, so less power.
The Sun UltraSPARC T1 (8 cores) doesn’t run very fast, but does great on the right benchmarks (transaction or web processing kind of stuff) and runs very cool.
But that’s what’s so bizarre to me; while I certainly appreciate that CPUs are the most complex machinery designed by human hands, there are standards (and the x86 architecture is surely well-known). Two of the three software packages jasonh300 mentioned would not run the software. I mean, fer pity’s sake, is either package going to be so hard-core optimized as to get down to bare metal discrepancies?
As I said, it’s not that I doubt it, it’s that I don’t understand it.
fwiw, i’m currently running a two year old amd athlon xp 2500+ (@ 1.83ghz, 512mb ddr ram) with win xp pro that has crashed exactly three times, and overheated exactly never. and it cost me over $200 less to put together than a comparable pentium at the time.
i’m not too sure which is the better performance/cost/overall deal currently, as my unit is still running so well i’m not even beginning to think of replacing it, but i must say it is by far the highest performing, longest lasting, and most cost effective compy i’ve ever had. and i’ve been, up until this one, frustratingly replacing compy’s yearly since my first 386.
An aside – this thread has inspired me to buy a new computer. Being a CS grad student, more power never hurts (and the new gadget factor adds to it); my wife will inherit my current setup, as she’s been complaining recently that her 900MHz isn’t cutting it for the massive moon images she has to deal with (she’s a geology grad student working on analyzing maps/chemical composition of the moon).
Anyway, I got my last one (year/year and a half ago) through iBuyPower, and have been extremely happy with it. I think I have my system all picked out (an AMD, dual core, 4200+, etc.), but I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on iBuyPower’s prices (and reliability) relative to other on-line vendors; I really only have three requirements: (1) I want to be able to select my components, (2) they have to offer AMD, and (3) the vendor has to have a decent reputation (I bought once from a company that went out of business in the middle of resolving motherboard issues; my return was in transit when they officially bit the bullet and I was left with a shell of a computer).
Recommendations, anyone? (Perhaps this should go in a new thread…)
If you have to ask, then the differences in processors won’t matter to you. They’re both equally compatible with the software, and you don’t seem to have particularly hardcore needs. I’d agree with the others who say the other factors (price, components) should rule your decision.
Historically, Intel was the ‘safe’ answer, AMD was the ‘value/performance conscious’ answer, but these days the CPU isn’t the bottleneck in the computer, it’s the dude at the keyboard that’s holding everything back. (That and the anti-spyware, anti-virus crap…but let’s not bring Norton into this. )
Unless the two computers were identical in every way except the CPU, you can’t logically assume that the CPU was the cause of the problem. Heck, for all we know, you may have had a faulty memory module or been on two entirely different Windows patch levels. It just sounds like you assume these problems are CPU related without actually trying to isolate the CPU, which doesn’t really do anything except reinforce your own assumptions.
Thanks. I’m looking at the site – am I missing something? I don’t see any way to customize a machine; all I see is whole systems with no options to configure anything…
)