Thread: Intel, AMD...
View Single Post
  #10  
Old November 18th 04, 07:21 AM
JW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:07:20 -0600, Eli Kane
wrote:

Note: opinions expressed below will probably inflame passions about things.
I state here that these are just my opinions and observations. Bleeding
edge game players will take exception to some of my statements, and I
realize that they are a special case. I am making general statements about
the average user.


I'm considering AMD instead of Intel. But, a friend of mine
who works as a Techie in a Television Station, is very familiar with
Microcomputers, and he has been on Seminars where they were discussing
the merits and flaws of both Intel and AMD. He was told that AMD
typically does NOT do the CHECKSUMS as often, and to the same degree,
as Intel. Is this true, and could this result in data corruption?

In my opinion, which is not all that important, there is no real difference
between the competing processors from AMD and Intel, except the price.


Then what about the adage: You get what you pay for? Does
Intel COSTmore because it's WORTH more?

For
most users there is no noticable performance difference no matter what
software you are running. Years ago it used to be that AMD lagged behind
Intel for floating point performance, but even then you would not notice
the difference unless you were doing modelling of the atmosphere or
something like that.


....or AUTOCAD, or 3D modelling, or photo and text editing?
I'm just wondering.

If you are a bleeding-edge game player, the difference between the two makes
no real difference since the graphics card does most of the work. For the
money you save getting an AMD you can get that much better a GPU and more
system memory. In addition, you may squeeze out a few more frames per
second. Benchmarks (see www.tomshardware.com) currently show the latest
from AMD being faster than the latest from Intel for this. But you must ask
yourself if the difference in frame rates is really that great, since frame
rates in the lower two hundred range are way faster than your brain will
notice. And even if the latest game taxes the CPU, other bottlenecks like
memory bandwidth have a far greater effect(IMHO).


Are we talking faster frame rates AND high resolution, at the
same time?

For business applications, benchmarks showing the difference between the
processors are measured in seconds or tenths of seconds.


In the computer world, SECONDS is an awfully long time! Such a
time lag is a VERY SIGNIFICANT difference.

Faster memory
makes the biggest difference because more data is moved per unit time, but
even then you are talking about sub-second measurements.


But isn't faster memory related to CPU speed?

The bottom line is the price difference. Even if the current benchmarks
showed that Intel edged AMD, I would still get the AMD because for the
lower price I could get more of something else, like memory or better GPU.
The performance difference has long since ceased to be anything worth
considering except in exceptional cases.


I guess you could say that a $200 difference may be NAME
related. But what does it REALLY mean when Intel costs about $800 MORE
than the equivalen AMD?

I would add that a true 64 bit machine like AMD offers provides added
incentive to get it, to take advantage of software written for 64 bits.


But, isn't the Intel P4 a 64 bit processor?

Sorry if what I have written was a bit long, and if it incites flames. That
is not my intention.

Eli


JW
"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION is certainly true for
Israel in its conflict with the Arabs. Now Microsoft
has adopted the slogan as follows: FALURE IS NOT AN
OPTION. IT COMES BUNDLED WITH THE SOFTWARE!"