AMD or Intel

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:29:43 GMT
"Newton Lee" wrote:

Any suggestion if I should choose AMD or Intel platform ? Does AMD
still have the VERY HOT issue ?

Neither AMD nor Intel make mass storage devices so this isn't really the
best place to get an answer to that question.

And I've seen AMD processors running at -40C. (yes, that is minus and
yes I mean "forty" and it doesn't matter if it's F or C at that
particular temperature) so there would not appear to be a "VERY HOT
issue", although there is sometimes an "inadequate cooling issue",
which, to get back on topic, also causes problems with mass storage
devices, which many people do not seem to realize need cooling.

--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Papa, not disagreeing with you here, Rita's post didn't show up on my
server, so I'm responding to her comments in this post.

If Intel processors are shovels then use an Opteron--no point in using a
shovel to dig a hole when a backhoe is the proper tool.

As for SCSI, perhaps Rita should check the reviews for the WD
Raptors--their performance matches or surpasses the 10K Cheetahs
comes close to the 15K Cheetahs. And that's for first generation
drives--the second generation with twice the linear density and tagged
command queuing should be considerably more capable.

I hate to say it, but with LSI Logic (aka AMI and Mylex) producing
SATA RAID controllers with all the features of their SCSI RAID
controllers and with enterprise-grade SATA drives available, SCSI's days
may be numbered.


On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:32:18 GMT
"Papa" wrote:

Sorry, Rita, but I have to disagree because AMD CPUs have been
installed in my home-built systems for several years now - with no
problems, no performance hits, no overheating (of course, fan/heatsink
combos should be used), and for at least half the price of the Intels.

I see you are using your real email address in your newsgroup posts.
That really exposes you to spam attacks. I suggest that you create a
fake one.

"Rita_A_Berkowitz" wrote in message
...


"Newton Lee" wrote in message
news:XxBAb.586205$6C4.292301@pd7tw1no...

Any suggestion if I should choose AMD or Intel platform ? Does AMD
still have the VERY HOT issue ?




Why, Intel, of course. There is no sense in using a teaspoon to dig
a
hole
when a shovel is the proper tool. And, yes, after selecting the
proper Intel processor to do the intended task you may want to
consider going
with
an all SCSI only system. Again, there is no sense in using improper
tools.



Rita








--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Any suggestion if I should choose AMD or Intel platform ? Does AMD still
have the VERY HOT issue ?

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:19:46 GMT
"Papa" wrote:

Rita, here are some points for you to think about (from an article in
Epinion.com):

Intel versus AMD, who are you betting on?

The Bottom Line With good points from all sides, the decision depends
on the application.

When working on a computer, all of what you are doing is processed by
the CPU (central processing unit), the brain of the computer if you
will. Like brains, computers aren't all of equal power. Some are the
equivalent to a rat brain, and some to Einstein. The trick is to find
that sweat spot between value and performance, that's when you've
found the perfect processor for you! But, before you decide how much
power you want to jam in that little chip, you're going to want to
decide on the type. This my friend, is where we enter a feud that has
lasted longer than life itself(well, at least for people that are
younger than it!), the Intel versus AMD feud.

From the early 80's when the company Intel was founded, (by the way,
Intel isn't derived from the word intelligence, it's a mix between the
words integrated electronics) Intel has taken off and dominated the
home computer market. It also took over the laptop processor market,
and just recently with the introduction of there first 64 bit
processor, very might well take over the server and workstation market
(previously occupied by Sun's UltraSparc and Compaq's Alpha). But, all
along the road to fame Intel has run into some competition. In the
beginning, from IBM (the creator of the desktop), then Cyrix (which is
almost totally wiped out),

Minor nit, but Cyrix belongs to Via now and it is alive and well and
carving out a nice little niche in embedded and special use systems
where it's low power consumption and low heat production outweigh it's
low performance.

and most recently AMD. You might think that
AMD will have the same fate as the rest, but the fact is that AMD is
putting up a huge fight and is actually taking away Intel's market
share in almost all markets.

Now that I've given Intel's background, AMD deserves some of the
spotlight. AMD (Advanced Micro Devices) doesn't have such a long and
prestigious history, but has done some pretty amazing things. No one
knew about AMD before they introduced there first hit product, the AMD
K6-2. It was designed to compete against the Pentium Pro, Pentium II,
and earlier Pentium III's. They then introduced the AMD K6-III, which
wasn't as popular and didn't stick around long due to the introduction
of the AMD Athlon and Duron processors. The Duron was designed to
compete against the Celeron, it was designed as a consumer budget
model. The Athlon was more advanced and was designed to compete
against the Pentium III. They then redid the Athlon and came out with
a Socket model (uses a small chip with pins on the bottom compared to
the slot which was about the size of a graphing calculator and went in
thin side down). This was designed to compete against the later
Pentium III models and the Pentium 4.

Now that you know some background information on the two companies,
it's time to start the debate between the Intel processors and the AMD
processors. The first fight is between the two consumer budget chips
from both models, the Celeron from Intel and the Duron from AMD. The
next fight is the desktop round between the Pentium III and Pentium 4
from Intel and the Athlon from AMD. The next is the high-end
workstation and server markets, in which the Itanium from Intel and
the SMP version of the Athlon from AMD. The last battle is for the
notebook market. This includes the Pentium III with SpeedStep
technology from Intel and the Athlon 4 from AMD.

Round One, Consumer Budget Processors

This fight is between the two entry level processors, Intel's Celeron
and AMD's Duron. Both of the processors don't perform as well as there
desktop counterparts, especially the Celeron. The Celeron is about 200
megahertz slower than the Duron or AMD equivalent, although the
technical clock speed may be the same. In this one, the Duron WINS
HANDS DOWN. It's cheaper, faster, and fits in the Athlon socket, so if
you built a system designed for a Duron you could easily upgrade to an
Athlon, no converters or change of motherboard required!

Round Two, Desktop Processors

This is really where Intel and AMD fight because here energy is not an
issue and the speeds aren't limited by cooling or space. The Intel
Pentium III processor goes from 400 megahertz to 1 gigahertz.

Another minor nit--1.4 GHz PIIIs are readily available.

It
performs similar to the Pentium 4,

Actually, at the same clock speed the PIII is faster--not my opinion,
somewhere on the Intel site there is a white paper about this--they
traded operations per cycle for higher clock speed in the P4.

but is cheaper(although not as
cheap as the high end Athlon's).

The lowest price I can find on a 1.4 GHz PIII is $195. The lowest price
I can find on an Athlon 3200+ (a "high end Athlon") is about 315. So
the PIII is most assuredly cheaper than the high end Athlons, but
it's a good deal more expensive than the midrange Athlons.

The Athlon is meant to compete on all
fronts. It goes from 550 megahertz to 1.67 gigahertz (and climbing).

The 3200+ normally runs 2.16 GHz.

It usually performs at about the same speed as an Intel processor 400
megahertz ahead (for example, a 1.4 GH-z Athlon will beet out a 1.8
GH-z Pentium 4). They are also really cheap, with the 1.4 GH-z
processor going for $100.

Armed robber--you should be getting a 2600+ for that price. The 1600+,
which is the current 1.4 GHz part, goes for under $60.

The last processor is the Pentium 4. This is
aimed at the higher level consumer, but when sold with a desktop isn't
much more expensive. Overall, I'd say GO FOR THE ATHLON BECAUSE IT"S
CHEAPER, FASTER, AND DOESN'T USE RAMBUS RAM (the P4 only uses Rambus
RAM,

Where the Hell have _you_ been for the last two years or so. It has
been a long time since the P4 needed Rambus. The current Intel chipsets
do not support Rambus, but they do support DDR.

the Athlon can use SDRAM or DDR RAM) unless you're a gamer, then
I'd say go for an Intel Pentium 4 based system at 1.5 GH-z.

Why would you go for such a slow, antiquated system?

Round Three, High-end Workstations and Servers

For a market where neither Intel nor AMD has ever been too successful,
there is an awful lot of competition. AMD competes with it's SMP based
systems(Symmetrical Multi-Processor, more than one processor) and
Intel competes with its 64 bit Itanium processor.

Intel's 64 bit Itanium processor has never been particularly
competitive--it was late out the door at too low a clock speed and the
32-bit machines kicked its butt--the second generation Itanium may be
doing better. And AMD competes in that market with _their_ 64-bit
processors which run like the hammers of Hell (no pun intended).

The first half of
the fight is centered around high-end workstations. These are usually
involved with CAD and CAM programs which just suck up megahertz like
there's no tomorrow. ON THIS FRONT, THE SMP ATHLON SYSTEMS WIN OUT.
They are much cheaper than the Itanium chips and don't need a 64 bit
operating system to perform to their full potential. The server market
is different. It doesn't really have much activity directly onto it,
but must serve up a lot of information to a large number of clients.
THIS FIGHT IS WON BY THE INTEL ITANIUM.

So how many Itanium-based machines have actually been sold and put into
service? Last time I checked I could get one on ebay for less than a
decent Athlon-based gaming rig.

People are willing to pay more
for speed when dealing with web servers, and the operating system
really isn't that important because only the clients are going to
interact with it and they won't need to navigate around the OS and
there aren't any compatibility issues like there are with programs
like AutoCAD.

Round Four, Mobile Processors

In one corner, weighing in at up to 1.1 Gigahertz, the Intel Pentium
III with SpeedStep. In the other corner, the latest mobile processor
from AMD, weighing in at up to 1 Gigahertz, the AMD Athlon 4! Alright,
first things first, what sets these chips apart from there desktop
counterparts. The SpeedStep technology that Intel talks about in the
naming scheme is why it's a mobile processor. SpeedStep enabled chips
are designed to save power by running at one speed when plugged in and
another when relying on battery power. For example, in my Dell
Inspiron 8000 with an Intel Pentium III 900 MH-z SpeedStep enabled
processor runs at 900 megahertz when plugged in and 750 when relying
on batter power. This can be disabled though, at the BIOS screen. The
Athlon 4 (note that the 4 is just meant to compete with the Pentium 4,
it's basically the same as the normal Athlon) is just basically an
energy saver. At the end of the match, I'D HAVE TO SAY THAT THE AMD
ATHLON 4 PROCESSOR WOULD WIN because it doesn't slow down the
processor and is much cheaper (as are most AMD products).

So in which corner is the Intel Centrino?

End of first article

Which was out of date a couple of years ago.

Also, a more recent article on the subject, dated September 23, 2003
by DocMemory, discusses the new 64-bit CPU technology:

Advanced Micro Devices Inc. Tuesday will officially launch its Athlon
64 processor, a PC version of its 64-bit server processing technology
which promises high performance graphics and high end processing at
the desktop and notebook level, backwards compatible with 32 bit
applications and operating systems.

The launch sends a warning shot across the bow of the mighty Intel
supertanker.

The new entry by AMD beats rival Intel to the punch. Semiconductor
giant Intel's CTO Patrick Gelsinger last week at the Intel Developers
Forum told reporters that 64-bit processing would not be needed at the
PC level for several more years. According to Intel officials, PC
operating systems and applications aren't yet ready for the
technology.

"This launch will do a lot to boost AMD versus Intel," said Kevin
Krewell, senior analyst at In-Stat/MDR. "It differentiates AMD
products, and it will be a high performing product, which could
improve AMD's position in the market."

Microsoft has made a 64-bit Windows beta available earlier this year
and is expected to announce general availability of the OS at the AMD
launch Tuesday or soon after. In addition, several Linux operating
systems are available to exploit 64-bit hardware. On the applications
side, AMD demonstrated Epic Games Unreal Tournament 2003 for 64 bits
at Comdex, and that product is currently available.

PC gamers and enthusiasts, or "prosumers," will be a big market for
AMD Althon 64, said John Crank, product manager for the 64-bit desktop
side at AMD. AMD expects platforms that incorporate the chip to be
initially embraced by the PC gaming community and then by consumers
who are looking for high end desktop processing to support their
digital video and still image editing applications.

In a pre-emptive strike , last week at the Intel Developers Forum
Intel announced its own first entry aimed directly at gamers --
Pentium 4 Processor with HT Technology Extreme Edition 3.2GHz, which
offers an additional 2Mbytes of cache.

"Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, a server processor in desktop clothes, is
Intel's short term response to Althon64," said Krewell. "The real
Intel response is Prescott, the 90nm processor expected to ship for
revenue this quarter, but which may not launch until Q1 2004."

In addition to the 64-bit capabilities, Althon 64 will also
incorporate the memory controller portion of the north bridge onto the
same die as the CPU. AMD has said this shift in architecture will
further improve the performance of its processor by reducing latency.
But that innovation by itself will not sell processors as much as the
fact that it is a design that is different than that offered by Intel.

"Integrating the memory controller represents a different approach to
system design," said Shane Rau, senior analyst at IDC. "In this day
and age, differentiating is probably a good thing because you can do
something better than your competitor. Integrating the memory
controller could be a good way to improve overall main memory
performance."

Processor start-up Transmeta incorporates the entire north bridge
function on the processor, and will be launching its next generation
CPU, Efficeon, in mid-October.

"The alternative architecture offered by AMD and Transmeta gives
system vendors and consumers choice and that is good," said Krewell. "
It is important for Intel competitors to offer differentiated
products."

AMD launched its 64-bit server chip, Opteron, in April. Intel's 64-bit
server chip, Itanium, first hit the market two years ago.

End of second article

Anyway, Rita, I can hardly agree with your conclusion that AMD CPUs
are unreliable. I will concede that for servers, the Itanium is
probably the best bet

Has it been developed to the point that it can get out of its own way
yet, and why would it be a better choice than the Opteron?

- barring any differing conclusions from the
CPUs coming out of newer technology. However, for all other uses, AMD
is the best choice from a performance, reliability, and cost point of
view.

Regards.




--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Newton Lee" wrote in message
news:XxBAb.586205$6C4.292301@pd7tw1no...

Any suggestion if I should choose AMD or Intel platform ? Does AMD still
have the VERY HOT issue ?




Why, Intel, of course. There is no sense in using a teaspoon to dig a hole
when a shovel is the proper tool. And, yes, after selecting the proper
Intel processor to do the intended task you may want to consider going with
an all SCSI only system. Again, there is no sense in using improper tools.



Rita

Sorry, Rita, but I have to disagree because AMD CPUs have been installed in
my home-built systems for several years now - with no problems, no
performance hits, no overheating (of course, fan/heatsink combos should be
used), and for at least half the price of the Intels.

I see you are using your real email address in your newsgroup posts. That
really exposes you to spam attacks. I suggest that you create a fake one.

"Rita_A_Berkowitz" wrote in message
...


"Newton Lee" wrote in message
news:XxBAb.586205$6C4.292301@pd7tw1no...

Any suggestion if I should choose AMD or Intel platform ? Does AMD still
have the VERY HOT issue ?




Why, Intel, of course. There is no sense in using a teaspoon to dig a
hole
when a shovel is the proper tool. And, yes, after selecting the proper
Intel processor to do the intended task you may want to consider going
with
an all SCSI only system. Again, there is no sense in using improper
tools.



Rita

Newton Lee wrote in message
news:XxBAb.586205$6C4.292301@pd7tw1no...

Any suggestion if I should choose AMD or Intel platform ?

I prefer Intel for the quieter result myself.

Does AMD still have the VERY HOT issue ?

Its not as bad as it once was, but still worse than the
Intels. And the boxed fans are rather more noisy and
you void the warranty if you replace the boxed fan.

"Papa" wrote in message
ink.net...

Sorry, Rita, but I have to disagree because AMD CPUs have been installed
in
my home-built systems for several years now - with no problems, no
performance hits, no overheating (of course, fan/heatsink combos should be
used), and for at least half the price of the Intels.




Sure, I can agree with you that you will find AMD in many home-built systems
and they are cheaper than Intel. Now, when you get into serious systems
that are being used as servers, high-end workstations, and other mission
critical applications you will almost never see an AMD processor. I do
realize that AMD processors are a big hit with the over-clocking crowd and
other novelty type PC users, but nothing of real serious nature.


I see you are using your real email address in your newsgroup posts. That
really exposes you to spam attacks. I suggest that you create a fake one.



Thanks for the suggestion; I'll take you up on your recommendation.



Rita

"J.Clarke" wrote in message
d...

Papa, not disagreeing with you here, Rita's post didn't show up on my
server, so I'm responding to her comments in this post.

If Intel processors are shovels then use an Opteron--no point in using a
shovel to dig a hole when a backhoe is the proper tool.




I'll stick with my old trusty tried and true shovel instead of using a
backhoe with a busted hydraulic pump to make futile attempts at digging the
same hole. But, then again, you're back to your old self, trying to compare
apples to oranges when you're futilely attempting to compare a 64-Bit
Opteron to a 32-Bit Intel. And I don't even think that the Opteron even
exceeds 32-bit Intel in most real world applications? If you really want to
make a fair and accurate comparison why did you neglect to mention Intel's
64-Bit Itanium? Now, that's apples to apples and AMD is in no way even
nearing the performance or functionality of the old but not forgotten
Itanium.


As for SCSI, perhaps Rita should check the reviews for the WD
Raptors--their performance matches or surpasses the 10K Cheetahs
comes close to the 15K Cheetahs. And that's for first generation
drives--the second generation with twice the linear density and tagged
command queuing should be considerably more capable.


Again, "nearing" is not the same as exceeding. In fairness, I really wish
you to be right since the whole computing community will benefit. I just
haven't seen it happen as of yet with SATA nearing SCSI. Then if we freeze
SCSI advancements for a while SATA *may* catch up.


I hate to say it, but with LSI Logic (aka AMI and Mylex) producing
SATA RAID controllers with all the features of their SCSI RAID
controllers and with enterprise-grade SATA drives available, SCSI's days
may be numbered.



Again I really hope you are right. I'd love to see LSI pull this one off.
Until that day, SCSI is where it's at.





Rita

Rita, sorry, but you are simply misinformed.

AMD CPUs are not "found" in home-built systems, we PUT them there, in order
to obtain high-end performance and reliability WITHOUT paying the higher
Intel cost. Plain and simple. Those who are in the know about this have
continued to use AMD without any regrets and without any penalties.

However, continue buying your pre-assembled systems with Intel installed.
You will get good performance, and, at the same time, make the retailers and
Intel very happy.

By the way, I see that you are still using your real email address. It's
quite easy to create a fake one. I wouldn't delay.