If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
AMD or Intel
Any suggestion if I should choose AMD or Intel platform ? Does AMD still
have the VERY HOT issue ? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P4C800E-D Intel RAID and Promise RAID | Clark Griswold | Asus Motherboards | 2 | January 31st 05 07:17 AM |
Intel vs. AMD: Best bang for buck, at the moment | Dave C. | Homebuilt PC's | 40 | September 27th 04 07:19 AM |
Intel: The chipset is the product | Grumble | General | 70 | June 13th 04 07:28 AM |
Real World Comparisons: AMD 3200 -vs- Intel 3.2. Your thoughts, experiences.... | Ted Grevers | General | 33 | February 6th 04 02:34 PM |
GA-8KNXP, how to configure BIOS for SATA? | John Ward | Gigabyte Motherboards | 20 | October 6th 03 07:42 AM |