I.T. Vibe - AMD challenges Intel to a Dual-Core duel

Comment # 1 on 23 August 2005 at 14:56 by dpvreony

quote from Toms Hardware, who have done a similar benchmark in the past... Four applications ran in tandem on both platforms over a period of 14 days. In this case Intel's top model - the Pentium 840 EE - easily outperformed its rival from AMD. The double-core CPU from Intel achieved this result primarily through Hyperthreading - the division of the two physical processors into four virtual CPU units. We knew this to be the case because when the HT function was deactivated, the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ came out on top. This last finding is more theoretical in nature as Pentium EE systems are always shipped with activated Hyperthreading. It is not possible to say precisely what performance edge this gives AMD because of the different load distribution. Things look different when a single application is running on both systems: Now it's the turn of the AMD system to deliver the better performance - a huge 30 percent more over the competition from Intel on average.

Comment # 2 on 23 August 2005 at 17:48 by OZGOTHIC

After reading comment by dpvreony - he made a good point - AMD gives you the speed and all right away - Intel Hyperthread Im told only works if you have windows XP professional - meaning even if you get the best processor you still have to pay some 100-2004 for a home to professional upgrade just to take advantage of what you payed for in the first place. IM moving from Intel to AMD

Comment # 3 on 24 August 2005 at 12:06 by Anonymous

Someone hasn't read the article have they, this is Server based Opterons and Intel Server chips... Not x64's and EE's - we are talking Database servers and Web Servers running on Windows 2003 server not XP... AMD would never have pitched their system against Intel unless they already have one in the shop, ran the tests and known they are already in first place. Intel have already refused to take part - this article is out of date...they know they would loose... AMD FX 55 rocks - mine runs at 3.2 GHz 24x7... regards

Comment # 4 on 24 August 2005 at 17:04 by Anonymous

I honestly think AMD is a better chip than the Intel's product. If you were to have asked me that about 5-6 years ago, my answer would have been different. Over the recent years AMD has made a lot of progress in the architecture of their processors...The proof is in the pudding. Those AMD nay sayers, test drive an AMD. You'll love it.

Comment # 5 on 24 August 2005 at 20:13 by Anonymous

AMD have been on the gain for past couple of years. I switched from Intel to AMD at the first Athlon stage and have not looked back since. The money saving over Intel alone even if there is only 1-2% worse performance is very reasonable as you just overclock to match! It just seems that AMD have been looking and watching what way the industry is going with its applications and pitched straight in with what is needed and given it some muscle. Intel still tries to go in new directions and be a market leader and innovator which is all very well but HyperThreading aint as good as two processors with their own cache etc. Dual cores again have been shown in most tests to out perform HT. There is the 1066mhz bus speed on the top end Pentiums but once again the actual need for this and benefits it brings are so very small it aint worth the extra money. Imagine if that money on development had actually been put in to something remotely useful in the processor and brining down energy consumption so it didnt run so hot (prescHots) would put them in a more commanding position. The servers side of things Intel rules the roost but this is once again going down AMDs path. HP, IBM and others use AMD Opterons now and a lot of very powerful systems use them due to the ability and price compared to Intel. Even the Itanium has had more critics than supporters and has to be said is not all that hot for Intel. Should concentrate more on needs than what we might use once in a blue moon.

Comment # 6 on 11 September 2005 at 05:20 by Anonymous

Depending on the tests. When it comes to floating point, Intel would win hands down. They have always been on top in FP, and in many datacentres that is where it really counts. The other major area that Intel wins on is compilers. Intel's compilers are far better than AMDs. If you are writing code for an HPCC, a place where you might see the EE proc over a Xeon, then those compilers can make as much as 5% difference per core. Add that across a cluster of 200-1000 servers and the difference is highly improved. If you are talking pure gaming? Then AMD wins here. The reality is, AMD will be playing catchup to Intel for a long time for many other reasons, but mainly, they don't have a healthy view on the future with only 2 real processor technologies on the horizon, and Intel has a longer line of sight. AMD doesn't have the fabrication ability either. Intel put too much internal emphasis on EPIC (Itanium) and once they realized that they were losing to AMD on the x86 and x86_64 front, they moved those resources back. Expect Intel to power its way forward in 2006, IMHO.

Comment # 7 on 13 October 2005 at 04:43 by Anonymous

I believe that AMD will pass through the competition easily due to the aggression and grunt the Opteron has in all areas of specialties. Especially with the support of 8 workstations at 2.8 GHz. Like mentioned, Hyperthreading pretty much is hype talk and I also agree that HyperTransport Technology is just a name as well. The main situation is to compare how well the multicored server behaves under all harsh benchmark conditions. P.S: My AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Rokz! :) P.P.S: I also own a P III 800 MHz machine too... :(

Comment # 8 on 18 October 2005 at 00:42 by Anonymous

AMD will surely win. The AMD design is supperior and has taken advantage of Intel Mis-Steps over the last few years. I've been using both Intel and AMD for years on servers and workstations and was won over by AMD since the first Athlon. The Dual Core Opterons and Ahtlon 64s are amazing performers.