Comments on: AMD and Intel goes head-to-head, in my inbox

By: dew

dew — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:45:00 +0000

The design of AMD cpu’s is better in my opinion, with on-board hypertransport and the forthcoming “barcelona” evolution is clearly better than Intel’s reliance on bridging hardware, however Intel’s lead in 65nm and 45nm manufacturing allows the chips to produce more cycles per second for less input power…

All the benchmarks tests 90nm AMD processors against 65nm Intel products – meaning that AMD should jump to a 25% or greater lead when both are made at 65nm, and Intel will probably catch up again when they go to 4Ghz and 45nm.. time will tell. As for me, I will just get a CPU that has a nice performance to $ ratio and just get a fat-ass Geforce card… i mean, geez who would buy a cpu that costs 4 or 5 times more but only gives 10% or 20% better performance?

By: dew

dew — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:29:05 +0000

Damn, my Athlon 2000+ just dont cut it anymore…

By: CS

CS — Thu, 10 May 2007 03:56:28 +0000

Multicore with hyperthreading means the PC can run more threads at the same time. So benchmark for a processor should base on the floating point calculation. Different processors can have strength on different field and different operations. If you are a hardcore gamer, the key is the gfx card. If u r a music freak, then mp3/4 conversions are the key.

There are many way to benchmark a processor. So it is better to look in the detail. I have a Pentium D and a Core2duo and a Opeteron. Speed wise pretty close. My C2D seems to run faster when i launch multiple applications. yay….

ya… i am pretty broke….

By: Long Zheng

Long Zheng — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:03:06 +0000

@Kev D: I never got my media center replacement. Long-story short, it got lost. But I hope to get another AMD machine in the not too distant future.

By: Kev D

Kev D — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:55:40 +0000

Hi Long
Sounds like kids fighting in a playground.
Incidentally how much did you manage to donate to your old school through the sale of that free AMD Media Centre PC? Hope you got full wack!

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:14:23 +0000

I run a Pentium D 3.0GHz processor and compared to Intel’s Core2Duo 3.4GHz, there isn’t much of a performance increase. Furthermore during Vista’s performance indexing, my processor garnishes a score of 4.8, while a faster Core2Duo earns a score of 5.0. Not much of a difference if you ask me and not much incentive to upgrade. Plus, my processor is almost 18 months old. What does this say about Intel?–I’m not quite sure, but I’m glad to see I’m getting my money’s worth for this Pentium D and will not be upgrading until I get a new computer, or upgrade everything (processor, GPU, etc).

By: Andrew Askew

Andrew Askew — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:50:44 +0000

Yay for my single-core 2.54Ghz Pentium 4 -=p

By: tino

tino — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:29:54 +0000

Who needs the fastest CPU? Seriously. For me all modern CPU’s are fast enought and there are only some percent difference in speed. I’m a satisfied AMD user since the old 5×86.

@Brian: Most Valve customers are gamers and therefor they use less mobile pc’s where Intel is really strong.

By: mstq

mstq — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:10:53 +0000

This sounds like the mac vs. pc ads.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:50:51 +0000

@Mike
Intel has been blowing away AMD in performance since the Core 2 series came out. The aggressive price war since then has kept sales pretty even.

The Valve Survey which compiles analysis of over 1.1 million PCs shows Intel in the lead with about 51% over AMD’s 49%.

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html