Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The Debate (AMD vs Intel), a debate again.

skaven · 10-05-2005, 05:31 PM

It should be noted that AMD processors, by their very architecture, have several advantages over Intel ones:

* A64 processors run much cooler than P4's
* em64t is a *licensed copy* of AMD's x86_64 architecture. If nothing else, Microsoft has had 64-bit AMD processors longer than 64-bit Intel processors, so I would bet that Windows x64 will work better on AMD than Intel at this point.
* AMD processors have the memory controller built on-die. That means substantially less latency retrieving stuff from main memory, which is why A64's have so much smaller L2 cache than equivalent Intel processors. The giant 2MB L2 cache on P4's is just a crutch for a fundamentally broken architecture.
* When it comes time to upgrade your system, flash a new bios to your mobo and drop in the latest dual-core Athlon 64 and don't miss a beat. As an added advantage, since the memory controller is on-die, you will probably get to put faster memory in your system too, all without replacing your motherboard. AMD is committed to the socket 939 for years to come. Intel requires you to buy a new motherboard for basically every generation of processor.
* When you *do* finally upgrade to a dual-core, AMD's direct-connect architecture allows for extraordinarily fast communication between the cores, compared to Intel's method of forcing the CPUs to communicate over the (already too slow) front-side-bus.
* Finally, AMD isn't a giant, monopolistic, faceless corporation forcing their will upon the general public. But that doesn't really have any other effect except peace of mind ;-)

So there's my take on it, as probably one of the biggest AMD fanboys on this board (I actually work at AMD's Austin microprocessor design center).

10-05-2005, 05:31 PM	#18 (permalink)
skaven Insane Location: Austin, TX	It should be noted that AMD processors, by their very architecture, have several advantages over Intel ones: * A64 processors run much cooler than P4's * em64t is a licensed copy of AMD's x86_64 architecture. If nothing else, Microsoft has had 64-bit AMD processors longer than 64-bit Intel processors, so I would bet that Windows x64 will work better on AMD than Intel at this point. * AMD processors have the memory controller built on-die. That means substantially less latency retrieving stuff from main memory, which is why A64's have so much smaller L2 cache than equivalent Intel processors. The giant 2MB L2 cache on P4's is just a crutch for a fundamentally broken architecture. * When it comes time to upgrade your system, flash a new bios to your mobo and drop in the latest dual-core Athlon 64 and don't miss a beat. As an added advantage, since the memory controller is on-die, you will probably get to put faster memory in your system too, all without replacing your motherboard. AMD is committed to the socket 939 for years to come. Intel requires you to buy a new motherboard for basically every generation of processor. * When you do finally upgrade to a dual-core, AMD's direct-connect architecture allows for extraordinarily fast communication between the cores, compared to Intel's method of forcing the CPUs to communicate over the (already too slow) front-side-bus. * Finally, AMD isn't a giant, monopolistic, faceless corporation forcing their will upon the general public. But that doesn't really have any other effect except peace of mind ;-) So there's my take on it, as probably one of the biggest AMD fanboys on this board (I actually work at AMD's Austin microprocessor design center).