AMD Phenom vs Intel Quad Core

RamonGTP · January 12th, 2008, 07:41 PM

The Intel quads blow away the Phenoms... They are faster clock for clock, they overclock a LOT better and the Q6600 is more than affordable... I like AMD, but honestly, only an AMD fanboy would recommend a Phenom over an Intel quad, they simply offer nothing comapred to the Q6600. Oh, lets not forget that the Phenom has a very well documented TLB errata that can cause system instability. There is a bios fix for this error that results in a 10% performance hit, which makes an already slower phenom even more so comapred to the Intel CPU's. Oh, and the Core 2 Quads also run cooler than the Phenom X4's. Sorry AMD guys, but Intel is in a league all their own right now and things aren't looking any better as Intel is about to introduce their 45nm based Penryn processors.

sharder8 · January 12th, 2008, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarmaKiller

That's true, but all of that goes out the window when your comparing Intel's new offering also..

Not necessarily . . .

I was working for Intel when the P4 came out and in many respects, that was initially a nightmare!

The recently released Intels have a good math co-processor again and they are currently the better over-all choice in most, if not all, uses. (For those that aren't aware where the math co-processor comes into play . . . think distributed computing and CAD. )

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamonGTP

The Intel quads blow away the Phenoms... They are faster clock for clock, they overclock a LOT better and the Q6600 is more than affordable... I like AMD, but honestly, only an AMD fanboy would recommend a Phenom over an Intel quad, they simply offer nothing comapred to the Q6600. Oh, lets not forget that the Phenom has a very well documented TLB errata that can cause system instability. There is a bios fix for this error that results in a 10% performance hit, which makes an already slower phenom even more so comapred to the Intel CPU's. Oh, and the Core 2 Quads also run cooler than the Phenom X4's. Sorry AMD guys, but Intel is in a league all their own right now and things aren't looking any better as Intel is about to introduce their 45nm based Penryn processors.

waynezo · January 12th, 2008, 08:32 PM

I'd like to go with the 64 bit OS, but what about the compatibility issues?

RamonGTP · January 12th, 2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharder8

Not necessarily . . .

I was working for Intel when the P4 came out and in many respects, that was initially a nightmare!

The recently released Intels have a good math co-processor again and they are currently the better over-all choice in most, if not all, uses. (For those that aren't aware where the math co-processor comes into play . . . think distributed computing and CAD. )

Spoken like a true Intel fanboy Ramon!

Don't forget, AMD will be releasing the Phenom's in 45nm in the near future as well and like I stated earlier, "(hopefully with fixed instruction sets)". As for the power and thermal envelopes . . . . we'll have to wait and see who comes out on top for those. BTW, HT5.0 should make quite a difference when it comes to its benefits . . . and don't forget, Intel will be putting the memory controller on chip, just like AMD this year.

Just some clarification . .

Harder

Intel fanboy? I own an AMD system smart guy, I'm speaking the truth. AMD can't even get their current manufacturing process going, 45nm for AMD is still a ways away. Bottom line is that AMD has NOTHING to compete with intels lowest end quad core chip. You can talk about what AMD might have "soon" but that's just it, talk. Intel is walking all over AMD with a chip that is approaching 2 years old, and they already have two designes on the table just waiting to come out, Penryn is one, and Nehalem is the other.

KarmaKiller · January 12th, 2008, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waynezo

I'd like to go with the 64 bit OS, but what about the compatibility issues?

There's still some compatibility issues as far as software goes, but they are getting few and far between it seems. I haven't seen any threads on any of the boards I frequent talking about any issues recently. But personally, I have no idea what your looking at there.
I'm pretty sure your good to go as far as hardware is concerned.

sharder8 · January 12th, 2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamonGTP

Intel fanboy? I own an AMD system smart guy, I'm speaking the truth. AMD can't even get their current manufacturing process going, 45nm for AMD is still a ways away. Bottom line is that AMD has NOTHING to compete with intels lowest end quad core chip. You can talk about what AMD might have "soon" but that's just it, talk. Intel is walking all over AMD with a chip that is approaching 2 years old, and they already have two designes on the table just waiting to come out, Penryn is one, and Nahlem is the other.

You own a(n) AMD system

Bring it into the crunching area and show me what its got!

Harder

pullmyfoot · January 12th, 2008, 11:16 PM

oh. hehe.

RamonGTP · January 12th, 2008, 11:17 PM

Don't you mean HT 3.0? I'm pretty sure that's the next specification, not 5.0, and sorry to tell you, the new HT specification will not improve performance. Reworking the processor will. The current HT spec has more than enough bandwidth for today's processors. HT 3.0 is more marketing than anything, just like PCI Express 2.0.

sharder8 · January 12th, 2008, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamonGTP

Don't you mean HT 3.0? I'm pretty sure that's the next specification, not 5.0, and sorry to tell you, the new HT specification will not improve performance. Reworking the processor will. The current HT spec has more than enough bandwidth for today's processors. HT 3.0 is more marketing than anything, just like PCI Express 2.0.

Correct! I meant HT 3.0, which is expected to allow 5.2 Giga-transfers per second.

The processors are being re-worked and in order to fully utilize the bandwidth, you'll need DDR3.

You're also correct in that "today's" processors have plenty of bandwidth . . . but we're talking about tomorrow's processors.

Over kill . . . . YOU BET!!!! For 96% (my guesstimate) of people using computers. But for major Photoshop and CAD users, it'll make a difference.

As for the 64bit question . . . I know several people that want the ability to use the 8GB of RAM, they have the 64bit software, but with the exception of the one or two programs that run 64bit, everything else is 32bit. What they're trying is VM-ware to run the 32bit software, and I haven't heard yet the results.

Harder

RamonGTP · January 12th, 2008, 11:52 PM

I don't think it will make much difference for quite some years to come. Even now, you can run your HT bus all the way down to say 400Mhz and get absolutly zero performance loss, that's how much headroom it has already. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to make it better, what I am saying is that it's not the knockout punch you make it out to be. Processor enhancements is the ONLY thing that's going to help amd now, HT isn't the issue and will not be for a very long time. Also keep in mind that AMD's multi-core processors are not linked through the HT bus, multi-socket processors are, but the multi-core are connected on a level much deeper than the HT bus, which AMD refferrs to as the Crossover bar.

The use of DDR3 will also be of very marginal benifit, if any at all, atleast for a while.