First of all: I KNOW some parts are wrong!! Thats why Im posting here so all you experts can help me out!!! Its' just for the bulletin board at work. People keep askin me and it hard to explain when Im packin' on the line...so fire away!! Im sure you will...
What Happened?
The technical differences between Intels' Pentium series and AMDs' Athlon series ? and why AMD has emerged the victor.
It was just until about a year ago, that Intel was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the desktop computer processor world. Their main rival, Advanced Micro Devices, AMD, lagged about a generation behind their nemesis. AMDs' K6 series was a good attempt, but it just wasn't a match for Intels mighty Pentium II series. However, AMD saw the handwriting on the wall, which basically said "You better come up with something new or its all over." And so they did. What did they do? How did they manage to get ahead? Below is a simplified explanation.
Achitecture. CPU architechture, that is. AMD knew that their weakness lied in the very design of their processors. AMD decided to wipe the slate clean and design a brand new processor core from the ground up. One of the main improvements was the FPU, or Floating Point Unit. AMD decided to make that superior to the Pentium right off. For one thing, the Pentium has 2 pathways in and out of the processor, or pipelines, and the Athlon (as the new AMD chip become known as) was given 4. Meaning bigger "chunks" or blocks of data can be moved either in or out of the processor in a given time frame than the Pentium.
However, probably the most noticeable improvement in performance came from the structure of the L-Cache, or Level Cache setup. Whats L-Cache? L-Cache is basically high speed memory built on to the processor itself, or on the motherboard- which is not used anymore with the new chips. It constantly "loops" the last series of instructions as the CPU is being used. When a "request" is made of the CPU, it will look in the L1 first, then the L2, then the system memory and finally the hard drive. All the newer chips have integrated L1 (level 1) cache. Integrated meaning built on the core of the processor, and running at the same speed as the processor. Intel has 32K(kilobyte) of L1 Cache, the same as the older AMD K6 series. AMD on the other hand, decided they would set themselves up for the long haul and put a whopping 128K of L1 Cache on the new Athlon core, 4 times the Pentium setup. Now lets look at the all-important L2 Cache.
You may or may not realize that just until VERY recently that both Intel and AMD had their L2 Cache, 512K of it, located not on the core of the processor, but on the cartridge that housed the processor. They both ran it at half the speed of the core, for example a 600Mhz processor would have 300Mhz L2 cache. Except for higher frequency Athlons(750Mhz and up), which runs the L2 cache at 2/5 and one-third the speed. Both Intel and AMD realized that this setup wasn't very efficient. Intel moved first by going to a socketed format(which interestingly enough was used on older processors) and placing the L2 Cache on the core, and just like the L1 it was running at the full speed of the processor core. However, they halved the amount to 256K, because it would've been more difficult to try and cram 512K. Even though it was half the amount as before, it performed better simply due to the fact it was running twice as fast. So the PentiumIII series from 500Mhz and above now has 32K L1cache and 256K L2 cache running at "full speed." AMD followed suit, not to copy Intel-but because it was an inevitable archetectural change, also moving to a socket format and using 256K L2 cache along with its 128K L1 cache again running at "full speed." These new style Athlons are known as the Athlon Thunderbirds, making the originals now known as the Athlon Classic, the core and L1 cache still being the same with both, just the placement and speed of the L2 cache being different.
Now heres where it gets interesting. You might be thinking, ok the Athlon has more L-Cache than the Pentium, 96K more. Right? Wrong. The Athlon actually has 128K more L-Cache to use than the Pentium. Huh? In comes "Inclusive" and "Exclusive" L ? cache setups. The Pentium uses whats called "inclusive" L -cache. Meaning this: The data that is in the L1 cache is COPIED in the L2 cache. This effectively cancels out the L1 cache, and really leaves the Pentium with only 256K of usefull L Cache (512Kfor the older ones).
However, the new AMD Athlons use whats called ? you guessed it ? "exclusive" L-cache. Meaning no data is copied therefore the the Athlon enjoys full use of its 384K total L- cache( Again, that would be 640K for the older slot or cartridge style Athlons).
These differences are not limited to these high end processors. In steps the Intel Celeron and the new AMD Duron.
Back in the hey-day of the Pentium II, the prices for this high end processor were to put it plainly, astronomical. Unless you were buying a pre-built computer with it already installed, one could hardly afford $300+ just for a new chip, and there was no competitive answer from AMD at this time. So Intel engineers went to work on a "low-end" processor to fill the void. Enter the Celeron. Now the first generation of these new processors was short-lived. The reason being is even though it was based on the very same core as the Pentium II, except it ran on a 66Mhz bus versus the Pentiums 100Mhz bus, it had only the 32K of L1 cache ? and NO L2 cache at all. This setup earned the chip a good beating by consumers and reviewers alike. So they went back to the drawing board and made really only one change but it had a great effect ? they added some integrated L2 cache, 128K of it. This change helped the Celeron perform much better and it actually become MORE popular than its older brother. It even became known that it could be overclocked (which is running a processor higher than it was intended to run) very well, but thats another issue. Even though it ran on the slower bus, it seemed to fill the intended void of low end use very well, and the Celeron enjoyed dominance in this area for quite some time.
But not for long.
As AMD was enjoying its success with its new Athlon based processors, they realized they needed something to compete with Intel on the low end. Since AMD was in the process of moving to the socket format, called Socket A, they decided that would be the format for their new low end processor, the Duron. AMD set out to smash Intel in this area and they did a good job of it.
AMD wisely decided to use the superior core of the Athlon as its base for the Duron. Already laden with 128K of "exclusive" L1 cache, and running on a faster 100Mhz bus, the Duron already had the edge over the Celeron. However, AMD decided not to leave it without any L2 cache,(the mistake Intel made with the original Celeron) and placed 64K of integrated full-speed L2 cache on the Duron. And with the "exclusive" setup of the cache, it had a total of 192K of useful L-cache vs. 128K of the Celeron.
In independent testing at Anandtech.com, the Duron simply crushed the Celeron in just plain everything. All of that and it cost less as well!
However, in cost effiectiveness, it all depends on what you would want to spend. If you already have a decent setup with a Intel 440BX motherboard or VIA PC133 motherboard that is Intel processor based, then you might as well go with either a new Celeron or Pentium processor to go on it for a good upgrade. It seems the only thing the Intel processors have that AMD doesn't is a series of instructions that help with gaming, but it only hardcore gamers will get their use out of that. However, if you are building a brand new system from scratch or planning on buying a new pre-built system, check out the new AMD Athlon Thunderbirds or the Duron, they just offer too much bang for the buck to pass up.
So what happened? Is Intel dead? No, of course not. In fact, they are coming out with a new processor, the Pentium 4, that will seem to raise the bar again. However, that will be a ways off and will surely cost a pretty penny. AMD is of course working on an answer to that called Sledgehammer. The next year should be pretty interesting!!
Intel made the mistake of resting on their laurels and trying to sell processors by PR and name recognition and not performance. AMD on the other hand, pulled themselves together and came out with a true next-generation processor that performs as well and better with the Duron. So-called Intel "loyalist" are having a hard time with all of this and are just going to have to live with the fact that right now AMD is the best bet overall.
Thats all I have for now. I know its rough, but I don't want to make it too far over the average pc users head.
I need a good description of FPU and the differences...
Oh boy, Im gonna get ripped apart, I can feel it!!!
What Happened?
The technical differences between Intels' Pentium series and AMDs' Athlon series ? and why AMD has emerged the victor.
It was just until about a year ago, that Intel was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the desktop computer processor world. Their main rival, Advanced Micro Devices, AMD, lagged about a generation behind their nemesis. AMDs' K6 series was a good attempt, but it just wasn't a match for Intels mighty Pentium II series. However, AMD saw the handwriting on the wall, which basically said "You better come up with something new or its all over." And so they did. What did they do? How did they manage to get ahead? Below is a simplified explanation.
Achitecture. CPU architechture, that is. AMD knew that their weakness lied in the very design of their processors. AMD decided to wipe the slate clean and design a brand new processor core from the ground up. One of the main improvements was the FPU, or Floating Point Unit. AMD decided to make that superior to the Pentium right off. For one thing, the Pentium has 2 pathways in and out of the processor, or pipelines, and the Athlon (as the new AMD chip become known as) was given 4. Meaning bigger "chunks" or blocks of data can be moved either in or out of the processor in a given time frame than the Pentium.
However, probably the most noticeable improvement in performance came from the structure of the L-Cache, or Level Cache setup. Whats L-Cache? L-Cache is basically high speed memory built on to the processor itself, or on the motherboard- which is not used anymore with the new chips. It constantly "loops" the last series of instructions as the CPU is being used. When a "request" is made of the CPU, it will look in the L1 first, then the L2, then the system memory and finally the hard drive. All the newer chips have integrated L1 (level 1) cache. Integrated meaning built on the core of the processor, and running at the same speed as the processor. Intel has 32K(kilobyte) of L1 Cache, the same as the older AMD K6 series. AMD on the other hand, decided they would set themselves up for the long haul and put a whopping 128K of L1 Cache on the new Athlon core, 4 times the Pentium setup. Now lets look at the all-important L2 Cache.
You may or may not realize that just until VERY recently that both Intel and AMD had their L2 Cache, 512K of it, located not on the core of the processor, but on the cartridge that housed the processor. They both ran it at half the speed of the core, for example a 600Mhz processor would have 300Mhz L2 cache. Except for higher frequency Athlons(750Mhz and up), which runs the L2 cache at 2/5 and one-third the speed. Both Intel and AMD realized that this setup wasn't very efficient. Intel moved first by going to a socketed format(which interestingly enough was used on older processors) and placing the L2 Cache on the core, and just like the L1 it was running at the full speed of the processor core. However, they halved the amount to 256K, because it would've been more difficult to try and cram 512K. Even though it was half the amount as before, it performed better simply due to the fact it was running twice as fast. So the PentiumIII series from 500Mhz and above now has 32K L1cache and 256K L2 cache running at "full speed." AMD followed suit, not to copy Intel-but because it was an inevitable archetectural change, also moving to a socket format and using 256K L2 cache along with its 128K L1 cache again running at "full speed." These new style Athlons are known as the Athlon Thunderbirds, making the originals now known as the Athlon Classic, the core and L1 cache still being the same with both, just the placement and speed of the L2 cache being different.
Now heres where it gets interesting. You might be thinking, ok the Athlon has more L-Cache than the Pentium, 96K more. Right? Wrong. The Athlon actually has 128K more L-Cache to use than the Pentium. Huh? In comes "Inclusive" and "Exclusive" L ? cache setups. The Pentium uses whats called "inclusive" L -cache. Meaning this: The data that is in the L1 cache is COPIED in the L2 cache. This effectively cancels out the L1 cache, and really leaves the Pentium with only 256K of usefull L Cache (512Kfor the older ones).
However, the new AMD Athlons use whats called ? you guessed it ? "exclusive" L-cache. Meaning no data is copied therefore the the Athlon enjoys full use of its 384K total L- cache( Again, that would be 640K for the older slot or cartridge style Athlons).
These differences are not limited to these high end processors. In steps the Intel Celeron and the new AMD Duron.
Back in the hey-day of the Pentium II, the prices for this high end processor were to put it plainly, astronomical. Unless you were buying a pre-built computer with it already installed, one could hardly afford $300+ just for a new chip, and there was no competitive answer from AMD at this time. So Intel engineers went to work on a "low-end" processor to fill the void. Enter the Celeron. Now the first generation of these new processors was short-lived. The reason being is even though it was based on the very same core as the Pentium II, except it ran on a 66Mhz bus versus the Pentiums 100Mhz bus, it had only the 32K of L1 cache ? and NO L2 cache at all. This setup earned the chip a good beating by consumers and reviewers alike. So they went back to the drawing board and made really only one change but it had a great effect ? they added some integrated L2 cache, 128K of it. This change helped the Celeron perform much better and it actually become MORE popular than its older brother. It even became known that it could be overclocked (which is running a processor higher than it was intended to run) very well, but thats another issue. Even though it ran on the slower bus, it seemed to fill the intended void of low end use very well, and the Celeron enjoyed dominance in this area for quite some time.
But not for long.
As AMD was enjoying its success with its new Athlon based processors, they realized they needed something to compete with Intel on the low end. Since AMD was in the process of moving to the socket format, called Socket A, they decided that would be the format for their new low end processor, the Duron. AMD set out to smash Intel in this area and they did a good job of it.
AMD wisely decided to use the superior core of the Athlon as its base for the Duron. Already laden with 128K of "exclusive" L1 cache, and running on a faster 100Mhz bus, the Duron already had the edge over the Celeron. However, AMD decided not to leave it without any L2 cache,(the mistake Intel made with the original Celeron) and placed 64K of integrated full-speed L2 cache on the Duron. And with the "exclusive" setup of the cache, it had a total of 192K of useful L-cache vs. 128K of the Celeron.
In independent testing at Anandtech.com, the Duron simply crushed the Celeron in just plain everything. All of that and it cost less as well!
However, in cost effiectiveness, it all depends on what you would want to spend. If you already have a decent setup with a Intel 440BX motherboard or VIA PC133 motherboard that is Intel processor based, then you might as well go with either a new Celeron or Pentium processor to go on it for a good upgrade. It seems the only thing the Intel processors have that AMD doesn't is a series of instructions that help with gaming, but it only hardcore gamers will get their use out of that. However, if you are building a brand new system from scratch or planning on buying a new pre-built system, check out the new AMD Athlon Thunderbirds or the Duron, they just offer too much bang for the buck to pass up.
So what happened? Is Intel dead? No, of course not. In fact, they are coming out with a new processor, the Pentium 4, that will seem to raise the bar again. However, that will be a ways off and will surely cost a pretty penny. AMD is of course working on an answer to that called Sledgehammer. The next year should be pretty interesting!!
Intel made the mistake of resting on their laurels and trying to sell processors by PR and name recognition and not performance. AMD on the other hand, pulled themselves together and came out with a true next-generation processor that performs as well and better with the Duron. So-called Intel "loyalist" are having a hard time with all of this and are just going to have to live with the fact that right now AMD is the best bet overall.
Thats all I have for now. I know its rough, but I don't want to make it too far over the average pc users head.
I need a good description of FPU and the differences...
Oh boy, Im gonna get ripped apart, I can feel it!!!
Facebook
Twitter