-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Intel vs Amd Dual core
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
How can dual FSB chipsets be abailable now ? Per the article you linked to, they are not going to be out until the dual-core chips come out... And I see your ignorant on 8-way Opteron systems.. Thats why they have had 848,850 and 852 chips out ? so they can only go in 4 way boards ? And saying that Intel chipsets are far better than AMD's is just fanboyish.. Go crawl back under your bridge troll.
They are to support the newly released single-core Xeon MP processors which are used in >2 way processors. They also support dual-core versions which will be released in the future. And Intel chipsets are better, in regards to reliability, availability and serviceability. The Intel chipset has features like memory RAID, hot plug DIMMs, etc. I don't think there are any Opteron chipsets that even support hot plug PCI cards. Just because the 8 series Opterons support 8-way processing doesn't mean that any major company has determined that its worthwhile to create such a platform.
imported_Ged
Member
Intel's Pentium D is utter crap. It's just 2 prescotts slapped together, with no HT. In fact, they even have separate 1MB caches, which is inefficient because that requires that either 1) the 2 cores must be executing completely independent processes, since they don't both have access to each other's cache data or 2) spend lots of time copying pages of each other's cache whenever needed, which will be often if they are both executing the same or related processes or 3) fill each cache with the same data, the same way nvidia duplicates RAM in SLI, which sucks, plus you still have twice the write-back time.
The only dual cores I'd consider are the dual core A64s and Pentium Ms (the new PMs are supposed to have x86-64, improved FP performance, and a better platform, so they actually look nice). They both look pretty sweet, at least on paper. And the reason dual core is important is because it's getting damn hard to increase performance by ramping up clockspeed/cache/mem bandwidth. I remember when I bought an Athlon 700MHz, and a year later, my friend bought a 1.4GHz Thunderbird. That's 100% speed boost in 1 year. On the other hand, Intel hit 3GHz almost 3 years ago, and now they are only at 3.8GHz. That's like a 30% increase in 3 years. AMD is doing better, but it's still taken them like a year and a half to go from the FX-51 (2.2GHz) to the upcoming FX-57 (2.8GHz?). Multicore in conjunction with the other enhancements will help speed up the rate of advancement.
And you haven't "Needed" to go Intel in a while. AMD has been just as reliable as intel for a few years now. And since the A64 introduction, they have offered both the fastest chips and the best value for the money. I'm not saying Intel is horrible, or that you're an idiot for buying a P4, it's just that you'll have a cooler, faster, chip that's a better value with AMD, and that aside from brand loyalty or some sense of security, there isn't anything about the A64 that should deter you from considering it.
The only dual cores I'd consider are the dual core A64s and Pentium Ms (the new PMs are supposed to have x86-64, improved FP performance, and a better platform, so they actually look nice). They both look pretty sweet, at least on paper. And the reason dual core is important is because it's getting damn hard to increase performance by ramping up clockspeed/cache/mem bandwidth. I remember when I bought an Athlon 700MHz, and a year later, my friend bought a 1.4GHz Thunderbird. That's 100% speed boost in 1 year. On the other hand, Intel hit 3GHz almost 3 years ago, and now they are only at 3.8GHz. That's like a 30% increase in 3 years. AMD is doing better, but it's still taken them like a year and a half to go from the FX-51 (2.2GHz) to the upcoming FX-57 (2.8GHz?). Multicore in conjunction with the other enhancements will help speed up the rate of advancement.
And you haven't "Needed" to go Intel in a while. AMD has been just as reliable as intel for a few years now. And since the A64 introduction, they have offered both the fastest chips and the best value for the money. I'm not saying Intel is horrible, or that you're an idiot for buying a P4, it's just that you'll have a cooler, faster, chip that's a better value with AMD, and that aside from brand loyalty or some sense of security, there isn't anything about the A64 that should deter you from considering it.
imported_Ged
Member
The Iwill board looks to have a main board with 4 CPUs and a daughter board with 4 CPUs to make the board's footprint smaller.
The Problem with the major server OEMs is that most of them have contracts or deals with Intel currently and rather than risk that contract or deal they don't push the AMD platforms. That doesn't say that AMD isn't as good and Intel is better.
What is interesting is that the OEMs still want to sell AMD eventhough they have good deals with Intel (example: Intel will pay a % of your advertising if you only use Intel CPUs (or so I am told)). People want AMD systems. The demand is there, which is why you see OEMs like Dell and HP wanting to sell AMD systems.
So maybe AMD isn't as worthwhile because Intel gives perks which catter to the OEM's bottom line rather than to the end customer.
Areas where AMD is supperior are power and total cost of ownership (assuming you find an AMD platform to suit your needs. With AMD's Dual Core coming out fairly soon this becomes much less difficult) for non-mobile markets (Pentium M is still the king of the smaller mobile market, but Turion will certainly cut into Intel's mobile sales).
Jeff7181
Lifer
I'm glad YOU know as well. ":roll:"
DDRII is NOT the solution to Intel's memory bandwidth problem. Do you understand the memory bandwidth problem? Right now the single core processors are using all the bandwidth they can get with DDR533. If you increase the speed of the RAM, say to DDR800, and have dual channels, two cores will STILL be starved for memory bandwidth moreso than a single core at DDR533 with dual channels.
To get back to the amount of available memory bandwidth per core that you're getting right now with a single core and dual channel DDR533, you will need dual channel DDR1066. DDR2 RAM that runs 533 MHz. I think it's safe to say that's not going to happen within the next year. So dual Prescott cores are going to be as starved for memory bandwidth as the 400 and 533 MHz FSB Pentium 4's.
You are simply wrong, 1 pentium 4 core, even at 3.9ghz (in my case) does not benefit from going from DDR400 to DDR520 shows no performance increase, bandwidth is not a problem on a single core.
DDRII will be utilized to its fullest on 2 cores, because 2 cores NEED MORE BANDWIDTH.
Intel still has another way out, a la rambus.
Edit: I never claimed to know how they would perform, you draw conclusions from enormous amounts of speculation and start spouting drivel, i just stepped in to correct some of the shortcomings of your "theory" (we will call it that i guess).
Jeff7181
Lifer
I guess Wesley Fink is simply wrong as well since his tests seemed to show quite a nice improvement by going from DDR533 to DDR667 even at 2.8 GHz.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
