Last I checked, AMD was better than Intel

[enwar3]

So I'm looking at buying one of two laptops.. one runs a Turion 64 X2 dually at 1.8 ghz, while the other laptop runs a Core 2 Duo at 1.73 ghz, and they're both priced about the same.

Now back when I built my computer, AMD ghz numbers were different from Intel. I seem to remember that AMD had a longer/shorter process (some kind of process? help me out?) that made an AMD of 2 ghz comparable or even faster than an Intel 3 ghz. Is that still the same? And for laptops as well?

I haven't been keeping up with hardware news, as you can see. Just OT now... lol....

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Go with the Core 2 Duo. The way things are now, a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo exchanges blows with a 3.0GHz Athlon64 X2.

 

[enwar3]

I'm so confused... did Intel change their gigahertz ratings? Also, what's that thing called again? That process that used to make an AMD ghz faster than an Intel ghz?

 

[csmaster2005]

overclocking...?

 

[KoolDrew]

I'd definitely go with Intel. AMD has nothing in the mobile market to compete with Intel. However, this hasn't changed. AMD never has. Back a while ago AMD was usually the better choice when it came to desktop processors though. Now, however, unless you're on a strict budget (the lower-end X2's offer a great price/performance ratio) you're better off with a Core 2 Duo. Especially if you're overclocking.

 

[enwar3]

Alrighty... Intel it is. No I'm not overclocking.

I built a desktop about two years ago, and it used to be that AMDs had a much greater actual speed vs clock speed ratio than Intel. I can't remember why, it's got something to do with different processing patterns or something. Man, how things change...

 

[KoolDrew]

I built a desktop about two years ago, and it used to be that AMDs had a much greater actual speed vs clock speed ratio than Intel. I can't remember why, it's got something to do with different processing patterns or something. Man, how things change...

Yeah, I hear ya. Previously I would never even consider going Intel because AMD was always the better option for me. Now I find myself wanting a C2D for my next rig.

 

[Cutthroat]

The tables have turned, and the GHZ war is over, now it's going to be a core war. And just like before, more cores won't necessarily mean more performance, it's all about the architecture of the chip and it's features. The best way to tell which processor is for you is to look at benchmarks of the software you use, and consider the price you are willing to pay, so price/performance is what really matters.

 

[corkyg]

When it comes to laptops, it is Intel hands down - forget Ghz. Look at power consumption, etc., that translates into battery life. AMD 64s tend to run hotter than C2Ds.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: enwar3
Alrighty... Intel it is. No I'm not overclocking.

I built a desktop about two years ago, and it used to be that AMDs had a much greater actual speed vs clock speed ratio than Intel. I can't remember why, it's got something to do with different processing patterns or something. Man, how things change...

IPC - instructions per clock.
AMD used to do more work per cycle than Intel, but now Intel changed their design so that they do more work as well.
Consequently Core 2's from Intel outperform Athlon's at the same clock speed, much like Athlon's used to outperform P4's, only the difference is smaller this time.

 

[ForumMaster]

what you're refering to is the length of the pipeline. the old Intel p4 architecture had extremely long pipelines that allowed for extremely fast mghz speeds. however, the work done per cycle was less then the work done per cycle by a comparable AMD cpu. that's why a 2.4Ghz AMD x2 could defeat a 3.4Ghz P4.

now however, Intel has learned from their mistakes and their new CPU's do more work per cycle plus plenty of other improvements that make them faster and still allows them to reach higher speeds then any AMD cpu. if you're thinking of a laptop, don't even consider a turion unless you really really need a cheap ass laptop. Intel chips perform better and consume less power.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
what you're refering to is the length of the pipeline. the old Intel p4 architecture had extremely long pipelines that allowed for extremely fast mghz speeds. however, the work done per cycle was less then the work done per cycle by a comparable AMD cpu. that's why a 2.4Ghz AMD x2 could defeat a 3.4Ghz P4.

now however, Intel has learned from their mistakes and their new CPU's do more work per cycle plus plenty of other improvements that make them faster and still allows them to reach higher speeds then any AMD cpu. if you're thinking of a laptop, don't even consider a turion unless you really really need a cheap ass laptop. Intel chips perform better and consume less power.

Well, comparing Core 2 to Turion, Core 2 is better.
When it's Core vs Turion, there is less of a difference, and they are pretty equal.

Core 2 is certainly the way to go though if it's similarly specced to the Turion, and a similar price.

 

[Tristor]

You're talking about the execution pipeline, and yes, AMD's execution pipeline was shorter than Intels when comparing Netburst enabled Pentium 4s and any AMD proc. The Core 2 architecture shorted the execution pipeline to something sane and removed Netburst support. Core 2s are faster than anything AMD has right now, as they are much more efficient, not to mention that they generally consume less power and generate less heat than their AMD counterparts. Get the C2D.

e;f;b

 

[enwar3]

Yes! Pipeline.. that's the word.

Anyways, this is so shocking! I guess anyone who's away from the computer industry for a year or more always experiences this "culture shock" when they come back. It's like I woke up in the future or something. I mean, Intels run cooler than AMDs now? What?!?!?

 

[Tristor]

Originally posted by: enwar3
Yes! Pipeline.. that's the word.

Anyways, this is so shocking! I guess anyone who's away from the computer industry for a year or more always experiences this "culture shock" when they come back. It's like I woke up in the future or something. I mean, Intels run cooler than AMDs now? What?!?!?

Well, YMMV. For instance, in mobile applications the latest AMD Turions with the G1 stepping just gained 3W TDP on the C2D Mobiles, but in their original steppings, the C2D Mobiles had 1W TDP on the Turions. That's mainly due to AMD moving from a 90nm process to a 65nm process when they introduced the G1 stepping. In general, within the same process, the AMD procs will have better thermal efficiency than the Intel procs, but only by a nudge. Until recently AMD hadn't been doing 65nm process for their mobile chips.