I'm in the process of buying a new computer (wintel) for the firm.

Until now, I used to select AMD processors, because they were more
bang for the buck. (and I wanted to encourage Intel to make better
processors, ykw, it worked !)

It still looks like the AMD X2 64 5600+ I've initially selected is
more bang-for-the-buck than an equivalently priced Intel, but the
difference is becoming small. (checked THG benchmarks)

Some people are telling me that AMD has some chipset-drivers problems
these days, and that, all in all, going for Intel is a safer choice...
(without being able to an objective source)

Any insights ?

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Fa3ien wrote:
> Any insights ?

My Core 2 Duo is the first Intel chip I've owned in 10 years.  I'm happy 
with it.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Core 2 Duo

  I have never understood that naming. Does it have two or four cores?
"Core 2" would imply that it has two cores. But then it has "duo", which
seems to imply that the previous is doubled, so the total would be four
cores?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Core 2 Duo
> 
>   I have never understood that naming. Does it have two or four cores?
> "Core 2" would imply that it has two cores. But then it has "duo", which
> seems to imply that the previous is doubled, so the total would be four
> cores?

"Core 2" is the sequal to "Core". If they'd written "Core v2" it would 
be a whole lot clearer, IMO...

Originally there was Core Solo and Core Duo. Then they improved the 
architecture and called it Core 2. AFAIK there never has been a Core 2 
Solo; the Core 2 architecture is only available in Duo or Quad.

Core v1 Solo
Core v1 Duo
Core v2 Duo
Core v2 Quad

Even more fun is the Xeon series. Old Xeons are based on the old Pentium 
design, newer ones are based on Core v1, and the newest are based on 
Core v2. And there is, apparently, no way of telling the difference 
[apart from the part numbers]...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Fa3ien wrote:
> I'm in the process of buying a new computer (wintel) for the firm.
> 
> Until now, I used to select AMD processors, because they were more
> bang for the buck. (and I wanted to encourage Intel to make better
> processors, ykw, it worked !)
> 
> It still looks like the AMD X2 64 5600+ I've initially selected is
> more bang-for-the-buck than an equivalently priced Intel, but the
> difference is becoming small. (checked THG benchmarks)
> 
> Some people are telling me that AMD has some chipset-drivers problems
> these days, and that, all in all, going for Intel is a safer choice...
> (without being able to an objective source)
> 
> Any insights ?

I switched to Intel when Core 2 Duos came and I have been a very happy
user since then. Intel has the clear technology lead now. Intel makes
faster processors, CPUs which overclock a LOT better, and especially:
CPUs which have better performance/watt ratio. I really hate noise so I
want my HW to produce as little heat as possible. I don't mind spending
a few extra euros for that. AMD must compete with price so you can find
good alternatives there if you don't need the best.

If you go for Intel, consider the new 45nm processors which use even
less power and have even better performance. My rendering program
project has made me drool over the new Q9450 quad core processor which
draws basically less power than my E6400 C2D. And I'd get at least a 2x
speedup compared to my current system. 45nm processors are already in
stores in some countries.

Of course, Intel brings completely new architecture (including new
socket, which makes old mobos incompatible) next year: Nehalem. It looks
very promising.

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen wrote:

> Intel has the clear technology lead now.

I would have to conclude that this is undeniably the case, at this point 
in time. It seems AMD simply have no answer to the benchmark results 
I've seen from Intel.

The nice thing as that as a result, AMD's entire product line is now 
priced *very* attractively. (Well they don't want to go under, eh?) But 
if you want serious performance, it has to be Intel, realistically...

> Of course, Intel brings completely new architecture (including new
> socket, which makes old mobos incompatible) next year: Nehalem. It looks
> very promising.

AMD brought a completely new architecture: Phenom. It looked very 
promising... and then it arrived. And the last I heard, it features a 
whole flood of technological wizardry, yet fails to actually deliver any 
serious performance.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> If you go for Intel, consider the new 45nm processors which use even
> less power and have even better performance. My rendering program
> project has made me drool over the new Q9450 quad core processor which
> draws basically less power than my E6400 C2D. And I'd get at least a 2x
> speedup compared to my current system. 45nm processors are already in
> stores in some countries.

You mean you don't want the Q9550 or QX9770? ;-)

FWIW I'm getting an E8500 (to replace my old P4) which is a 45nm Core2Duo... 
I opted for it because I will be mainly using it for a single-core 
application so no need for Quad Core.  The performance really does look 
impressive though.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> You mean you don't want the Q9550 or QX9770? ;-)

I think even Q9450 is slightly too expensive. The two you mentioned are
priced waaaaayyy too high considering the fact that you can overclock
Q9450 to work at higher frequencies than Q9550@stock. And I'm very used
to OCing.

> FWIW I'm getting an E8500 (to replace my old P4) which is a 45nm
> Core2Duo... I opted for it because I will be mainly using it for a
> single-core application so no need for Quad Core.  The performance
> really does look impressive though.

Yes, at this point there are still only a few apps that benefit from
multiple cores - even 2 cores. So for most people there is no point
getting a quad core. But things change constantly.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> The nice thing as that as a result, AMD's entire product line is now
> priced *very* attractively. (Well they don't want to go under, eh?) But
> if you want serious performance, it has to be Intel, realistically...

Yeah, and I'm glad AMD is still around. When AMD lowers prices, Intel
must react, too. So I just hope AMD can improve their manufacturing
process to answer Intel's lead.

> AMD brought a completely new architecture: Phenom. It looked very
> promising... and then it arrived. And the last I heard, it features a
> whole flood of technological wizardry, yet fails to actually deliver any
> serious performance.

65nm Phenom sucks big time. And they even had that stupid bug which
caused some big problems/performance drop.

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen wrote:

> 65nm Phenom sucks big time. And they even had that stupid bug which
> caused some big problems/performance drop.

Rushed to market, much? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message