Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD vs. Intel Processor Discussion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by alexforcefive View Post
    Sooooo... not to derail this interesting debate about graphics drivers, but does anyone have any thoughts about processors? I've been out of the loop for a while, but I've been reading up and it seems like the intel core2 duo e8500 gives the best bang for my buck. Would that be a fair assessment? It seems to still outperform triple- and quad-core processors, but how long will that last? Are multi-core optimised applications/games going to be really common any time soon? If I was to go with more cores, which would you suggest?

    Is bridgman right about AMD vs Intel power consumption?
    Bridgman is correct about the power consumption, AMD's stuff draws more on the CPU and less on the MB. Over all it all evens out in the end.

    CPU wise if you overclock it the Q6600 is still one of the best CPU's to go for in terms of value for money as it easily hits 3GHz+ if you have a decent cooler on it.

    Comment


    • #22
      You can expect that this CPU goes much higher too. That's 45nm already and 3.16 ghz is surely _not_ the limit.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Aradreth View Post
        Bridgman is correct about the power consumption, AMD's stuff draws more on the CPU and less on the MB. Over all it all evens out in the end.
        From what I remember of the comparative power measurements I've seen, 65nm AMD machines take a bit more power than comparable 65mm Intel machines, and substantially more power than 45nm Intel machines. Certainly the host chipset in my AMD Linux box seems to be a space heater, though it does have reasonable integrated graphics so that's some justification for taking a fair amount of power.

        Would be interesting to see some definitive power numbers though, as I'm looking at building a low-power 24/7 server to stick in the basement. As it is my Linux box spends most of its time underclocked from 2.6GHz to 1GHz, so for most things raw CPU performance is now pretty much irrelevant.

        Comment


        • #24
          Yeah, my main point was "make sure you are comparing apples to apples", ie that just comparing CPUs is not sufficient when one CPU includes the memory controller and the other does not.

          Comment


          • #25
            The Athlon X2 4850e @ 2,5 GHz has a TDP of 45W. I don't know any CPU with lower TDP. If you don't even need the performance, you can go with the Athlon X2 4050e @ 2,0 GHz which does need even less power.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by d2kx View Post
              The Athlon X2 4850e @ 2,5 GHz has a TDP of 45W. I don't know any CPU with lower TDP. If you don't even need the performance, you can go with the Athlon X2 4050e @ 2,0 GHz which does need even less power.
              That sounds pretty good; if I'd realised how little time my CPU would spend at full clock speed I'd have got something slower than the 5000+ that's in there .

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by movieman View Post
                From what I remember of the comparative power measurements I've seen, 65nm AMD machines take a bit more power than comparable 65mm Intel machines, and substantially more power than 45nm Intel machines. Certainly the host chipset in my AMD Linux box seems to be a space heater, though it does have reasonable integrated graphics so that's some justification for taking a fair amount of power.

                Would be interesting to see some definitive power numbers though, as I'm looking at building a low-power 24/7 server to stick in the basement. As it is my Linux box spends most of its time underclocked from 2.6GHz to 1GHz, so for most things raw CPU performance is now pretty much irrelevant.
                I've not really kept up with anything passed 65nm (at which point I think AMD set was using slightly more...). Yeah the drop to 45nm will make the intel preferable although the cost difference might be fairly large (I've not been paying attention).

                Originally posted by Kano
                You can expect that this CPU goes much higher too. That's 45nm already and 3.16 ghz is surely _not_ the limit.
                Oh lord no you could probably get it to almost 4GHz but applications that can benefit from a CPU running at 4Ghz instead of 3 probably benefit from 2 extra cores more then the bump in speed.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Aradreth View Post
                  I've not really kept up with anything passed 65nm (at which point I think AMD set was using slightly more...). Yeah the drop to 45nm will make the intel preferable although the cost difference might be fairly large (I've not been paying attention).


                  Oh lord no you could probably get it to almost 4GHz but applications that can benefit from a CPU running at 4Ghz instead of 3 probably benefit from 2 extra cores more then the bump in speed.
                  you can even get the yorkfield's to 6ghz...

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
                    you can even get the yorkfield's to 6ghz...
                    Pfft 6 is easy try 8GHz. Point is 6GHz can only be achieved with extreme setups this is an everyday setup we are talking about, big difference.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Aradreth View Post
                      Oh lord no you could probably get it to almost 4GHz but applications that can benefit from a CPU running at 4Ghz instead of 3 probably benefit from 2 extra cores more then the bump in speed.
                      Clock scaling and ccore scaling are 2 completely different and unrelated problems.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X