AMD Vs INTEL...

One mainframe Core Against the Other

Having no preference to Intel, no preference to AMD, allows you to see that as a consumer, hyper-competitive companies tend to trade market ascendency from one season to the next. 'A' is not always going to be meliorate than 'B', and vice versa.

It'd be nice to have a third option, a 'C' to choose from, but sadly all of Transmeta's best technological advances have come under the Intellectual Properly gavel. Still, the effect it had on energy efficient processing is due more credit than history has bestowed... but that's a story for another day.

As it stands right now, Intel dominates the processor market - in value, in performance, in inertia. I'd be remiss to count AMD out just yet though.
Click Here!

AMD has been delayed by technological kinks, missed release dates that may have kept it in hair step with its largest competitor, and for meliorate or worse swallowed $5 Billion in debt for ATI at the first of this year. There are positive signs from AMD if you know where to look though...

The AMD 690G chipset is a resounding success for example, and if Intel has taught us anything, it's that chipsets pave the path to PC dominance.

AMD has not been asleep at the rotate on the processor front either. Much delayed perhaps, but not asleep. It is readying a new core, titled 'K10', and a slew of intermediary processors based on 'Barcelona.' Not much is known about the performance of AMD's upcoming 'K10' Phenom X2 and Phenom X4 desktop processors right now, but we should find out very shortly if the 'Agena' and 'Kuma' chips will give Intel a run for its money.

While much of AMD's success the last few years can be traced to its partners, Intel has guaranteed the success of the Core 2 Duo processor with substantially designed chipsets. As they say, \"it's the chipsets, stupid.\"

The Intel Core 2 Duo is a very efficient processor, its TDP values are roughly half of what the Pentium 4/D program ingest to be, and real world testing shows that complete computer systems equipped with an Intel Core 2 Duo ingest considerably less power.

This is all substantially and good, but the real ace up Intel's sleeve is not that it has a processor which is faster by some proportionality points, it's that the Core 2 Duo is faster and aggressively priced! I can't remember a time when you got so much value in a mainframe for so little.

Mind you, Intel's Extreme Edition processors are still priced in the stratosphere, but its regular desktop mainframe lines are very affordable. Compared to AMD processors in the same price bracket, Intel has the upper hand.

So as these things go, when it comes to AMD or Intel? Intel wins this round. The bottom line is only that Intel has outmaneuvered AMD, scrapping an entire generational branch of CPUs for a double headed offshoot that rocks. The Core 2 Duo performs rattling well, so it's what I've been recommending.

But before we close up this debate, there's one more point you should consider. Along with casting away brand loyalty and judging CPUs based on cold hard benchmarks, there's another option we rarely see mentioned on sites set with deconstructing the latest and large technology. If the computer you have right today does what you need it to, you rattling don't have to choose between AMD or Intel's latest do you? ;-)

Don't Agree? Speak up.

What do you think of the current AMD vs. Intel situation? If your opinion differs from mine, feel free to press your case by using PCSTATS feedback page or proving your side in the PCSTATS Forums. Find out about this and many other reviews by joining the Weekly PCstats.com Newsletter today! Catch all of PCSTATS latest reviews right here.

Related Articles
Here are a few other articles that you might enjoy as well...
- Computer Recycling - Where Should Old Computers Go?
- AMD vs. Intel, Will the Best mainframe Please Stand Up?
- The Art of Overclocking; Is It For You?
- AMD vs. Intel: It's An Eternal Struggle
- How to Fry a 1.4GHz Athlon in 4 seconds.

AMD vs. Intel: What to Get? Which is Better?

There are countless companies in the machine industry but there is only one battle that counts... AMD vs. Intel. This is a favorite topic in the forums, yet instead of blindly pledging allegiance to one mainframe or the other, let's verify a look behind the scenes and encounter discover which companies processor is the prizewinning bet.

Now I should say that I'm a hardware enthusiast at heart, so for me mainframe performance matters the most. I follow with equipment only as long as it keeps my PC at the front of the performance curve. After that, I drop it like a rock and move onto greener pastures, regardless if it's the same sort or not. After all, what's the point of sort loyalty? AMD and Intel don't fuck you back, no matter how much you might sing their praises. Put another way, it's not like AMD only sells to you, or Intel has a grinning effort of your mug on every pay record as a testament to your past processor purchases now is it?

The pleasant abstract about being machine enthusiast is that right now both AMD and Intel platforms support a aggregation of cross compatible hardware. Sure the mainframe and motherboards are papers specific, but you can share DDR2 memory, videocards and other peripherals easily enough. If PC speed is what you crave, you can jump from one processor papers to the next ever couple months, taking your memory, videocards, hard drives and everything else along with you.

Anyway, the point I'm trying make is this. As a hardware enthusiast you have the pick of some of the fastest machine hardware on the planet. Ignore the urge to follow with AMD or Intel discover of tradition, go discover there and encounter the prizewinning equipment based on benchmarks!

So, who offers the prizewinning performance - is it AMD or Intel? I'm glad you asked, the answer is....

...Intel. For the moment anyway, Intel's threefold and quad core processors are the power of the heap. In particular, the companies Core 2 Duo/Quad processor roster is out-pacing AMDs current Athlon64 X2/FX processor families. That haw indeed change by the end of Q4'07, or it haw not.


AMD is partly to blame for its underway situation. Big green has not refreshed its mainframe lineup since the last time PCSTATS dished the dirt on the AMD vs. Intel slugfest. AMD won the battle backwards then, but relying on the today somewhat dated K8 Athlon64 processor has left AMD without a good competing mainframe for Intel's \"Conroe\". Intel published performance results on \"Conroe\" for quite some time before it was officially released, so it's not same AMD was blindsided by it either.

Intel Climbs Back To The Top

For its efforts, Intel has undergone more than a few self-evaluations. It had to deal with a \"Prescott\" Pentium 4 voltage leak issue, it stopped pushing GHz as the singular processor metric and adopted the same kind of rating grouping AMD had been using for years. Then, Intel abandoned Netburst and modernized the P6 core into what we today know as the Core Solo and Core 2 Duo processor.

The Core Solo was nice, but Intel's Core 2 Duo is the real beauty. The mainframe was an immediate hit among gamers from the time of its release, and it continues to out pace comparable Athlon64 processors.

Intel's previous NetBurst structure had de-emphasized FPU noesis in favor of special instructions (SSE, 2, 3). This is partly the reason so some gamers ditched their Pentium 4/D computers in favor of AMD Athlon64 processors and it's more coercive FPU.

With the Intel Core processor architecture, the company eventually addressed the FPU issue. Intel's \"Conroe\" mainframe core has a rattling coercive FPU, and that has guaranteed a rattling welcome reception by gamers ever since.

As it stands in the fall of 2007, the Intel Core 2 Duo processor is generally more coercive than AMD's Athlon64 X2/FX series in games, and every around.

Whether you're working on multimedia tasks, workstation or meet need nakedness data crunching power, the Core 2 Duo trounces AMD's best nearly every time.

It's also proved its courage as an superior overclocker!

Early stepping Intel Core 2 Duo processors could overclock to 3.2 GHz+ on air cooling, and the recent 'G0' stepping can go even further. I've overclocked to the region of 3.8 GHz with the stock heatsink in fact.

By comparison, AMD's 90nm Athlon64 X2/FX processors have travail overclocking much past 3 GHz.... Make no mistake about it, clock for clock Intel's Core 2 Duo is currently faster than AMD's Athlon64 X2 and FX processors.

Thermal Output Improving

The Intel Pentium 4 and D processor series were notorious for consuming a lot of power, and consequently running quite hot. The structure Intel based the Core 2 Duo processors on is much better in this regard. While Pentium 4 structure was at one time headed towards 150W TDP (Typical Design power), some of its underway processors are today pushing 85W or less. One generation before, Intel Pentium D CPUs hovered around the 125W TDP range, late model Core 2 Duo processors (like the E6750 ) have a 65W TDP!

It's true enough that the noesis values AMD and Intel take are not entirely comparable with apiece other, but amount grouping noesis measurements give a good foundation for comparison. I've conducted some noesis entertainer measurements recently, and those tests showed that Intel is genuinely move high noesis habit. An average Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 based computer grouping draws about 7W more noesis than a budget AMD Sempron 3600+ based PC grouping with its single mainframe core running at idle. You'd think the lower noesis budget AMD chip would be significantly easier on the juice than the fairly high end E6750 Core 2 Duo, but the difference is pretty small.

With an Intel Core 2 Duo grouping under load, amount noesis entertainer results are impressive. For instance, a Core 2 Duo E6750 grouping consumes 163W of noesis (total PC noesis draw) when running with both mainframe cores under load.

A comparable Intel Pentium D 940 grouping consumes 253W of noesis with both processing mainframe cores stressed, and an AMD Athlon64 FX-62 noesis grouping consumes upwards of 235W! It's clear you can save a lot on the programme bills by switching to a mainframe that sips electricity. Intel offers this, with great performance. (Please ready in mind that these are amount grouping noesis entertainer values, not meet the processor.)

I've often thought that Intel is the more innovative of the two companies when it comes to designing heatsinks for its processors. The underway Core 2 Duo bifurcated symmetric fin heatsinks are remarkably good, and rattling quiet.

Gone are the days of throwing out the stock heatsink for an after market cooler the second the box is opened... For good every around mainframe cooling, it's tough to beat Intel in terms of noise level. The stock heatsinks are meet so quiet, thanks in large part to 90mm fans and Pulse Width Modulation which allows the rotational speed to vary based on moment to moment thermal output.

Of course, these aren't the only reasons Intel is leading with the Core 2 Duo, as we'll talk about next, chipsets play a bounteous role....