Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › whats so good about AMD?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

whats so good about AMD? - Page 5

post #41 of 49
I have to find it annoying when people quote an operation count for a particular processor. Back before I started working in Computer Architecture design I admit I quoted values for operations also myself. However I now no longer do, as I know they will never actually be accurate.

Supposed Operation Count Values (Integers):

AMD K8: 9 Operations Performed Per Clock Cycle
Intel Netburst: 6 Operations Performed Per Clock Cycle
Intel Core Micro-Architecture: 12 Operations Performed per Clock Cycle.

In actual terms you could define these as blatant lies

Using Example (in post) as Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (Core Micro-Architecture).

The Intel Core Micro-Architecture was implemented for more efficient processing of information, as well as incorporating additional instruction and logic units within its internal circuitry.
The Core Architecture adds a single additional Floating Point Unit (FLOAD) into the on die structure. This unit allows additional speed for processing of Floating Point Information, be it Multimedia or Integer information.
The Core Architecture does actually have the twelve Instruction Units that would allow twelve operations to be performed per clock cycle. Therefore it is possible to obtain this value.

The values specified here within (above) are values that are theoretically possible, however in reality will be obtained far less than suggested.

For example, to help with this post, I have just run my SPEC2000 (modified) benchmark to count Clock Operations performed in a time period of 120mili-seconds. During that time the results were as follows:

1 Operation: 0.3%
2 Operations: 0.1%
3 Operations: 0.4%
4 Operations: 1.1%
5 Operations: 4.3%
6 Operations: 7.6%
7 Operations: 4.7%
8 Operations: 9.4%
9 Operations: 17.8%
10 Operations: 22.4%
11 Operations: 12.1%
12 Operations: 19.8%

1 defined as minimum in run time.
12 defined as maximum in run-time.

Note: This test does not stress the CPU fully, it uses different techniques to test the CPU, most of which will never force the CPU to full load. The value of 12 operations will slightly increase at full load depending on the application.

So in conclusion I leave it with you (without boring you with technical information).
Does that look like 12 operations per clock cycles being performed to you?
Looks more like 10 is winning there

Have a nice day.

Note: Technical Information available upon request
post #42 of 49
God.. I just love it when he does that....
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel E6600 (LL629A) DFI BLOOD IRON P35-T2RL Diamond HD3870 GSkill ( 2x1G) DDR2-800 HZ's 
OSMonitorKeyboardCase
Windows XP Home (OEM) Sceptre 22" + Sceptre 20" Logitech G15 XG VIPER ( hey, it was free.) 
Mouse
LOGITECH MX518 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel E6600 (LL629A) DFI BLOOD IRON P35-T2RL Diamond HD3870 GSkill ( 2x1G) DDR2-800 HZ's 
OSMonitorKeyboardCase
Windows XP Home (OEM) Sceptre 22" + Sceptre 20" Logitech G15 XG VIPER ( hey, it was free.) 
Mouse
LOGITECH MX518 
  hide details  
Reply
post #43 of 49
I am not a fanboi and I will buy whatever gives me the best bang for the buck to support competition and for the ease of my wallet but I root for AMD.

I root for AMD as a company because I feel that they are an honest company that makes excellent products. Unlike Intel who develped Netburst to scale clockspeed to deceive the consumer to buy their products, AMD developed their architecture to scale in performance. AMD is clearly the underdog, having much less manufacturing capabillities, man power, and monetary resources, yet they are still able to compete with the much larger Intel. Given AMD's size, it is really impressive everything they've done to stay competitive with Intel. AMD probably has about one tenth of the manufacturing capabilites as Intel and even less in capital yet AMD is able to stay so competitive with Intel. They started out with only one fab to manufacture all of their chips compared to Intel who has many. I've been reading up on their APM technology that dramatically improves their yields and boosts the efficiency of the fab and that is pretty impressive stuff, almost more impressive than the chips themselves. APM is also saving the XBox 360 due to Chartered using APM technology.


I root for AMD's processors because they are so well designed and engineered. The K8 architecture was designed well from the start, and even though it is an aging architecture and can no longer hold on to the performance crown, look at all of the years that it reigned. AMD processors (excluding the FX series) still have excellent performance per watt ratings, despite the older 90nm manufacturing process AND older K8 architecture.

Here are my to this thread.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X2 5000+ BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H AM2+ Integrated HD3200 2x2GB OCZ DDR2 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
Maxtor 40GB Samsung 2220WM 22" Antec Neo HE 550W Ultra Wizard 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X2 5000+ BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H AM2+ Integrated HD3200 2x2GB OCZ DDR2 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
Maxtor 40GB Samsung 2220WM 22" Antec Neo HE 550W Ultra Wizard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #44 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetos316 View Post
I am not a fanboi and I will buy whatever gives me the best bang for the buck to support competition and for the ease of my wallet but I root for AMD.

I root for AMD as a company because I feel that they are an honest company that makes excellent products. Unlike Intel who develped Netburst to scale clockspeed to deceive the consumer to buy their products, AMD developed their architecture to scale in performance. AMD is clearly the underdog, having much less manufacturing capabillities, man power, and monetary resources, yet they are still able to compete with the much larger Intel. Given AMD's size, it is really impressive everything they've done to stay competitive with Intel. AMD probably has about one tenth of the manufacturing capabilites as Intel and even less in capital yet AMD is able to stay so competitive with Intel. They started out with only one fab to manufacture all of their chips compared to Intel who has many. I've been reading up on their APM technology that dramatically improves their yields and boosts the efficiency of the fab and that is pretty impressive stuff, almost more impressive than the chips themselves. APM is also saving the XBox 360 due to Chartered using APM technology.


I root for AMD's processors because they are so well designed and engineered. The K8 architecture was designed well from the start, and even though it is an aging architecture and can no longer hold on to the performance crown, look at all of the years that it reigned. AMD processors (excluding the FX series) still have excellent performance per watt ratings, despite the older 90nm manufacturing process AND older K8 architecture.

Here are my to this thread.

Very Nice!!
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E8400 DFI DK P35 8800GT 512 OCZ, Team 6GB Total 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Dual WD160, RAID 0 Samsung IDE DVD Burner Vista Ultimate 64 Envision 22", Hanns G 19" 
PowerCase
OCZ Gamextreme 700 Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E8400 DFI DK P35 8800GT 512 OCZ, Team 6GB Total 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Dual WD160, RAID 0 Samsung IDE DVD Burner Vista Ultimate 64 Envision 22", Hanns G 19" 
PowerCase
OCZ Gamextreme 700 Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #45 of 49
Honest company? They are no better than intel in that respect. If you think AMD supports their consumers more than intel, explain how AMD has abandoned support for the 8000 chipset for the opteron cpus. My friend has one and there is a flaw with the agp tunnelling that does not allow you to run direct 3d stuff on the board. It crashes and burns when you do, and basically AMD has not bothered to fix it for 3 years, and it looks like they never will.
i7 on the cheap
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 Gigabyte X58A-UD7 evga GTX470 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel X25-M 160GB LG GBW-H20L Windows 7 Ultimate Acer GD235HZ 23.6" 120HZ 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Rocketfish 900W 80+ Silver Corsair Obsidian 800D Cyborg Rat 7 
  hide details  
Reply
i7 on the cheap
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 Gigabyte X58A-UD7 evga GTX470 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel X25-M 160GB LG GBW-H20L Windows 7 Ultimate Acer GD235HZ 23.6" 120HZ 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Rocketfish 900W 80+ Silver Corsair Obsidian 800D Cyborg Rat 7 
  hide details  
Reply
post #46 of 49
Manual, very nice, I like!

Lol, I think some clarification is required becuase a lot of people who may be less than fully informed are throwing out some conflicting information, we simply do not know the actual ops/cycle figure for the Intel Core 2 (or Pentium M for that matter) because Intel chose to keep those numbers secret. In the end, it really is irrelevant because every single benchmark shows that Core 2 is simply a much faster architecture when compared to Athlons or Pentiums.

The original poster asked why AMD was better than Intel, obviously he's been out of the loop for a while and he needs to understand that that was true a short while ago, AMD Athlon 64s did more operations per clock and had lower memory and cache latencies than their Intel counterparts and so they did better in pretty much everything at lower clock speeds, now Intel finally struck back with Core 2 which has an extremely efficient design with more L1 cache, reduced latencies, shorter pipelines, 128bit single-cycle SSE instruction execution, I could go on, all you need to know is that Core 2 Duo is simply the best processor money can buy right now, especially the E6300 which is a bargain at the price you can get it for now.

Technically speaking, Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is the best but at $1500 on Newegg, it's main purpose was so Intel could say "Look at us, we're still ahead of AMD, Core 2 Duo wasn't just a fluke."
iMac 27"
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
iMac 27"
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
post #47 of 49
Browsing through the previous pages in this thread, I was dissapointed;
all I was seeing was endless rambling and speculation.
I'm Glad the last few writers actually posted some really constructive thoughts

I'd be lying if I said I wasnt an AMD fanboi, but I've come to realize that what truly counts is what performs better as well as the bang/your buck ratio ;].
The Core duo 2 out-performs the latest from AMD yes, but as a few people have mentioned, AMD has ALWAYS been a cheaper solution for people seeking to build a PC, and esp in recent times, have produced more efficient CPUs (not withstanding their cheaper prices).
In light of this (as long as you're honest enough to acknowledge it), I think its safe to say, that If you just want to have the fastest thing on the market (at present!), fine go for what has been PROVEN to be just that (at present!) the core duo 2.
But if you want more bang for your buck, AMD is the way to look.

LOL, I wont even bother to acknowledge the posts claiming that AMD isnt good for o'clocking.
If you look down through history you'll see clearly where that is wrong.
I wont even go as far as the VIA and Cyrix days, but over the years because Intel was the monster in the Chip industry in those days, they could pretty much pass with anything.

Competition is good;
Before it came into play intel wasnt trying to give its best.
Now we see where that has changed.
133MHZpow
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel P4 Soyo VIA P4M266  Nvidia 5200FX 1GB 
Optical DriveOSKeyboardPower
LiteOn DVD ROM Antix Linux Xtech Generic generic 400w 
CaseMouse
Compaq  BenQ optical 
  hide details  
Reply
133MHZpow
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel P4 Soyo VIA P4M266  Nvidia 5200FX 1GB 
Optical DriveOSKeyboardPower
LiteOn DVD ROM Antix Linux Xtech Generic generic 400w 
CaseMouse
Compaq  BenQ optical 
  hide details  
Reply
post #48 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim View Post
Browsing through the previous pages in this thread, I was dissapointed;
all I was seeing was endless rambling and speculation.
I'm Glad the last few writers actually posted some really constructive thoughts

I'd be lying if I said I wasnt an AMD fanboi, but I've come to realize that what truly counts is what performs better as well as the bang/your buck ratio ;].
The Core duo 2 out-performs the latest from AMD yes, but as a few people have mentioned, AMD has ALWAYS been a cheaper solution for people seeking to build a PC, and esp in recent times, have produced more efficient CPUs (not withstanding their cheaper prices).
In light of this (as long as you're honest enough to acknowledge it), I think its safe to say, that If you just want to have the fastest thing on the market (at present!), fine go for what has been PROVEN to be just that (at present!) the core duo 2.
But if you want more bang for your buck, AMD is the way to look.

LOL, I wont even bother to acknowledge the posts claiming that AMD isnt good for o'clocking.
If you look down through history you'll see clearly where that is wrong.
I wont even go as far as the VIA and Cyrix days, but over the years because Intel was the monster in the Chip industry in those days, they could pretty much pass with anything.

Competition is good;
Before it came into play intel wasnt trying to give its best.
Now we see where that has changed.
AMD has always been cheaper? do you remember the FX series processors by chance? if you want to keep up w/ performance you have to pay regardless if its intel or amd. amd's flagship processor and intels flagship processor was running the same high price (right around a grand to 1200 bucks). when the new FX's are released....yeah, a grand to 1200 bucks.

anymore the price to performance ratio has went out the wayside. the only reason they dropped the prices on the AMD64 series is to try to keep competitive w/ the Intel c2d because they are exceptional and have really reasonable prices. for $220 (what you would pay for an opty 170) you can buy a e6400 and overclock it way past 3 ghz and have a killer processor.

and one reason that AMD does suck in overclocking is because if you get a really bad AMD stepping you're not going to overclock but a few hundred MHz. with intel chips, stepping doesn't really matter. you're always going to get a good overclock....

now i'm not for intel, but they have a good thing going on right now.
The pink bicycle
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
q6600 @ 3.4 GHz Asus P5N-E Asus 4890 1 gb 2 x 2 GB OCZ Reapers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 x 150 GB Raptors RAID0 work in progress Windows 7 7600 x64 19" Acer LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft basic Antec 650w my desk mx518 
Mouse Pad
steelpad QcK+ 
  hide details  
Reply
The pink bicycle
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
q6600 @ 3.4 GHz Asus P5N-E Asus 4890 1 gb 2 x 2 GB OCZ Reapers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 x 150 GB Raptors RAID0 work in progress Windows 7 7600 x64 19" Acer LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft basic Antec 650w my desk mx518 
Mouse Pad
steelpad QcK+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #49 of 49
While I have family that works for Intel, I just like AMD. It's a matter of natural brand preference for me. I use Intel for ALL of my notebooks though since my first laptop was a Centrino and it has served me well in the past 5 years or so. Intel is making some good stuff right now and it allows actual competition between the two companies which is good for us. Cheaper chips and faster speeds! Who couldn't ask for more?
The Naked Scooter
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 4Ghz@1.24V Asus P6T Deluxe eVGA GTX 285 12GB Patriot DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24@1.65V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x640GB WD in RAID 0+1TB Seagate 7200.11 HP LightScribe DVD Burner Windows 7 Ultimate x64 22" Samsung 720p HDTV 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 1000W Antec TruePower Quattro CoolerMaster ATCS 840 Logitech G9x 
  hide details  
Reply
The Naked Scooter
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 4Ghz@1.24V Asus P6T Deluxe eVGA GTX 285 12GB Patriot DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24@1.65V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x640GB WD in RAID 0+1TB Seagate 7200.11 HP LightScribe DVD Burner Windows 7 Ultimate x64 22" Samsung 720p HDTV 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 1000W Antec TruePower Quattro CoolerMaster ATCS 840 Logitech G9x 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › whats so good about AMD?