AMD = to What Intel

[BikerEcho]

you know that Apple are an AMD Fusion partner right?

i did not. but that doesent matter. there still is a reason that mac no more uses AMD.
it is not for fun and games that apple did make the choose to stop using AMD and started using Intel. in older macs you will find AMD. but give me a link to a newer mac with AMD. there is no such thing.

ok maybe they will be using the newer bulldozer cpu from amd in the future. but then intel has there ivy bridge out. so apple might be using that insted.

is there something wrong with pins?

yes.
thet makes the cpu more easy to brake.
AND harder to install if some of the pins are bent.
i have had a problem with bent pins more then once.
(not my computers. i have never had AMD. (still not saying that AMD sux))

i understand that they keeped it in there am2 and am2+ socket, because they dont want the user to switch motherboard just to get a new CPU. witch is the thing i like about AMD.
but why the **** are they still using pins in there am3 socket.THAT is i thing that i just CANT understand.

 

[Mutant Corn]

^ It's a whole lot easier to fix bent CPU pins than bent motherboard pins. Just saying. And IIRC most of the LGA sockets are only rated for something like 20 CPU installs, which is conceivable for an enthusiast rig...whereas a ZIF socket is really quite reliable. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

A big bonus is that AM3 processors will work in AM2+ sockets...that's a big bonus right there, and definitely a reason to keep the ZIF socket. AM3 will also work in AM3+ sockets.


As for AMD's future, they're taking a largely different route than Intel. The Bobcat and Llano platforms focus on integrating the CPU and GPU. From what we know so far, the Llano platform will use a refined version of the current Phenom II architecture, with an integrated GPU in the HD 66xx series. This is speculative, but based on their history of performance equivalents between generations, we're possibly looking at something equivalent to a Phenom II quad with a Radeon HD 5770 attached to it. Folks, that's enough to play Crysis on pretty high settings, with integrated graphics. Intel can't touch that.

Bulldozer....who knows.

 

[BikerEcho]

As for AMD's future, they're taking a largely different route than Intel. The Bobcat and Llano platforms focus on integrating the CPU and GPU. From what we know so far, the Llano platform will use a refined version of the current Phenom II architecture, with an integrated GPU in the HD 66xx series. This is speculative, but based on their history of performance equivalents between generations, we're possibly looking at something equivalent to a Phenom II quad with a Radeon HD 5770 attached to it. Folks, that's enough to play Crysis on pretty high settings, with integrated graphics. Intel can't touch that.

lets see about that shall we.
we cant go around and say AMD is gonna be better in the future.
the thing is that right now intel is way ahead.
intel was also the first one to intergrade graphic into there cpu's.
amd still has not even integraded memory controler.

besides it would be a stupid idea to intergrade an gaming gpu.
intergraded gpu's is all about being able to run HD with less power consumption.
intels core i3 is ment to be to computers with no needs of gaming.
it is for small computers that is able to watch HD, music and using internet at a decent speed.


by the time amd has there 5770 intergraded, that performance will be no match for future games anyway.

so i will rater have a real graphic card that can take those games.
and having an intergraded non gaming gpu for my desktop use.


btw about the pins. i do not agree. i have tryed to fix both.
the thing is that those pins can bent if you dont insert the cpu in the correct angle.
one pin can try to enter the wrong hole and then it will bent. when you correct a bent pin, the pin will weaken and is more likely to fall of.

this only happen to not carefull people. but it still count as a bad thing to have pins.

 

[Indigo]

we cant go around and say AMD is gonna be better in the future.
the thing is that right now intel is way ahead.
intel was also the first one to intergrade graphic into there cpu's.
amd still has not even integraded memory controler.

You're obviously an Intel sellout, I can tell just by your attitude in your posts. I use an i7 at work, and a Phenom II at home, but good god, bury the fanboism a bit, would ya? You're also incorrect about the memory controller. AMD was the first x86 CPU maker to integrate the memory controller onto their CPUs. Way back in the Athlon 64 days. You're a tad behind there. As for the future, who knows? I don't really care, my point is that right now Intel is ahead. This is how it happens. AMD will find a way to come out on top, and then Intel will one up them as well. It's called competition, and in this market, that's a healthy thing.

You're obviously out of touch when it comes to the reason why these companies are integrating GPUs on their processors now. If there wasn't a big market for it (which there is) then they wouldn't be doing it. AMD's approach is a little more thought out, they bought ATI for the reason that is becoming Fusion. In most cases, yes, a discreet GPU would be preferable, but by integrating parts, and saving costs, they are passing savings on to end users, especially in the mobile space. Just because they integrate the GPU on the CPU also does not preclude the external video card - I have seen several AMD and Intel systems that use that approach to great effect today.

Pins are left over from a time when it wasn't possible to make motherboards with the complexity to switch to the LGAs that Intel uses. So what? They both work, and they have no bearing on the final performance numbers of the CPU. It's architecture and IC design that do that. I know plenty of high tech folks who have ruined CPUs with pins and motherboards with the LGAs. People screw up, it's a fact of life. AMD does indeed use the LGA on their newer products, especially Opteron systems. We'll see it soon on the consumer level as well.

Also, you are incorrect about Apple ever using AMD processors. GPUs yes, but Apple has never used AMD processors in their entire history. It has been PowerPC -> Intel. That's it. The main reason for that has nothing to do with performance, perceived or otherwise. Apple wants a volume producer, and Intel (and IBM) delivered back in the day.

As for what I said about how CPUs benchmark, my point was this - I challenge you to sit down at a computer and effectively discern the actual performance penalty of either processor in any given environment. I've been using computers for almost two decades, worked on them just as long, and when I sit down to use an i7 or a Phenom II, they both perform pretty darn close to each other. The only reason either camp has the "fanboi" is because they see charts & graphs and go "ZOMG LEET NUMBARZ MEEN BETTR PERFORMNCE!"

I'm so glad I grew out of that phase. Oy.

 

[~Darkseeker~]

i did not. but that doesent matter. there still is a reason that mac no more uses AMD.
it is not for fun and games that apple did make the choose to stop using AMD and started using Intel. in older macs you will find AMD. but give me a link to a newer mac with AMD. there is no such thing.

ok maybe they will be using the newer bulldozer cpu from amd in the future. but then intel has there ivy bridge out. so apple might be using that insted.



yes.
thet makes the cpu more easy to brake.
AND harder to install if some of the pins are bent.
i have had a problem with bent pins more then once.
(not my computers. i have never had AMD. (still not saying that AMD sux))

i understand that they keeped it in there am2 and am2+ socket, because they dont want the user to switch motherboard just to get a new CPU. witch is the thing i like about AMD.
but why the **** are they still using pins in there am3 socket.THAT is i thing that i just CANT understand.

Apple (as far as i know) have never used any branded AMD products, until they put Leopard on an Intel platform, they used their own PowerPC chips. Probably because Intel was another partner of the AIM Alliance at the time.

it was definately more of a business venture, but mainly because Apple grew disappointed at the Motorola PowerPC chips, and Intel were supplying the competition.


also:

1. AMD invented the FIRST WORKING x64 chip, the Athlon 64.
2. AMD currently manufacture the most powerful CPU, the Opteron x12.
3. AMD sockets are standardised, and dont change half as often as Intel swap sockets.
4. AMD hold similar quality, but much cheaper usually.
5. AMD Manufacture the ATI GPUs, and therefore are more likely to put DECENT graphics onto a CPU than intel. dunno if you've ever used an Intel GPU...
6. AMD include more support for their chipsets, and for things like overclocking.

and, not an AMD fanboy, just dont understand why people always think Intel is better.


one more thing, LGA's are F**k off stupid, ZIF are ftw.

 

[root]

Three things.

Intel DID NOT invent LGA, MIPS processors were using this mounting way back in the 90's

AMD Do use this sicket for their Opteron processors (basically, you can't say AMD suck because they don't use this "socket" type, because, well they do use it...

thirdly.
I know how these fan boy/girl arguments get people all het up. but don't turn it into a slagging match. and please refrain from swearing.

 

[Celegorm]

3. AMD sockets are standardised, and dont change half as often as Intel swap sockets.

Just to point out, that until about 2 years ago, it was the reverse. The LGA 775 was out for what, 5 years? In that time AMD went through the 939 all the way to AM2+/AM3 if my memory serves me right.

 

[BikerEcho]

You're obviously an Intel sellout, I can tell just by your attitude in your posts.

first of i will start by saying sorry for that my last post it was a bit........ will... i was in a bad mood yesterday.
and that happend to take effeckt in my post. sorry about that.
but to answere yours. there are some things i will make clear.


i am NOT a fanboi. i like both nvidia and ati(amd). and intel and AMD.
its just that amd is behind in performance. (However better prise)
go check it your self. what about there new 6 core cpu.
that thing sux. and thats not me saying that. reviewers are saying that.
google it.

about the intergraded gpu. i am right in what i say that it is all for saving power for running the desktop environment. not for gaming.
amd might have better performance in intergraded gpu in the neer future.
but whats the point is that. they dont even have a newer cpu with intergraded gpu at this time.
if you want to game, you buy a graphic card.
(ofcouse if we are talking in THE future its all gonna be one chip that controllles it all, but we are talking now and next generation cpu's)

about that i thought that apple used amd before is becouse that i didnt know about there own cpu's. so i just thought that it was amd. but that doesent matter.
the point is that they started using intel and not amd.

about the pins.... well that doesen matter. i still think that lga is less likly to break.
but...... it sux that intel switch sucked all the time. (amd IS cheeper and motherboards are longer lasting.this is where AMD dominates)
i still think that in amd next genaretion thay should stop making cpu's with pins.
(my opinion)

about the mem controller. the point is that they dont use it NOW.
i dont care if they where the first one to make it. it obiasly didnt work out for them.
why whould they else making cpu's without now. intel uses the great qpi insted of the fsb. why does amd dont have something like that now. i hope they get it in there next generation. i meen... thay should.. the future is all about having it all in one chip.

about intel is for benchmarks.... you are wrong. try to decompress 1 gig file, time it. and do the same thing with an identical amd cpu.
ofcorse there are some benchmarks one company is better at. like nvidia is better to that dx11 heven benchmark. but i am only watching benchmarks for everyday use.
like win rar benchmarks (decompressing). 3dmarks (gaming). cinebench(CPU rendering).
intel is NOT made for doing better scores in those benchmarks.

i realy dont know any benchmarks where intel gets bonus score. where have you seen that?
i realy want to know, becouse i dont belive you on that one.
there is no driver for CPU's. there is dx drivers for gpu's. and that where you can optimize for benchmarks.
so there is no way that intel gets bons points.

anyway this is getting uncomfortable. i just needed to make thing clear.
if i am a fanboi.. then you are also a fanboi.
you like AMD better (witch is understanable) and i like Intel better.
i think it is all in the end about what you need.
same thing with graphic cards. i was allmost gonna buy an AMD 6950. but then i desided to go for the gtx 570.
its about what you need and what you will spend.
some nvidia cars is better en that prise range, and some AMD radions are better in this prise range.

 

[Indigo]

Before I reply, just so you know, I hate microquoting, I feel like it's a childish way to respond to something, but I feel it is important in this reply. For now.

first of i will start by saying sorry for that my last post it was a bit........ will... i was in a bad mood yesterday.
and that happend to take effeckt in my post. sorry about that.

Fair enough, everyone has bad days.

go check it your self. what about there new 6 core cpu.
that thing sux. and thats not me saying that. reviewers are saying that.
google it.

I own it. It doesn't suck. It's a beast of a CPU, and I'm glad I bought it. I don't care what the bars and charts say, if you look at them and do comparative analysis, the difference isn't as large as those review sites would have you believe. If you still go by how far a bar reaches out, then you're a little behind the times, IMNSHO.

about the intergraded gpu. i am right in what i say that it is all for saving power for running the desktop environment. not for gaming.
amd might have better performance in intergraded gpu in the neer future.
but whats the point is that. they dont even have a newer cpu with intergraded gpu at this time.
if you want to game, you buy a graphic card.
(ofcouse if we are talking in THE future its all gonna be one chip that controllles it all, but we are talking now and next generation cpu's)

Indeed, but that's what Bobcat/Bulldozer are all about. And if you were looking at the market today, there are currently no mainstream AMD CPUs with an integrated GPU for sale. It's all Intel right now, and yes, those suck for anything but office tasks or the very poor.

i still think that in amd next genaretion thay should stop making cpu's with pins.
(my opinion)

You'll get no arguement from me. I've had a great time with Intel's socket 1156 motherboards lately, and I like how they just drop it. It's very...industrial. LOL.

about the mem controller. the point is that they dont use it NOW.
i dont care if they where the first one to make it. it obiasly didnt work out for them.

Sorry, you are incorrect. All current AMD and Intel processors use the integrated memory controller.

why whould they else making cpu's without now. intel uses the great qpi insted of the fsb. why does amd dont have something like that now. i hope they get it in there next generation. i meen... thay should.. the future is all about having it all in one chip.

Also incorrect. AMD has HyperTransport. Hypertransport facilitates communication with the CPU and other CPUs or motherboard components in the system. This technology was also available before Intel (but to Intel's credit, they did a damn fine job with their last FSB technology before switching to QPI)

about intel is for benchmarks.... you are wrong. try to decompress 1 gig file, time it. and do the same thing with an identical amd cpu.
ofcorse there are some benchmarks one company is better at. like nvidia is better to that dx11 heven benchmark. but i am only watching benchmarks for everyday use.
like win rar benchmarks (decompressing). 3dmarks (gaming). cinebench(CPU rendering).
intel is NOT made for doing better scores in those benchmarks.

Intel chips are designed to run benchmarks at their highest possible outcome. How else do you think they sell chips? AMD does it too, just check their benchmark charts where they're winning. My point is that benchmarks are NOT the only reason for buying processors.

i realy dont know any benchmarks where intel gets bonus score. where have you seen that?
i realy want to know, becouse i dont belive you on that one.
there is no driver for CPU's. there is dx drivers for gpu's. and that where you can optimize for benchmarks.
so there is no way that intel gets bons points.

No idea where you went with that one. I've never suggested that there are "bonus points" to benchmarks.

anyway this is getting uncomfortable. i just needed to make thing clear.
if i am a fanboi.. then you are also a fanboi.
you like AMD better (witch is understanable) and i like Intel better.
i think it is all in the end about what you need.

I'm not a fanboi. Your statements are closer to a fanboi nature than mine are - I am merely stating fact, well, other than my response about my Phenom II X6. I'm typing this from my i7 at work, and I like this CPU too. 8 threads for the cost of 4. That's not a bad deal! I seriously considered going Intel for my latest upgrade, but the Sandy Bridge SATA problem was in full swing, and the boards weren't available. I had to go with the solution that was available at the time. I have no regrets. I actually have noticed huge performance gains by switching to my X6 from the X4. I'm happy with that. It's not faster than Intel's chips in some cases, but it's more than enough for me. But I challenge you to buy an Intel X6 at the same price point that can do what my AMD X6 can do.

Oh, right.

 

[BikerEcho]

i fell like we are getting closer to an agreement.

we now agree on the intergraded gpu and about the pins. (still nothing agenst pins. they work as thay should)

ok.... i am not sure if they are using intergraded memory controller, what i meen is thet controller that used to sit on the motherboard.
you might be right..... But then i just dont understad why thay still have a speed limitation on the motherboard then. the FSB.
when intel got rid of the mem controler on the motherboard, thay also got rid of the FSB. can you explane that?
i am just asking corz i seriosly dont know.

i just saw a damm cheep amd bord with an FSB at 2700 mhz... that suprised me. that is kinda fast for FSB and for that lov prise.
but Intels speed via the bord is QPI. an intel core i7 920 has i QPI at 6,4 GT/s. thats 3,2 ghz. and when you overclock it, it goes up.
THATS why it confuses me that you are saying that amd has intergraded mem controller.



the remaining this is the thing that startet it all.
BENCHMARKS........

cpu benshmarks are different from gpu benchmarks. games ARE optimized to ether ati(amd) or nvidia. also some 3d gpu rendering benchmarks are optimized for amd or nvidia.
like "Unigine Heaven" is optimized for nvidia. "Unigine Heaven" is a benchmark that you should NOT count on. it should be banded.
but you can always count on 3dmark.

anyway... the cpu benchmarks in the other hand is not optimized.
i can't see how you can optimize a non driver needed hardware.
so what you are saying is that they optimize there cpu's for better real life tasks...... nice.....

so is it optimized for like winrar. awesome... i use winrar alot.
is it cinebench optimized.... nice.. i have photoshop cs3... cpu rendering.
about games.... i like games.

cpu's is NOT optimized.


about your amd 6 core..... i dont need to find a 6 core intel to match up with it.
what about a 4 core core i5.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/5
(just go to some of the benchmarking test in the review.)

i know that in some of the benchmarks core i5 gets its ass handed to it, but thing about that the amd 1090t has a higher mhz (500 mhz) then core i5 AND 2 more cores. total unfare fight.
you could also just have a look at the core i7 920 and 860. those are also 4 cores (8 threads) with still 400-500 lower mhz then the amd 1090t. those are really giving the amd 1090t a challange.
this is what i meen about that intel mhz is worth more then amd mhz.
this should be a total unfare fight. 4 core vs 6, lower mhz vs higher. amd has avantage but still looses in most benchmarks.


at last i will again point out that i dont hate amd. thay are doing great job be making cheep cpu's.
so you will have more money for a badass GPU. (just so you dont call me fanboi again. corz i am NOT)