AMD Challenges Intel to a Dual-Core Duel

[HAND]

Fight!


Makes you wonder if AMD can make any significant headway with superior processors versus Intel's product recogition and advertising in the market over time.
I wonder if Intel will even accept the challenge.

 

[MarineCorps]

Intel won't accept. They know their CPUs aren't as good as AMDs.

 

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

Intel won't accept. They know their CPUs aren't as good as AMDs.

But if only this somehow became headline news, so that everyone knew that Intel were afraid of how much better AMD's are.

That won't happen of coure though.

 

[GenMarshall]

What makes AMDs better than intels?

 

[vbraun]

What makes AMDs better than intels?

How they operate and how they are made. AMD has been on top for awhille now.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

What makes AMDs better than intels?

From what I'm reading, AMD has been working on making their chips work better with each cycle, whilst Intel is still sticking to the tired old formula of raising the overall GHz rate of the chip. In the end, Intel chips simply can't be upped anymore as they're generating far too much heat.

 

[shadowdude]

Regardless of how AMD chips are made, I don't think that AMD chips will significantly outperform Intel chips. While I'd much rather have an Athlon over a Pentium, the difference won't be huge. Intel probably won't accept the challenge anyway.

 

[Comraddict]

Difference is increasing everyday, as intel has hit the wall with 3.8GHz and AMD haven't yet... Plus for new battle, dual processors, AMD has much better (healtier) platform, so expect that intel will have to focus in marketing.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Intel is getting a taste of the reverse engineering AMD excercised to perfection in the past years. But it's not going under any time soon...

 

[Neomega]

Intel is getting a taste of the reverse engineering AMD excercised to perfection in the past years. But it's not going under any time soon...

How is AMD reverse engineering, and coming up with faster chips in the past 6 years? They have to be ahead of the game somewhere.

Further more, do you have any evidence of this reverse engineering?

Intel is a juggernaught, ten times the size of AMD. No, it's not going down anytime soon, but AMD will continue to slowly eat market share from underneath Intel, not to mention the new lawsuit it has brought against intel for bullying the market again. AMD is posed to win.

AMD is thinking of selling off it's flash memory unit (Spanion) to get a good cash boost, and to propel it to be more competitive in the pc and server CPU markets.

 

[Yusaku Jon III]

I might as well toss in a question or two about the new dual-core technology. First off, I'm aware of their being able to support multi-tasking operations (running more than one application simultaneously), so I guess this could help with Internet gameplay to some extent. However...

(1) Does this have any benefit to overall performance, such as load times? Or is the load time more related to system memory?​

(2) Will AMD's existing processor design add to the benefits of dual core technology?​

That's really all I'm posing for the night. Now that I've decided to put off buying that new system for another four months or so, I might want to see what AMD's dual-core processors sell for before I get around to deciding whether or not I really want a system built around one.

 

[vbraun]

Does this have any benefit to overall performance, such as load times? Or is the load time more related to system memory?

Do you feel like playing BF2 while you burn a DVD? You will be able to do that with a dual-core processer with little to no performance losses.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Does dual-core help even when running a single application?

 

[MarineCorps]

Does dual-core help even when running a single application?

Only if that program is able to take advatage of multiple threads. Which most programs are not. Dual cores are currently only really good for multitasking.

 

[vbraun]

Infact Photoshop uses multiple threads.

 

[Dida]

Do you feel like playing BF2 while you burn a DVD? You will be able to do that with a dual-core processer with little to no performance losses.

however, you will be paying for that 2nd core, which you do not utilize often. it is like having multiple cars for the few occations when you actually need all of them.
performance to price ratio is always going to be lower for a multiple CPU system then a single core system, because it is impossible to utilize all CPU at all times, and impossible to achieve linear speed up on any multi-CPU system. unless dual core also presents a reduce in production cost over the single core CPUs, it will not be financially sound to go dual core or multi CPU, unless to achieve the top most speed possible with current technology is your top priority.

 

[Neomega]

however, you will be paying for that 2nd core, which you do not utilize often. it is like having multiple cars for the few occations when you actually need all of them.
performance to price ratio is always going to be lower for a multiple CPU system then a single core system, because it is impossible to utilize all CPU at all times, and impossible to achieve linear speed up on any multi-CPU system. unless dual core also presents a reduce in production cost over the single core CPUs, it will not be financially sound to go dual core or multi CPU, unless to achieve the top most speed possible with current technology is your top priority.

Depends on what you are doing.

The way I see it, you are only paying for the dual core, not a pair of computers.


Say I want to render an animation, and paint a texture at the same time, with a dual core, I could.... (too bad I already invested in a computer I plan to use for two years)

 

[Jeratain]

Intel won't accept. They know their CPUs aren't as good as AMDs.

Benchmarks, on the whole, are meaningless. You could pick a suite that favors AMD, and you can pick one that favors Intel. All that anyone would report is a single number, not the type of applications running, not the specific architecture features favored by that test. Intel doesn't have anything to gain by this.

In short: This is marketing. Something AMD should have done a long time ago and now will gain nothing from.

From what I'm reading, AMD has been working on making their chips work better with each cycle, whilst Intel is still sticking to the tired old formula of raising the overall GHz rate of the chip. In the end, Intel chips simply can't be upped anymore as they're generating far too much heat.

Well then you haven't been reading enough:
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/8695
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/8694
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2503
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2504
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2505

Difference is increasing everyday, as intel has hit the wall with 3.8GHz and AMD haven't yet... Plus for new battle, dual processors, AMD has much better (healtier) platform, so expect that intel will have to focus in marketing.

See above.

Regardless of how AMD chips are made, I don't think that AMD chips will significantly outperform Intel chips. While I'd much rather have an Athlon over a Pentium, the difference won't be huge. Intel probably won't accept the challenge anyway.

Wow, a voice of reason!

 

[dannyevilcat]

Benchmarks, on the whole, are meaningless. You could pick a suite that favors AMD, and you can pick one that favors Intel.

I guess I disagree. While synthetic benchmarks might be generally meaningless, ones using real world applications are useful, even if the differences are as small as a few seconds faster in one program or slower in another.

And most of them favor AMD.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@Neomega
I said Intel is hot to use reverse engineering itself after the AMD chips have grown better.