LinuxQuestions.org
View the Most Wanted LQ Wiki articles.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 03-03-2005, 10:29 PM   #1
aznboi12321
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Sharon,MA
Distribution: Fedora Core 3, Damn Small Linux 0.93, Ubuntu 5.10, Mandrake 10.1 Official, Linspire 4.5, SuSE 10.0
Posts: 77

Rep: Reputation: 15
Processors


Hmmm.... I've always wondered whats the differences between AMD and Intel processors? What are the advantages of each?
 
Old 03-03-2005, 10:43 PM   #2
Doolspin
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Ohio
Distribution: Slackware 9.1/10/10.1 RedHat circa 2000, Knoppix, OpenSuse 10.0/10.1
Posts: 122

Rep: Reputation: 15
This is gonna turn flame war real quick.

Mainly, Intel chips are notoriously more reliable. They are used in almost all severs. While AMD is faster for the price but less reliable. Note: thats IMHO

/ducks
 
Old 03-03-2005, 11:03 PM   #3
trickykid
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2001
Posts: 24,133

Rep: Reputation: 199Reputation: 199
Moved: Not Linux related, moved to General
 
Old 03-03-2005, 11:13 PM   #4
williamwbishop
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: god's judge
Posts: 376

Rep: Reputation: 30
How are AMD processors less reliable? I mean, I don't have a favourite or anything(I use whatever's at hand in fact), but I don't remember anything in my experience to say that one is more reliable than the other(other than old cyrix processors that is).

I might add however, that I have had several bad experiences with Intel chips, and bugs in them. Don't even get me started on race conditions between pentium chips and their bugs.

Last edited by williamwbishop; 03-03-2005 at 11:15 PM.
 
Old 03-03-2005, 11:28 PM   #5
JaseP
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Distribution: K/Ubuntu 10.04/12.04, Scientific Linux 6.3, Android-x86, Maemo
Posts: 1,658

Rep: Reputation: 138Reputation: 138
AMD Processors tend to use different techniques to achieve faster results. The net result is that for most processes, things turn out the same. But for some other things, they can get fouled, hence the unreliability that some claim. Most people wouldn't see this though, and I doubt the rep holds up for the 64-bit architecture chips.

Also, the process used to make the chips from development to die printing is somewhat different, yielding different results. The chips have different temperature tollerances, susceptibility to spikes and different failure rates...

If Linux takes over the average person's desktop, CPU architecture will have less and less to do with dominance and more to do with taste.
 
Old 03-04-2005, 12:20 AM   #6
BajaNick
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: So. Cal.
Distribution: Slack 11
Posts: 1,737

Rep: Reputation: 46
Also, AMD cpu`s are better for gaming.
 
Old 03-04-2005, 02:04 AM   #7
amosf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Distribution: Mandriva/Slack - KDE
Posts: 1,672

Rep: Reputation: 46
From my experience, current AMD processors, like XP and A64, are on par with intel Pentium types. I have 3 AMD's here - an XP, A64, Sempron - and a P4 2.4 gig - running 24/7 at 100% CPU running folding@home for weeks with no sign of stability or error or thermal trouble. Also have celerons and older P3's doing the same... They have also been through the prime95 torture test for a couple of days of course. Also have older AMD's that seem to have stood up to the test of time... And my laste CU was a P3-700 which was flawless for 4 years.

They are all good IMO, tho I have always found the celeron on the weak side. Still worth it when you consider price, but weak.
 
Old 03-04-2005, 08:20 AM   #8
williamwbishop
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: god's judge
Posts: 376

Rep: Reputation: 30
That mostly mirrors my experience, though I found unhappiness with the pentium 2 class xeon's. I think reliability will always be the weakness of the OS on top, and rarely the cpu.
 
Old 03-04-2005, 10:42 AM   #9
Motown
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: land of oz
Distribution: centos
Posts: 104

Rep: Reputation: 15
Well, with the p4 "netburst" architecture, intel changed the way their processors work. Long story short, they inflate the gigahertz numbers without necessarilly improving performance. Case in point, a 1.2 ghz p3, is about the same performance as a 1.8ghz p4. I suspect that it was a marketing strategy.

The netburst architecture requires a large quantity of cache to be effective. The prescott chips have fixed this, but they run *really* hot, so don't expect a really long lifespan.

Despite this, pentium chips are really good for most tasks, and the chipsets are well supported under linux.

Athlonxp's were outpacing pentium4's in sheer performance for quite a while, but that is no longer the case.

Athlon 64's have the memory controller built into the chip, which significantly enhances performance at least equal to, and many believe beyond equivalent p4's. Socket 754 semprons have the built in controller, too.

Socket 939 A64's support dual-channel memory, and will support dual-core chips when they arrive.(supposedly at the end of the year)

LGA 755 intel boards will support dual-core when it arrives Q2 2006

Anymore, the two cost about the same. Athlon64's are a *little* cheaper, but the mobo's cost more on average.

Last edited by Motown; 03-04-2005 at 10:44 AM.
 
Old 03-04-2005, 10:51 AM   #10
Motown
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: land of oz
Distribution: centos
Posts: 104

Rep: Reputation: 15
Oh, L1 cache differs as well. AMD's have 64+64 k L1 cache. P4's have 12k+8k. consequently, L2 cache on amd chips is less significant, which usually makes their budget chips a really good deal.

On the other hand, L2 and 3 cache on p4's is very significant. Hyper-threading is pretty cool, too.
 
Old 03-04-2005, 11:09 AM   #11
williamwbishop
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: god's judge
Posts: 376

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Motown
Oh, L1 cache differs as well. AMD's have 64+64 k L1 cache. P4's have 12k+8k. consequently, L2 cache on amd chips is less significant, which usually makes their budget chips a really good deal.

On the other hand, L2 and 3 cache on p4's is very significant. Hyper-threading is pretty cool, too.
Unless you're using a non patched citrix installation, in which case you need to turn off hyperthreading.
 
Old 05-02-2005, 09:30 PM   #12
tzonga1
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: boise, idaho, us
Distribution: fedora core 5
Posts: 46

Rep: Reputation: 15
AMD and Intel. Same church different pew. In general Amd rides Intels multi-billion dollar marketing campaigns. So AMD doesn't spend the money for campaigns.
 
Old 05-03-2005, 01:28 AM   #13
stabile007
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Distribution: Ubuntu, Gentoo
Posts: 74

Rep: Reputation: 15
I liek AMD far more then intel. The fact that AMD chips that are clocked so much lower then their Pentium Equilvelants and still manage t outpace or at least keep along side of them. The A 64's are definitly like the pinnacle chip now days.

At a price vs. performance AMD I think safely takes the cake. You can get an AMD 64 bit processor (3000+) for $150 on newegg and a motherboard for $80 PCI express. Compare that to a Pentium chip: $232 for thier 64 bit 3.0 ghz processor (you can get an 3500+ for $10 more then that) and the motherboard will cost you $85
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Processors samjkd General 3 03-10-2005 01:26 PM
16 processors? jbeiter Linux - Hardware 4 03-05-2005 09:57 AM
Will Linux Support Amd Processors And Other Than Intel Processors? halovivek Linux - Hardware 6 09-02-2003 02:08 PM
Why different rpms for different processors ? hiran Linux - General 2 08-19-2003 12:59 PM
Processors........ vacume Linux - Hardware 3 08-08-2003 12:29 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration