GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
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 10:15 PM.
Distribution: K/Ubuntu 10.04/12.04, Scientific Linux 6.3, Android-x86, Maemo
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.
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.
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.
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.
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