Intel Vs AMD, interesting article from CNET

[techreactor]

Dual-core desktop CPU bout: AMD vs. Intel

By Rich Brown
Senior associate editor
November 23, 2005



<!-- product vs product -->

AMD Athlon 64 X2


Intel Pentium dual core CPUs

<!-- /product vs product -->You may recall a few months back when AMD took out full-page newspaper ads to challenge Intel to a dual-core server duel. Intel declined to take up AMD on its offer, but the challenge got us thinking: what would the results of a dual-core desktop CPU fight look like? Many people equate Windows PCs with....read on here

[Chewy]

Look's like the "fat lady" has sung! Dell take note!

[anonymez]

i really wanted intel to accept the challenge, but i knew they wouldn't-- their inferior architecture and outrageous pricing (extreme edition, anyone?) was no match.

[drfsupercenter]

Personally, I have no problem with my Pentium 4 processor, came bundled with my Dimension 2350.

[Chewy]

Time and Mill pass us all by.

Looking at the X2 3800, I figure i could get 10x250 and run in synch with my memory and still
stay in the low 40's with load temp, the problem would be getting anony to help me beat the 5 min
mark with dual core optimazation.

[UncasMS]

nobody cares for 5min, chewy

^_~

[Chewy]

yes, but that's only a quick indicator of what it would do with an unlame
full encoder, who wants a bench that takes hours when you are tweaking performance.

[tigerman8u]

I love it. Amd winning. One note is the Intel is also using faster ram 677 mhz vs 400 mhz on the amd setup. How much of a difference this would make I don't know.
Chewy do you have any thoughts on what difference this would make on the test results ie if the intel setup used the same speed ram as the amd

[Chewy]

Well it's hard since they didn't spec the cas wait states, assuming they used
standard crucial ram, the ddr2 wouldn't really make any difference, since it
cas levels are so much higher. The Intel cpu's suffer from the same problem,
increased latency(lag) from longer pipelines. In my own case going from a
cas 2 memory at 200(400) to cas 2.5 at 250(500) gave similar bench results.
The DDR2 starts at cas 4, so that's it's problem.
So far ddr2 is smoke and mirrors.

[NightbladeXX]

Well it's hard since they didn't spec the cas wait states, assuming they used
standard crucial ram, the ddr2 wouldn't really make any difference, since it
cas levels are so much higher. The Intel cpu's suffer from the same problem,
increased latency(lag) from longer pipelines. In my own case going from a
cas 2 memory at 200(400) to cas 2.5 at 250(500) gave similar bench results.
The DDR2 starts at cas 4, so that's it's problem.
So far ddr2 is smoke and mirrors.

Chewy is absolutely right the current flavors of DDR2 offer no gains over their faster cousins (DDR400 w/ CAS 2-2-2-5s) that are easily available unlike much of the fast DDR2s are difficult to find

Eventually once the latencies drop for DDR2 it ll be a faster option than DDR but only in large amounts of RAM

IMO DDR(x) will not be good for the far future and somethin' new will take over

AMD is a much superior product by far and Intel (hasnt announced any new products too put em in competition) is gonna be lackin for a long time.

Intel is just good at marketing and "strong arming" (Right now)

nB