Cheat Engine

Localhost · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: Intel and AMD

well i know this AMD fanboy who is kind of bugging me a little... He keeps on saying Intel takes AMDs ideas, Intels quads are two dual cores put together ect ect...

Ideas on how Intel is better than AMD? I know AMD is better in some parts, and Intel in others... But what are the OTHERS that intel are better than then AMD...

If that didnt make sense to you, here is the short version:

How is Intel better than AMD?[/u]

jason744 · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:46 am Post subject:

I'm pretty sure intel's faster overall.

callaw · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:03 am Post subject:

Hmm let's say the past year intel has been more successful.
i mean AMD was good, i have amd, but the next one i'm going to buy still intel.
Why?
Look the performance tests, amd is like something with what you can save money, and get the 'almost' performance.
amd has nothing against the Core 2 series best models.

Here's good example:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 2,83 GHz 12MB 1333MHz FSB LGA775

No amd processor has a 12mb l2

hcavolsdsadgadsg · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:39 am Post subject:

Missi0n · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject:

AMD require less power, they are put in laptops more commonly.

INTEL are for real men. Cool

callaw · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject:

Madman · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:41 pm Post subject:

haxor5354 · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject:

intel is better..............why? look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto&feature=related

superweapons · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject:

The only reason why the CPU doesn't shut down is because it's too old. Only Pentium III/Athlon 64 shut down once it's too hot. But that's what I remember.

Intel is winning mostly because of a completely new architecture (Core 2). It allows for higher performance, at a lower power consumption.

Intel isn't copying AMD, at least not these days. The only place AMD has an advantage is that it uses an integrated memory controller, but that doesn't give a huge performance boost. With Nehalem, Intel will have a CPU with an integrated memory controller.

As for AMD > Intel thing, that's wrong. The lowest spec Intel Core 2 Quad beats the highest spec AMD Phenom (9850), and by a good margin. So it isn't just the hardware problem.

Intel's Core 2 CPU "Win" Points:
Core 2 architecture
"Huge" reserves of L2 Cache
High-K
Low TDP
Very good overclocking head room in most desktop CPUs
Price/Performance
Instructions (SSE3.x, SSE4.x)

Zarr · Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:05 am Post subject:

Intel's best processor can, reportedly, be overclocked to nearly 5GHz on air cooling. Link

AMD's best processor can, reportedly, barely be overclocked to 3GHz on air cooling. Link

Please note, both processors are quad core.

Cheetah · Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:28 am Post subject:

Chaos Lord · Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:55 am Post subject:

Processors speed don't only depends only on the clock rate but rather its architecture, instructions and FSB(Intel).

For example... A P4 3Ghz is alot slower than a C2D with 1.6Ghz or lower and 400*9 3.6Ghz loses to 450*8 3.6Ghz due the big margin in FSB. FYI, Intel's MMX and SSSE really is powerful Wink

AFAIK, there's no 45nm proc for AMD yet while Intel is planning to release 32nm proc(Nehalem) by end of this year.

Heartless · Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject:

My friend has an AMD computer and he show me this thing that allows you to control howmuch power is used.

Tofu · Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:26 am Post subject:

Cheetah · Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:47 am Post subject: