Server Help

Trash Talk - Intel vs AMD?

Solo Ace - Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:58 am
Post subject: Intel vs AMD?
The information I got about Intel / AMD processors is pretty outdated now, so time to ask for opinions. sa_tongue.gif

I've never chosen for any AMD CPU, because I was told AMD's processors were less stable than Intel's, AMD's got a higher core temperature etc.
From what I've seen at friends' computers those stories are true, one of them can't even deal with my behaviour (loads of active processes running next to eachother).
I see their AMDs getting higher temperatures easier than my Intels, but that probably is caused by their crappy management.

What I've seen doesn't count though, my "knowlegde" is outdated, according to others; Now everyone seems to love AMD.
I want to know your opinions, why AMD, or why Intel?

Why 64 bit CPUs, is the software even ready for it?
EdTheInvincible - Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Post subject:
AMD simply pwnz
..seriously though, they sell processors with the same speed for a much lower price
Solo Ace - Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:12 pm
Post subject:
What a useful comment. icon_sad.gif
EdTheInvincible - Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:13 pm
Post subject:
this is trash talk after all icon_biggrin.gif
anyway, my AMD doesnt seem to hang at all.. overheating is a problem sometimes but i never reach 60 C, and the minimum warning temperature is 70. But I cant write CDs if the system temp is too high
Mr Ekted - Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Intel vs AMD?
Solo Ace wrote:
one of them can't even deal with my behaviour (loads of active processes running next to eachother)


Code: Show/Hide
#include <iostream.h>
#include <string.h>


icon_sad.gif
Solo Ace - Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:43 pm
Post subject:
Uhh, what? sa_tongue.gif

The bloatedness of those things (which your post is pointing at I guess) doesn't matter, I just meant the difference between the power of the systems I've used. sa_tongue.gif
CypherJF - Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:44 pm
Post subject:
I had an AMD once...
D1st0rt - Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:01 pm
Post subject:
lol its like a crusade against iostream
Mr Ekted - Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:19 pm
Post subject:
D1st0rt wrote:
lol its like a crusade against iostream


cout << (String)"Damn " + (String)"straight!";
CypherJF - Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:28 pm
Post subject:
sigh, was tought to use cout and cin. :/ poor us. and were even "taught" to overload them. lol.
Solo Ace - Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:44 pm
Post subject:
I still don't have any idea what your "crusade against iostream" has to do with AMD/Intel, Ek. sa_tongue.gif
Mr Ekted - Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:57 pm
Post subject:
Use of iostreams and strings = more CPU cycles = more heat on whatever processor you choose.
Solo Ace - Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:59 pm
Post subject:
Well uh yeah I got that far. icon_confused.gif

Guess your posts were off-topic then. sa_tongue.gif
SamHughes - Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:11 pm
Post subject:
It's always "fun" to see people be all pedantic about slow code and making things more efficient, especially when they pull out their pet example of what to avoid. And then nobody comments on efficiency at hearing the idea that I test for all the flags being possessed by one freq by looping through the flaglist every time there's a FlagGrab event. It's a zany world we live in.
Dr Brain - Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:22 pm
Post subject:
Here's the deal, Solo:

AMD processors are better if you're building it yourself.

AMD processors are worse if your computer shopping.

Let me elaborate some more. Intel processors run better than AMD processors rated at the same speed. BUT AMD processors are cheaper than Intel's. In the end, I've found that AMD does offer more bang/buck than the Intels.
Mr Ekted - Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:22 pm
Post subject:
I didn't reply cuz there was nothing wrong with what you did. icon_smile.gif

Except I wouldn't store flags in a list. icon_smile.gif
Cyan~Fire - Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:27 pm
Post subject:
A friend of mine is very into CPU's\overclocking right now. He tells me that Intel's top-of-the-line processors are much better than AMD's, but I would definitely say AMD's are better (from my own experience) for building a cheap computer. Heck, I built the one I'm using right now for $400 with an AMD.
Solo Ace - Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:28 pm
Post subject:
Dr Brain wrote:
AMD processors are better if you're building it yourself.

AMD processors are worse if your computer shopping.


Why? Because AMD CPUs can be customized easier?

Dr Brain wrote:
Let me elaborate some more. Intel processors run better than AMD processors rated at the same speed. BUT AMD processors are cheaper than Intel's. In the end, I've found that AMD does offer more bang/buck than the Intels.

Isn't that an old theory?
I heard (didn't check) AMD's prizes are becoming higher than Intel's.
Also, some guy here says AMD > Intel when it comes to speed.
SamHughes - Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:40 pm
Post subject:
Mr Ekted wrote:
I didn't reply cuz there was nothing wrong with what you did. icon_smile.gif

Except I wouldn't store flags in a list. icon_smile.gif


I wouldn't store them that way either. icon_smile.gif

I ended up doing this, though:
I saved three integers, named first_flagholder, lower_bound, and upper_bound. They get initialized at zero. First_flagholder contains the freq at the front of the list. The number of flags possessed by the freq in first_flagholder is in the range [lower_bound, upper_bound].

The is_team_winning_and_which_is_it(Uint16 touching_freq) function gets passed the freq that just touched a flag, from the FlagGrab event. Then it does something like this:

Code: Show/Hide

Uint16 is_team_winning_and_which_is_it(Uint16 touching_freq) {
    if (touching_freq == first_flagholder) {
        ++lower_bound;
        ++upper_bound;
    }
    else {
        --lower_bound;
    }

    Uint16 returner = 65535; // -1 indicating a "no" response.

    if (lower_bound == 0  ||  upper_bound == flaglist->total) {
        if (lower_bound != flaglist->total) {
            reread_flags(); // Updates first_flagholder, upp/lower_bound.
        }

        // "If the first_flagholder holds all the flags..."
        if (lower_bound == flaglist->total) {
            returner = first_flag_holder;
        }
    }

    return returner;
}

void reread_flags() {

    if (flaglist->head) {
        _listnode<Flag> * reader = flaglist->head;

        first_flagholder = reader->item->team;
        reader = reader->next;
        lower_bound = 1;
       
        while (reader) {
            // Add one if the flag is owned by the first_flagholder.
            lower_bound += (reader->item->team == first_flagholder);

            reader = reader->next;
        }

        upper_bound = lower_bound;
    }

    return;
}


Hopefully, there are no bugs in the above; I'm typing this from memory. Anyway, for instance, if there are fifty flags in the arena, and reading the list indicates that the team owning the flag at the front of the list owns 25 flags, then it will be at least 25 flagGrab events before we bother reading the list again. (And at most, 73 flagGrabs.)
SuSE - Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:43 pm
Post subject:
Dual 2.5GHz
Solo Ace - Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:43 pm
Post subject:
Screw you! I'm trying to get to know something here! sa_tongue.gif
Mine GO BOOM - Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:42 am
Post subject:
AMD has a short pipeline, thus when a program jumps to a new location, it is easier to flush the pipeline and start over again. Intel's pipeline is huge by comparison. Since jumps occur a lot in programs (loops/function calls), even with branch prediction (the CPU tries to guess in advance if you'd loop the same code), it still runs very inefficent. So to fix the probably, they just used hyperthreading.

Hyperthreading wasn't new at the time, it just wasn't practical. Why would a short pipeline, such as maybe 4-7 stages (most early CPUs and common embedded devices) want to run two processes through? It just wasn't practical.

Intel slowly keep making its pipeline bigger, and bigger, and bigger so that it could increase the clock speed. Why? Well, if the slowest stage would be loading out of cache, and it runs 4 times slower than the ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit), why not split it into 4 stages and increase the clock speed? This would reduce total wasted time over the pipeline.

Opps, it got too big. Now whenever the branch prediction fails and you have to flush the pipeline, you lose whatever is already running through the pipeline up until whenever you figured out when your branch prediction failed. If thats 10 stages in, you lose 10 instructions.

So what is hyperthreading? Roughtly its like running two pipelines with the same hardware. You load one instruction from one thread, then load another instruction from the next thread, and keep rotating like that. So whenever you come to a branch, you are only losing 5 instructions worth of CPU time.

So whats better between AMD vs Intel? If you plan on doing video editing or dealing with large data structures (ie SQL), Intel just does better. If you ran a program that just counted from one to a billion, Intel blows away AMD, even ignoring the hyperthreading. Run a video editor that likes multiprocessors, and it just smokes AMD.

But what if you plan on running games or just normal applications? Won't hyperthreading make everything run smoother?

Not really. If you are running subgame with 100% cpu usage, you'll notice a differance when clicking around in the OS, because that one program can only use 50% of the total CPU. But if you are working with just running IE/Firefox with some programs like AIM in the background and doing a bit of Photoshopping, AMD does better. And in games, AMD's 64bit line is much better than anything else in the same price range.

So what processor do you want to get then? Does 50% of your time on the computer consist of running Photoshop with huge images and lots of filters or working with Virtualdub and ripping your 5,000 DVD collection onto XVid backups? Want to burn as much money as possible for the fastest system possible? Intel.

Plan on making your computer on the cheap, thus getting the best bang for your buck? Want to play Subspace with 5% more FPS? Plan on being a World of Warcraft overlord? AMD.

If I was building a computer right now and needed to buy a processor/motherboard combo, this is what I'd get: AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Winchester core with MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum SLI (well, SLI isn't too useful, but its cool as hell if you'd want two video cards)

If I was looking to build a computer within the next 6 months, what would I wait for? AMD's dual-core chips. Real multiprocessing without the hassel of having two CPU chips with two HSFs. Plus, dual-processor motherboards were never really cheap.
Mr Ekted - Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:48 am
Post subject:
Nice post.
Mine GO BOOM - Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:58 am
Post subject:
Mr Ekted wrote:
Nice post.

I do my best thinking at 2AM after sleeping for 4 hours because I havn't had enough sleep during the week, and woke up in the middle of the night because I was hungry as hell. Yummy apple.
SuSE - Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:37 am
Post subject:
Mine GO BOOM wrote:
I do my best thinking at 2AM after sleeping for 4 hours because I havn't had enough sleep during the week, and woke up in the middle of the night because I was hungry as hell. Yummy apple.
mmm, insomnia rules
between the hallucinations is such great clarity
All times are -5 GMT
View topic
Powered by phpBB 2.0 .0.11 © 2001 phpBB Group