Server Help

[Solo Ace]

The information I got about Intel / AMD processors is pretty outdated now, so time to ask for opinions.

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What I've seen doesn't count though, my "knowlegde" is outdated, according to others; Now everyone seems to love AMD.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]

AMD simply pwnz
..seriously though, they sell processors with the same speed for a much lower price
_________________
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

[Solo Ace]

What a useful comment.

[EdTheInvincible]

this is trash talk after all
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]

[Solo Ace]

Uhh, what?

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.

[CypherJF]

I had an AMD once...
_________________
Performance is often the art of cheating carefully. - James Gosling

[D1st0rt]

lol its like a crusade against iostream
_________________

[Mr Ekted]

[CypherJF]

sigh, was tought to use cout and cin. :/ poor us. and were even "taught" to overload them. lol.

[Solo Ace]

I still don't have any idea what your "crusade against iostream" has to do with AMD/Intel, Ek.

[Mr Ekted]

Use of iostreams and strings = more CPU cycles = more heat on whatever processor you choose.

[Solo Ace]

Well uh yeah I got that far.

Guess your posts were off-topic then.

[SamHughes]

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]

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.
_________________
Hyperspace Owner

Smong> so long as 99% deaths feel lame it will always be hyperspace to me

[Mr Ekted]

I didn't reply cuz there was nothing wrong with what you did.

Except I wouldn't store flags in a list.

[Cyan~Fire]

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.
_________________
This help is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. Cyan~Fire assumes no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use.
Wise men STILL seek Him.

[Solo Ace]

[SamHughes]

[SuSE]

Dual 2.5GHz

[Solo Ace]

Screw you! I'm trying to get to know something here!

[Mine GO BOOM]

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]

Nice post.

[Mine GO BOOM]

[SuSE]