Intel Vs. AMD?

[erasmix]

I currently run FC4 on a P4 system that I built 3 1/2 years ago. I'm planning to build a new system before the end of the year and I wonder which CPU should I use? I know intel has the "performance crown" and AMD aint saying much, even on the verge of the release of their new native quad core processor. Which makes me wonder if AMD has given up on standard benchmarks? I work on database technology and I know standard benchmarks don't mean nothing.

I guess the question I want to ask is has someone tried Fedora 7 on an AMD cpu rated inferior on a standard benchmark, and found it to be faster than the intel cpu which won the the benchmark?

The machine I plan to build is not just for fun. I'm a photographer and plan to run PhotoShop CS3 and DxO optics over WINE, in addition to my web, email, file (macs and pcs) and print server, plus a 5TB raid5, nat & firewall. Therefore performance do matter, but I'm suspicious of standard benchmarks for cpus, based on my experience in the database world and the fact that AMD appears to have given up on them. Any advice?

[digitalscout]

I have tryied both Intel and Amd. Benchmarks test are just that a test which is to me more favorable to an intel product. In the real world AMD to me has given me the best for linux and windows. I am more
into virtualization for running many operationing systems at the same time. Think this is the future of
computing. Alot easier to manage too. Time will tell, both Intel and AMD have good products that offer
many times more power to do things even compared to last year. Look for quad cores to bring about
true multi-tasking.

[bob_c_b]

Ehhh, Intel has a pretty huge investment in virtualization so I would hardly list this as a reason to buy either brand, both companies get it in regards to this paticluar topic. Throw in Intel's investment in VMWare and it's pretty clear that Intel has made the technology an imperative. Additionally, you don't need a quad core the truly multi-task and if bang for the buck is the argument the best value right now lies in dual core CPUs.

At the moment Intel is the clear performance leader, and prices are very reasonable. Also consider that Intel has taken not just a friendly, but supportive view of F/OSS. Intel is far more open with their hardware specs, are providing lots of open source driver support and porting many of their development apps to Linux (and either giving away or open sourcing many of them as well). You can actually go to Intel's site and find a list of which boards they actively support Linux on and find drivers for older RedHat 4 and SLES builds. Additionally, BIOS updates are now provided via ISO image so Linux users (or any platform really, but we are the targeted group) can update their BIOS without jumping through hoops.

By way of comparison, AMD/ATi have yet to provide any really decent drivers, little in the way of documentation and have offered virtually zero F/OSS developer support. For desktop computing Intel is probably the most supportive and easiest to deal with hardware make for a Linux workstation. I've built several AMD systems in the past and they have great technology, but they have stalled since the ATi purchase and haven't responded (in a meaningful way) to the request from the F/OSS community for better drivers. That said, I would like to see AMD rebound as competition is good for all of us and more options > than fewer options

[tekel]

The question isn't about who has more invested in Virtualization, Its which one is designed with virtualization in mind, and who has the better design for Virtualization.

AMD has a much much better architecture for pretty much everything, but they lack the ability to put that efficiently on die's. Intel is kept afloat only by the massive amounts of cache they can put on their chips. Its a trick, but it works.

If you are building a system now, I would wait and get a native quad core, both companies will give you great preformance. I don't know which one would give better real world linux preformance since AMD really does have the better design, but intel is clearly outclassing them with their manufacturing, and the performance gain you get by having 12M of L2 on die.

As far as OSS friendliness goes. Take a look at AMD and its contributions to GCC and then ask intel to do the same with their ICC. Also remember that unlike Intel AMD is pretty much a chip maker not a system maker, So you don't really expect them to have much in the way of drivers.

[bob_c_b]

Originally Posted by tekel

The question isn't about who has more invested in Virtualization, Its which one is designed with virtualization in mind, and who has the better design for Virtualization.

AMD has a much much better architecture for pretty much everything, but they lack the ability to put that efficiently on die's. Intel is kept afloat only by the massive amounts of cache they can put on their chips. Its a trick, but it works.

If you are building a system now, I would wait and get a native quad core, both companies will give you great preformance. I don't know which one would give better real world linux preformance since AMD really does have the better design, but intel is clearly outclassing them with their manufacturing, and the performance gain you get by having 12M of L2 on die.

As far as OSS friendliness goes. Take a look at AMD and its contributions to GCC and then ask intel to do the same with their ICC. Also remember that unlike Intel AMD is pretty much a chip maker not a system maker, So you don't really expect them to have much in the way of drivers.

If AMD has such a better architecture they would have better performance to go with it, no? And now that AMD owns ATi they could easily be called a system maker (a label I disagree with) as well, and should therefore provide drivers, no? And I guess we can ignore the free (as in beer) download of the ICC or numerous other Intel tools?

Honestly, right now there is no reason to go AMD with the exception of slightly lower price, no need to make excuses for them. I hope AMD comes back hard with Barcelona, but that still doesn't excuse the shoddy drivers and lack of documentation.

[markkuk]

Originally Posted by erasmix

I'm a photographer and plan to run PhotoShop CS3 and DxO optics over WINE,

Photoshop CS3 is known not to work on Wine: http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=6584
Either get a separate Windows machine or run Windows in VMWare.

[tekel]

Originally Posted by bob_c_b

If AMD has such a better architecture they would have better performance to go with it, no? And now that AMD owns ATi they could easily be called a system maker (a label I disagree with) as well, and should therefore provide drivers, no? And I guess we can ignore the free (as in beer) download of the ICC or numerous other Intel tools?

Like I said Intel has the ability to strap a lot more L2 on their chips then AMD (4M vs 2M), which is really the reason you see performance gains, the HT interconnect AMD uses and their true NUMA architecture ( Each core has its own dedicated memory, accessible by a HT link, shared by a HT link) is a much better design then the "Shared" L2 cache of Intel. It allows benefits like actually having processor affinity count for something, In the right cases that means alot, especially in heavy multi tasking, with a good amount or memory access, hmm what application would use that .... Databases figure that one out AMD designed a processor architecture to cater to their biggest market, servers.

Also what platform has AMD released yet (chipset) that there isn't FOSS drivers for? I am all for good competition between Intel and AMD, just don't go making Intel out to be a saint because they have dome what they should do ( support their hardware) while doing many things they shouldn't do ( Hamstringing competition, Colluding with System makers, Refusing to support non Intel extensions)

[Firewing1]

AMD and Intel are both excellent CPU manufacturers and the same goes for ATI and Intel's chipsets. However I would choose Intel for the moment due to their open drivers, excellent product support and most of all they are currently beating AMD in performance by a long run.
Firewing1

[bob_c_b]

Leigh, way to ignore any progress in the last 4 years, Intel overcame their issues with memory limitations quite a while ago.

Tekel, no one is arguing that AMD doesn't have a more elegant solution, but that doesn't make it faster. You can argue theory all day, the proof is in the benchmarks, that right now favor Intel. Your assertion that processor affinity is negated by shared L2 cache is a stretch, as is your assertion that AMD caters to the server market and is better for database serving, This is only a fact if you ignore the new Xeons, but don't let facts get in the way of blind support for a company.

Having a server room at work that is half RH4 on AMD and about 1/3rd (and growing fast) RH4 on Intel I can safely say we started buying Intel again because they are faster. This includes 3 Oracle 9/10 servers and a little DB2 for our legacy apps. Until AMD comes back with something faster they are off our purchase radar, but we are waiting for real Barcelona numbers anxiously.

And if you call the current Linux drivers from AMD acceptable I suggest you raise your standards. Do a little research and you'll see Intel releasing actual open and fully documented drivers for video and wireless, and trying to find ways to open more. AMD has made no such gesture at this point, although I would love to see them do so. By your mark Intel gets no props for supporting F/OSS and providing code/docs/etc... but AMD should be commended for releasing, and ask any ATi owner, poor drivers at best?

I think you misconstrue a few things about my post so far. The OP asked what was better right now, that is clearly Intel. I stated the Intel is making a serious effort to support F/OSS and provide documentation and code. I also stated that AMD/ATi had failed in a big way in this area. I am by no means a staunch Intel supporter, I buy what is fastest and best supported at time of purchase. Up until a few months ago I owned AMD for both of my personal machines, but when it was time to upgrade AMD had nothing substantial to offer. Two years from now the tables may be turned, brand loyalty in what is basically a commodity good is for suckers. That said, AMD/ATi owes the Linux community better drivers and documentation if they want unconditional support, as do nVidia.

And in reference to your "hamstringing competition" comments, why didn't we hear about this when AMD was pounding Intel into the dirt in the Prescott era? Right, because they had competitive products and didn't need to use the legal system to compete. IANAL so I don't really feel qualified to argue this kind of thing, but if you really believe that if the tables were turned and AMD was on top that they wouldn't use the same tactics, then you aren't paying attention.

[erasmix]

WOW!!!

Thanks! That's more than I expected. Very much appreciated.

Erasmo

[tekel]

If i do recall from a few posts up you did say " If AMD has such a better architecture they would have better performance to go with it, no? " I was just elaborating how you were wrong. I am fully aware of Intels performance benefits over AMD, However performance and good design are not always bedmates.

Anywho, what drivers from AMD are in bad shape , Not only are their processors (their primary product) supported fully in GCC, they have drivers for most other hardware they make in the mainline kernel. The only note able exception is the ATI drivers which are still woefully outclassed by nvidia.

Also the Prescott era is what prompted the Lawsuit that was brought against Intel by AMD, and if AMD did the same thing to Intel, I would expect a lawsuit in return from Intel. I love the fact that even though it is clear Intel is in the wrong the defense is well you would do the same thing so its OK.

[JonC]

I used to swear by AMD, but they are well behind and their drivers for linux are rubbish.

So I'd say Intel all the way.

[bob_c_b]

Originally Posted by tekel

If i do recall from a few posts up you did say " If AMD has such a better architecture they would have better performance to go with it, no? " I was just elaborating how you were wrong. I am fully aware of Intels performance benefits over AMD, However performance and good design are not always bedmates.

Anywho, what drivers from AMD are in bad shape , Not only are their processors (their primary product) supported fully in GCC, they have drivers for most other hardware they make in the mainline kernel. The only note able exception is the ATI drivers which are still woefully outclassed by nvidia.

Also the Prescott era is what prompted the Lawsuit that was brought against Intel by AMD, and if AMD did the same thing to Intel, I would expect a lawsuit in return from Intel. I love the fact that even though it is clear Intel is in the wrong the defense is well you would do the same thing so its OK.

First, you didn't really prove anyone wrong, you just keep insisting that AMD has better design, but my point still stands that although it appears more elegant, it isn't performing so it's tough to call it better.

Come on now with the drivers, I specifically named the ATi drivers and I didn't think some of the chipset issues were a mystery. i will concede that AMD can't be held entirely responsible for this as they used to farm their chipsets out and rely on third parties, but at some point they need to open up the documentation and code, I suppose that is a big part of my complaint, I'd be more forgiving if there was an honest move toward openness.

And I didn't say it was okay, I'm just honest enough to admit that if the tables were turned AMD would likely have done the same thing. I'm all for Intel getting smacked for what they did, but they won't get smacked so hard that they will go out of business. And any fine they pay or action they take won't make the current AMD CPUs faster.

I'll say it again, I'd love to see AMD come screaming back, but until then... I don't really feel like debating this all day so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. At this time Intel has faster chips and is more supportive of F/OSS, not much to argue about.

[gala_dragos]

Actually the money is the decision maker and not who makes the better chips.

So what Intel has a bit faster chips and more Mb per cache if their prices go through the roof, nobody cares about it. So what if AMD has better architecture but lower speeds if they can run in the same area as Intel but with lower prices guess who wins?

Over all the two processors can't be compared! Why because to see how fast a processor is you have to put it in a mainboard and I haven't seen an AMD&Intel support mainboard to take out it's increase/decrease in speed have you?

Intel is backed by a great number of application that are "Intel optimized" and so it MUST go faster or else it losses it's credibility.

You are talking about quadro-cores dual-cores and such but you haven't even think how much money THE GUY must put out from it's pockets just to please you.

You also say that one is faster than the other, now tell me, can you really tell the difference between 1 nanosecond and 2 nanoseconds? No? I thought so!

What both companies have been feeding you is called MARKETING!

In real life a fast processor means nothing if it's not supported by the right mainboard! Even if your processor can transmit at 3Gbps speed it won't achieve that speed if your mainboard chokes at 100Mbps!

Bottom line: get the best combination of pc components that YOUR money can buy! Care only if these are running under linux.

PS: 1 nanosecond = 0.000000001 seconds

[bob_c_b]

Babble much?