Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
![]() |
World Community Grid Forums
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
No member browsing this thread |
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 19
|
![]() |
Author |
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I've been building and buying computer for years with both AMD and INTEL processors. I tend to switch back and forth between the two on average of 3 years. Right now I have an Intel Centrino Duo(T7400 dual core w/6MB) in my HP Pavillion dv9500 notebook.
As per reading performance reviews on Toms Hardware I expected moving up from my AMD X2-4400 would be an upgrade even if on a notebook. I have 800MHZ ram on this notebook and I only had 533MHZ or so on my old computer with the AMD X2-4400. I frequently experience relatively sluggish performance, awkward pauses when switching between applications and just relatively mediocre performance. These performance issues are very noticeable when running the WCG or having Norton Security installed or both. I feel unimpressed with my newer Intel T7400 notebook. Some reviews say that MS Windows Vista is a hog of resources. I personally feel Intel is a relatively inferior and mediocre processor in real world situations and multitasking of applications. I believe the source of problems with Intel based processors is the reliance on the legacy, "Front Side Bus" architecture that AMD did away with back in 1998/1999 or so with the introduction of the Alpha EV6 based microprocessor/bus architecture. I plan on possibly building a new AMD based system. I am looking at the new AMD quad core as I believe once again AMD is a superior for the work I like doing. Anyone else have comments? |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
As regards your T7400 laptop being sluggish, I would say the problem may lay elsewhere than the CPU - I have a T7200 which runs plenty fast in all applications, but then again it is running XP and I wouldn't let Norton anywhere near a machine of mine.
----------------------------------------Now when we look at quad core desktops, that is far less clear cut - the new Phenom may well be far better for WCG, but at this time we can't tell as we are still waiting to try them to see. If you already have an AM2 motherboard, then I suspect Phenom is going to be the best way forward for you - if building from scratch then I suggest you wait and see how they perform against Intel when finally released. Edit: I see the Phenom 9500 (2.2GHz) is on sale HERE in the UK now at £159 - at this spec and price it competes against the Intel Q6600, so will be interesting to see a direct comparison running WCG ![]() [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Nov 23, 2007 7:07:05 PM] |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
It just seems to me that Intel processors are easier to 'tap out' and run out of processing power and resources just running relatively mundane tasks like virus scans.
I'm not saying I don't get burst of speed for applications. The problem is when I start running a few standard applications the processing power quickly becomes saturated(spiked to near 100%) and capable of no more without lag. I believe the Front Side Bus gets jammed up and saturated. With my AMD X2-4400 it never really felt like I tapped out the processing power(didn't spike as high on the performance meter graph either). I decommissioned my AMD system shortly before I got my new notebook for moving purposes. I no longer have that computer. A YouTube video says that Intel 'hopes to abandon their legacy front side bus architecture by the year 2009.' It further states that Intel has pushed the FSB architecture far as it can go with the quad core and adding more cores further would only yield diminished returns in terms of overall processing power. AMD claims their hypertransport technology will keep increasing overall processing power with each additional core and won't become bottlenecked. |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
While of course I cannot speak for anybody else's experiences, I have been extremely happy with Core 2. While I upgraded from a dual-core to a quad, that was just for faster crunching; although my system load has increased since then. I will relate my anecdotal experience for the sheer fun of it, and hopefully to demonstrate that, at the very least, the C2 processor is not the bottleneck and has good multitasking performance. (how much RAM is in that notebook?)
----------------------------------------At the same time, I would absolutely encourage you to go AMD. The world needs compitition. System: Core 2 quad (2.4 GHZ) 3 GB 800 mhz dual-channel RAM 64-bit linux My typical concurrent application load during normal use is: WCG: Four tasks, set to 100% CPU load. Two 3D games (windowed and running under WINE) Firefox (which eats several hundred MB of RAM with lots of tabs) A music or video player Openoffice.org (which is apparently also memory-hungry) Sometimes there will also be a flash-using website, resource-hungry java program or audio encoder. CPU use is always at or near 100% on all four cores. With this, there are no performance issues whatsoever. Application switching is instant, firefox renders pages quickly no matter what else is going on, and generally nothing seems to slow down for any reason. EDIT: Commas, why must they torment me so? Also disambiguation. [Edit 3 times, last edit by Former Member at Nov 24, 2007 7:12:57 AM] |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Intel developing "Intel Quickpath Interconnect" for the Nehalem family(2008/2009) to compete against AMD hypertransport direct connect architecture based on Alpha EV7 architecture.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2...-even-on-slots-and-cables Hmm...roughly 10 years after AMD acquired the license for Alpha EV6 architecture technology Intel is jumping on board! |
||
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The AMD FPU is just better than the Intel clock for clock
----------------------------------------It's been that way since they introduced the Athlon XP Getting ready for the flak ![]() Dave ![]() |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
A video on the Alpha EV7 Design.
http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/nextgen/ev7.wmv I used to talk to the Head Engineer at AMD back in 1998/1999 when they intitially looked at acquiring the Alpha EV6 technology. I believe around that time Intel wasn't going to let them clone their processors anymore and they had to make a decision.(I know there was some problem like that by the way the engineer talked.) The Alpha EV6 was their decision and new product line. I think it wasn't until 2001 or so they started advertising it on the motherboards for AMD processors. I believe they used some technology from the former D.E.C Alpha before then and it just wasn't well known to many people. Alot of the prioritary technologies seem like they are mixing more together these days and merging. Intel has been catching up with the game in recent years after they lost a good amount of market share a few years ago to AMD. I think they acquired some super computing architecture from Transmeta for the Core 2 Duo designs. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6124965.html I think Intel agreed to legally license technology from Transmeta after the lawsuit. |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The only project I have found the AMD to have a distinct advantage in is DPAD (Muon).......my Allendale creams my X2'S and indeed my single cores at everything else.
I haven't done a direct clock for clock comparison so can't offer percentages. If I were buying today (for running this) I would buy a Q6600. |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I believe AMD typically can beat Intel in the Floating point arena. Floating Point Operations are used for more scientific purposes and research areas. The Alpha was designed with super computing and super scalability in mind(multiple cores and processors).
I've seen the benchmarks on Toms Hardware. The current generation of Intel can beat AMD in most areas except Floating Point Operations. I don't know how much the WCG depends on FLOPs. Real world circumstances can be a bit different also once the Intel Front Side Bus starts to get saturated from multiple threads. I'm not sure if any real world demo have been done or not. AMD in theory has alot lower latency under saturated conditions. |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Right now my X2 AT 2.5Ghz has an 8 hour estimate.
----------------------------------------My Allendale at 3.2Ghz has an ustimate of under 4 hours. Read into that as you please ![]() * Both ETA's are for cancer work units. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Nov 25, 2007 8:19:22 PM] |
||
|
|
![]() |