Before I start I would like to say that I am a fan of Athlon (also known as AMD), and I have an AMD 64 3400+ processor in my computer (Note: Processors are the driving force of a computer. They are what determines the speed and they Process information in your computer routing it to where it needs to go). The reason for this has been that Athlon has designed some of the smartest chips in the market and they were the only ones who have released a 64bit Processor for mass use while Intel only had a 64bit system for servers only. Now while there aren’t any mainstream programs that need 64bits to run, a lot of Companies have supported the 64bit move with 64bit motherboards (mine is a hybrid 64-32) and has really performed as top of the line until recently (Still good, just not top of the line). Now Intel is known as a very popular brand processor, and AMD was virtually unknown, but it must have been tough to see AMD go from obscure to mainstream in many stores and many companies (HP, Staples, Best Buy, and even some Dell machines are now known to carry many AMD products, where three years ago they were exclusively Intel Pentiums (All information taken from CPU Magazine, and Computer Magazine) (CPU Magazine means Computer Power User Magazine). When the AMD 64 (AMD 64 FX-51) came out in 2003, it was faster, cooler running, and cheaper than any Intel product of the time (September 2003). For these reasons (and a few others even more technical and confusing than what I have already typed) I liked and recommended AMD processors to everyone I knew.
Now my mind has changed. This last year Intel and AMD have released their next generation of Processors, the Dual Core (Intel has two names for theirs, The “VIIV” for desktop computers and the “Core 2 Dual” for Notebooks/Laptops, AMD puts X2 for notebooks/laptops and desktops or Live! for desktops only). Two cores means that the processor can have up to double the power to give your computer while running processes. This means you can have one core running a virus scan, while you watch Spiderman using the other. There will be no slowdown in your processes and you can do more at once. (My personal feeling is that many people will be using two monitors for one computer very soon). Intel’s line outperforms AMD’s in almost everyway. Intel Dual core processors are 40% faster and 40% more power efficient than their previous processors (Intel’s own numbers form their retail Edge website) and approximately 10% faster and 15% more efficient than AMD X2 processors (CPU Magazine, September 2006). Their price is also a little better than AMD’s, and finally as CPU magazine, and Computer magazine agree, Intel has done it right. The way that Intel does this is through the Processor Cache (Cache is the memory in a processor that determines how much information each processor can process each cycle). AMD has separate Caches that aren’t shared by the two cores in the processor so that if you don’t have enough cache on one core to run your antivirus, it can’t borrow from your other core’s processor. Intel has a Shared Cache that both cores can use, and this makes it so that it can effectively control how much Cache each core needs (Spiderman core needs less cache than the Antivirus Core). Doing this means that Intel doesn’t have to spend more on separate caches (Cache is the most expensive type of memory) and also the Shared Cache can use less power.
The performance of Intel’s processors is the fastest, most efficient, and most cost effective processor on the market, and all that I have to say, welcome back to the top of performance.
Now I would like to point out that Intel made this change only after John became employed there so I think that the two are interrelated don’t you?
Now my mind has changed. This last year Intel and AMD have released their next generation of Processors, the Dual Core (Intel has two names for theirs, The “VIIV” for desktop computers and the “Core 2 Dual” for Notebooks/Laptops, AMD puts X2 for notebooks/laptops and desktops or Live! for desktops only). Two cores means that the processor can have up to double the power to give your computer while running processes. This means you can have one core running a virus scan, while you watch Spiderman using the other. There will be no slowdown in your processes and you can do more at once. (My personal feeling is that many people will be using two monitors for one computer very soon). Intel’s line outperforms AMD’s in almost everyway. Intel Dual core processors are 40% faster and 40% more power efficient than their previous processors (Intel’s own numbers form their retail Edge website) and approximately 10% faster and 15% more efficient than AMD X2 processors (CPU Magazine, September 2006). Their price is also a little better than AMD’s, and finally as CPU magazine, and Computer magazine agree, Intel has done it right. The way that Intel does this is through the Processor Cache (Cache is the memory in a processor that determines how much information each processor can process each cycle). AMD has separate Caches that aren’t shared by the two cores in the processor so that if you don’t have enough cache on one core to run your antivirus, it can’t borrow from your other core’s processor. Intel has a Shared Cache that both cores can use, and this makes it so that it can effectively control how much Cache each core needs (Spiderman core needs less cache than the Antivirus Core). Doing this means that Intel doesn’t have to spend more on separate caches (Cache is the most expensive type of memory) and also the Shared Cache can use less power.
The performance of Intel’s processors is the fastest, most efficient, and most cost effective processor on the market, and all that I have to say, welcome back to the top of performance.
Now I would like to point out that Intel made this change only after John became employed there so I think that the two are interrelated don’t you?
Once again, I have been reading up on this, first in two different Computer Magazines (and I might add CPU Magazine is very AMD biased), and secondly on Intel’s retail edge website. So if my information is wrong it was a misread by me or misprinted by one of these magazines because they are right in front of me!
