This is somewhat technical, just FYI http://translate.googleusercontent....r.html&usg=ALkJrhg-BXvSc1fv2ckMTeW1uI1P4HNeSQ
oooooo french i havnt read french in a few weeks woop haha however way to technical for me if it works it works intel 4 life beotches
CMT is actually a MUCH better design in many cases than the way Intel did their hyper-threading. the Cluster multi threading is just much harder to implement correctly, thus Intel didnt put the time into it.
if what im understanding is the the AMD new CPU will be able to throw more cores/threads/CMT whatever they call it at a higher clock speed for less money ... that is the jist of it for those of us that dont get all the jargon
Well, in addition to being able to do more operations per clock cycle, it is able to push through a single thread with much higher resources available to it than standard way cores have been developed in the past. In addition, the cores are developed to have very high clock speeds, as the Pentium 4 was. The downfall of the P4 was it did not have very high branch prediction or cache setup, it also could not handle very many operations per clock cycle. This new Bulldozer architecture is somewhat designed like the P4, but with a bunch of the same branch and cache optimizations Nahelem and SB have, and it can do more operations per cycle, and it is designed with cluster multi-threading to give higher throughput to operations not specifically designed to make full use of the processors threading.
But Mac machines is usually more expensive than Windows machines. What analogy are you trying to make if not price?
Ya nothing wrong with AMD chips at least nothing that isn't also wrong with Intel as well. In general you get more bang for your buck with AMD. But then I got no brand loyalty to any company I buy what ever happens to be in my price range/performance at the time I'm ready to buy parts. If either company has a chip in my price range and they have pretty much the same performance I buy what ever is cheaper since your not going to see any difference outside of a few arbitrary benchmarks.
Since Intel is the overpriced shit, it would actually be the contrary. Buying AMD would be like buying Windows over Mac.
Macs serve a great purpose as well as windows based comps. If amd was not around, the prices for intel products would still be ridiculous. When components get down to a one trick pony like Apple they charge you what they want regardless of market health. Intel and amd can't as one would loose market share. Regardless amd makes a great product. While it might not be a gamerz first choice it is always a great backup if not first choice.
wasn't talking about price. Was talking about the fact that Windows > Mac. Thus, my analogy was that Intel > AMD.
Well if you think about how good Intel is, compared to how much money they spend, AMD does a much better job at designing processors. Intel throws billions and billions of dollars at a problem until it works, and doesn't test their products properly and has a lot more problems than AMD. AMD doesn't have that luxury because AMD is much much smaller than Intel. For all the money thrown at their processors, Intel's CPUs really aren't that far ahead of AMD right now. And AMD does a great job too, just cause they are behind now doesn't mean AMD sucks. AMD back in the K8 days absolutely destroyed Intel in performance. It was something like an Intel at 3GHz had the same performance as an AMD at 1.8GHz. It was laughable how bad Intel processors were. but the generation before that, Intel was better. And the generation before that AMD was better, and the generation before that Intel was better. The only reason Intel has stayed ahead of AMD for a couple generations this time around is because AMD's big new Bulldozer architecture was completely scrapped 2 generations ago. It was something entirely different originally, and was completely scrapped because the market didn't adopt parallelism at all like it was supposed to, and AMD's architecture was designed exclusively for parallel performance to the exclusion of single thread performance. When only 3% of applications adopted a parallel way of running, AMD decided it was better to scrap millions of dollars in research and start over instead of spending more more on a CPU that would perform like shit. And if Intel is so amazing, why has AMD invented many of the currently used CPU technologies that Intel had to adopt after a generation of being behind? (pipeline design, interconnect design, some of the cache design, memory controller design, instruction sets) Which is absolutely pitiful that Intel has to use other people's tech when Intel throws such massive amount of money at R&D. So Intel is not better than AMD in the grand scheme of things. From most standpoints, Intel is much worse than AMD (cost, power draw, heat generated, efficiency of the company, QC). It is just that Intel holds the desktop area performance crown for the time being. And if you look in the server area, AMD has had the performance crown 95% of the time ever since the release of their first Opteron processor. And in the mobile area, Intel currently has the worst performance of all companies and highest power usage. AMD is a little bit better than Intel in power usage and performance. But ARM is the true champion of the mobile area. And if you want to bring other aspects of the companies into consideration, Intel has had the worst graphics chipsets forever and ever. AMD had much better graphics even before AMD bought ATI. The only place Intel is truly king of the market is in its network chipsets. No one makes better networking chipsets than Intel. Oh, and they also make good solid state drives, but Intel isnt always the all out best in SSD category either. Marvell does very well (Crucial C300 and M4 drives), and Sandforce has great performance too, although only in some situations. All the companies kind of trade off in the SSD area. Except JMicron, they always sucked.
Aso, if AMD sucks so much why did Cray use the AMD Opterons in what was the worlds fastest supercomputer for a long time? It was recently surpassed by a Chinese supercomputer using Intel and Nvidia chips, however there is a brand new supercomputer in the works, again with AMD chips, that will be the next new fastest supercomputer. And it will be so by a margin of almost 5x that is the currently fastest Intel based supercomputer. this new computer will be capable of 50,000,000,000,000 floating-point operations per second (50 quadrillion FLOPS) http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/supercomputers/229700091
I sense this conversation has gone to the equivalent of "Which is better - pie or cake?" Though since you brought up network chips; What effect does an integrated vs non-integrated network card have on a computer's performance, particularly when gaming?