Jump to content


Check out our Community Blogs

Register and join over 40,000 other developers!


Recent Status Updates

View All Updates

- - - - -

Intel or AMD


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#13 Guest_Onur_*

Guest_Onur_*
  • Guest

Posted 28 August 2007 - 01:17 AM

Yes they have do a contract for to use the Intel Processors into Macintosh Systems.
  • 0

#14 random guy

random guy

    CC Regular

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 11:04 AM

yup every current mac uses an intel processor. old school macs ran ppc processors.

basically now ppc processors are dead for anything other than the ps3.

i like intel so much more than amd, i am suprised their were tied in the poll until i voted. especially if you are putting it in a laptop. intel uses less power and produces less heat (this is important) while maintaining a speed that is often better than the best amd chips. so since it uses more power makes more heat and is still slower than intel chips i prefer intel.
  • 0

#15 ferret

ferret

    CC Newcomer

  • Just Joined
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 11:13 AM

AMD were better until Intel C2D came out. Only way for AMD to be the bigger brand is if it manages to produce an architecture that is better than C2D (I never mentioned C2Q if anyone is wondering because it uses C2D architrecture)
  • 0

#16 TcM

TcM

    CC Mentor

  • VIP Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7563 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 11:22 AM

I doubt they can make such a CPU, first they have to control the heat problem! Their CPU's are not able to control heat, thats the biggest problem.
  • 0

#17 Guest_Jordan_*

Guest_Jordan_*
  • Guest

Posted 22 November 2007 - 05:20 PM

Remember how much heat the old Cyrix processors put off? You could cook an egg on those things.

I didn't realize the PS3 uses PPC. Doesn't it have 7 processors in it?
  • 0

#18 John

John

    CC Mentor

  • Moderator
  • 4450 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 22 November 2007 - 06:39 PM

I've never used an AMD processor - always been satisfied with Intels performance.
  • 0

#19 TcM

TcM

    CC Mentor

  • VIP Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7563 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 02:02 AM

Remember how much heat the old Cyrix processors put off? You could cook an egg on those things.

I didn't realize the PS3 uses PPC. Don't they have 7 processors in it?


7 Processors on what?

I've never used an AMD processor - always been satisfied with Intels performance.


Me too.
  • 0

#20 G_Morgan

G_Morgan

    CC Devotee

  • Just Joined
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 442 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 06:31 AM

Remember how much heat the old Cyrix processors put off? You could cook an egg on those things.

I didn't realize the PS3 uses PPC. Don't they have 7 processors in it?


The PS3 isn't a PPC (no Altivec) though it is PPC inspired. The Cell processor has 1 PPE (which is the PPC with no Altivec) and 8 SPE's. Basically the SPE's are vector processors like you find in super computers. So only the one core is really a general purpose core. The SPE's are like SSE on steroids, this is why there is no Altivec on the Cell, Altivec is the PPC equivalent to SSE. I suppose the Cell is a PPC in the way C++ is C, i.e. it almost is.

Bit of a white elephant really, they originally intended that the PS3 wouldn't have a high end graphics card and that the SPE's could more than handle OGL (which they can). The problem is there isn't enough bandwidth between the processor and the frame buffer to get high speed graphics so they had to fall back to using a traditional GPU. Bit of an oversight and it's the reason the PS3 is so expensive and so difficult to develop for. If it had gone to the original plan then the PS3 would have actually been cheaper than the 360.

Also it is by no means the only machine that uses PPCish technology. The Wii and the 360 both use PPC, IBM have a monopoly in the game console market. The PPC also dominates the super computer and mainframe (these still make IBM billions) markets and is used increasingly in embedded computers. Frankly it beats the ** out of the x86 which makes most OS programmers want to run around with a machete hunting Intel engineers. Seemingly everything involved with x86 was a mistake, hack or drug induced nightmare and the solutions to all this are generally worse.

Right now Intel chips are better than the AMD ones for the first time in nearly a decade. The AMD chips don't have anything near the heat problems that the Pentium 4 had. We can be certain that AMD can turn it around, it's just that they are targeting the server market right now. It's also worth noting that the 64 bit extensions AMD made are the only sane bit in the entire x86 processor. They killed off a lot of cruft when they designed that arch, I think everyone breathed a sigh of relief when we realised that segmentation, a technology that fills about 4 chapters in the Intel developers manual and is never used outside of OS/2, was killed off by AMD.
  • 1

#21 gszauer

gszauer

    CC Addict

  • Just Joined
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 26 November 2007 - 01:48 PM

Intel, AMD, Something else...
As long as my data gets processed at 3.0GHz minimum, and under 100 Degrees Farenheight i couldn't care less.
As for the moment, "Intel Inside".
  • 0

It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a tought without accepting it

If my post was helpful, please help me build some rep Posted Image

#22 TcM

TcM

    CC Mentor

  • VIP Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7563 posts

Posted 26 November 2007 - 03:53 PM

Nah, you actually don't care about your PC, right? Well in my opinion all Pc users should care about their PC's and if possible before they buy it, they should know what they are buying!
  • 0

#23 gszauer

gszauer

    CC Addict

  • Just Joined
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 26 November 2007 - 04:02 PM

I did not say i didn't care about my PC, i just dont care for processor type. As far as performance if the above two are met i'm good.
I have a minimum benchmark, and whatever meets (or exceeds) it is good for me.
The brand of a specific component, now that is something that's not too important to me (In most cases)
  • 0

It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a tought without accepting it

If my post was helpful, please help me build some rep Posted Image

#24 G_Morgan

G_Morgan

    CC Devotee

  • Just Joined
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 442 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 12:01 AM

I did not say i didn't care about my PC, i just dont care for processor type. As far as performance if the above two are met i'm good.
I have a minimum benchmark, and whatever meets (or exceeds) it is good for me.
The brand of a specific component, now that is something that's not too important to me (In most cases)


You of course realise that:
1. Clock speed isn't a measure of power. It's a measure of maximum instructions per second given that you restrict yourself to an unrealistic subset of ASM commands that take less than 1 clock cycle each. In reality most instructions take many clock cycles, many in double figures. The length of the execution path and the speed of individual instructions are far more interesting than clock speed.
2. Clock speed isn't even a good comparative measure. For years AMD have worked on improving the instruction set, making it run in fewer cycles. AMD gained comparatively more power per clock cycle than Intel. Now the situation is reversed and Intel processors are superior.

It's right not to care about brand name. If you did then you would have bought Intel for the 5/6 years preceding 2006 and would have ended up with inferior technology. However, at least judge things on a meaningful metric. Clock speed is irrelevant and always has been. It was only a useful measure when Intel were the only player on the market (for technical reasons, the power of Intel chips historically scaled with clock speed. Other processors didn't and not even Intel CPUs do now).
  • 0




Recommended from our users: Dynamic Network Monitoring from WhatsUp Gold from IPSwitch. Free Download