Intel versus AMD, who are you betting on?
Aug 14 '01 (Updated Nov 16 '02)
The Bottom Line With good points from all sides, the decision depends on the application.
When working on a computer, all of what you are doing is processed by the CPU (central processing unit), the brain of the computer if you will. Like brains, computers aren’t all of equal power. Some are the equivalent to a rat brain, and some to Einstein. The trick is to find that sweat spot between value and performance, that’s when you’ve found the perfect processor for you! But, before you decide how much power you want to jam in that little chip, you’re going to want to decide on the type. This my friend, is where we enter a feud that has lasted longer than life itself (well, at least for people that are younger than it!), the Intel versus AMD feud.
From the early 80's when the company Intel was founded, (by the way, Intel isn’t derived from the word intelligence, it’s a mix between the words integrated electronics) Intel has taken off and dominated the home computer market. It also took over the laptop processor market, and just recently with the introduction of there first 64 bit processor, very might well take over the server and workstation market (previously occupied by Sun’s UltraSparc and Compaq’s Alpha). But, all along the road to fame Intel has run into some competition. In the beginning, from IBM (the creator of the desktop), then Cyrix (which is almost totally wiped out), and most recently AMD. You might think that AMD will have the same fate as the rest, but the fact is that AMD is putting up a huge fight and is actually taking away Intel’s market share in almost all markets.
Now that I’ve given Intel’s background, AMD deserves some of the spotlight. AMD (Advanced Micro Devices) doesn’t have such a long and prestigious history, but has done some pretty amazing things. No one knew about AMD before they introduced there first hit product, the AMD K6-2. It was designed to compete against the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and earlier Pentium III’s. They then introduced the AMD K6-III, which wasn’t as popular and didn’t stick around long due to the introduction of the AMD Athlon and Duron processors. The Duron was designed to compete against the Celeron, it was designed as a consumer budget model. The Athlon was more advanced and was designed to compete against the Pentium III. They then redid the Athlon and came out with a Socket model (uses a small chip with pins on the bottom compared to the slot which was about the size of a graphing calculator and went in thin side down). This was designed to compete against the later Pentium III models and the Pentium 4.
Now that you know some background information on the two companies, it’s time to start the debate between the Intel processors and the AMD processors. The first fight is between the two consumer budget chips from both models, the Celeron from Intel and the Duron from AMD. The next fight is the desktop round between the Pentium III and Pentium 4 from Intel and the Athlon from AMD. The next is the high-end workstation and server markets, in which the Itanium from Intel and the SMP version of the Athlon from AMD. The last battle is for the notebook market. This includes the Pentium III with SpeedStep technology from Intel and the Athlon 4 from AMD.
Round One, Consumer Budget Processors
This fight is between the two entry level processors, Intel’s Celeron and AMD’s Duron. Both of the processors don’t perform as well as there desktop counterparts, especially the Celeron. The Celeron is about 200 megahertz slower than the Duron or AMD equivalent, although the technical clock speed may be the same. In this one, the Duron wins hands down. It’s cheaper, faster, and fits in the Athlon socket, so if you built a system designed for a Duron you could easily upgrade to an Athlon, no converters or change of motherboard required!
Round Two, Desktop Processors
This is really where Intel and AMD fight because here energy is not an issue and the speeds aren’t limited by cooling or space. The Intel Pentium III processor goes from 400 megahertz to 1 gigahertz. It performs similar to the Pentium 4, but is cheaper (although not as cheap as the high end Athlon’s). The Athlon is meant to compete on all fronts. It goes from 550 megahertz to 1.67 gigahertz (and climbing). It usually performs at about the same speed as an Intel processor 400 megahertz ahead (for example, a 1.4 GH-z Athlon will beet out a 1.8 GH-z Pentium 4). They are also really cheap, with the 1.4 GH-z processor going for $100. The last processor is the Pentium 4. This is aimed at the higher level consumer, but when sold with a desktop isn’t much more expensive. Overall, I’d say go for the Athlon because it’s cheaper, faster, and doesn’t use Rambus RAM (the P4 only uses Rambus RAM, the Athlon can use SDRAM or DDR RAM) unless you’re a gamer, then I’d say go for an Intel Pentium 4 based system at 1.5 GH-z.
Round Three, High-end Workstations and Servers
For a market where neither Intel nor AMD has ever been too successful, there is an awful lot of competition. AMD competes with it’s SMP based systems (Symmetrical Multi-Processor, more than one processor) and Intel competes with its 64 bit Itanium processor. The first half of the fight is centered around high-end workstations. These are usually involved with CAD and CAM programs which just suck up megahertz like there’s no tomorrow. On this front, the SMP Athlon systems win out. They are much cheaper than the Itanium chips and don’t need a 64 bit operating system to perform to their full potential. The server market is different. It doesn’t really have much activity directly onto it, but much serve up a lot of information to a large number of clients. This fight is won by the Intel Itanium. People are willing to pay more for speed when dealing with web servers, and the operating system really isn’t that important because only the clients are going to interact with it and they won’t need to navigate around the OS and there aren’t any compatibility issues like there are with programs like AutoCAD.
Round Four, Mobile Processors
In one corner, weighing in at up to 1.1 Gigahertz, the Intel Pentium III with SpeedStep. In the other corner, the latest mobile processor from AMD, weighing in at up to 1 Gigahertz, the AMD Athlon 4! Alright, first things first, what sets these chips apart from there desktop counterparts. The SpeedStep technology that Intel talks about in the naming scheme is why it’s a mobile processor. SpeedStep enabled chips are designed to save power by running at one speed when plugged in and another when relying on battery power. For example, in my Dell Inspiron 8000 with an Intel Pentium III 900 MH-z SpeedStep enabled processor runs at 900 megahertz when plugged in and 750 when relying on batter power. This can be disabled though, at the BIOS screen. The Athlon 4 (note that the 4 is just meant to compete with the Pentium 4, it’s basically the same as the normal Athlon) is just basically an energy saver. At the end of the match, I’d have to say that the AMD Athlon 4 processor would win because it doesn’t slow down the processor and is much cheaper (as are most AMD products).
All of this having been said, there are other choices out there. The main alternative is the Motorola PowerPC G4 or G3 that is in all Apple computers. I didn’t go into this here, because if you want a PowerPC system then you really only have two choices, iMac or G4 desktop. In the server/high-end workstation market there is the Alpha by Compaq (a 64 bit processor, although Compaq’s given up on this in favor of the Itanium) or the UltraSparc by Sun Microsystems. Also, in the notebook field there is the Transmeta Crusoe which consumes very little power. I just wanted to point this out before the Apple, Alpha, UltraSparc, and Transmeta fans start sending me hate mail!
Update (August 31, 2001)
Intel has been the first to reach 2.0 GHz with it's Intel Pentium 4 processor. AMD started the megahertz race, and was the fist to get to 1.0 GHz. But, now, since they have only gotten up to 1.4 GHz, they are dropping out of the race, they are going to stop naming the processors with the megahertz rating in them. They haven't publically released the naming scheme. I've gotta remind you, megahertz aren't totally acurate, and aren't the only factors. I'm still recommending AMD for desktops!
Update (October 12, 2001)
AMD has just released the new Athlons, with the name XP in them (hmmmm, I think someone is trying to suck up to XP users!). And, they are named names like the Athlon 1800 XP, which runs at 1.53 gigahertz, yet still beats all of the Pentium 3/4's! My recommendations all still stand, although it looks like AMD is showing signs of weakness!
Update (November 6, 2001)
The second "XP" chip, the Athlon 1900 XP (1.6 GHz, or something a little higher than that) has just been released. Intel hasn't released any new chips consumer chips (the 2.0 GHz Pentium 4 was the last) in a while, a sign of another in the near future, and prices are freefalling. They haven't gotten to the point where I'd highly reccommend them for a consumer system, but if this continues my opinion may change (c'mon AMD, you were doing real well, please don't stop!)...
Update (January 4, 2002)
"XP" number three has just been released, the AMD Athlon XP 2000. What? It doesn't run at 2 gigahertz? Nope, it's an XP! It actually runs as 70 megahertz more than the 1900, at 1.67 gigahertz. Since the chip has just been released it is extremely high priced, around $350. With the high-end Penium 4's falling to around $400, the choice is getting less important, but all of my reccommendations still stand. Well, I guess my prediction about Intel releasing another chip were wrong, as they haven't released one for months now. Happy New Year!
Update (January 7, 2002)
Wow, I guess my timing couldn't have been worse on that last update! Intel has released a new Pentium 4 that goes up to 2.2 Gigahertz (which AMD is still stuck down at 1.67 Gigahertz). Besides just the higher clock speed, the new Pentium 4 also sports a larger "Level 2 Cache" (I'm not sure what exactly it is, all I know that it is good!). Alright, so I bet you are wondering what I think of this. My answer is, well, it pains me to say it, *gulp* but I'm know recommending Pentium 4's for BUYING a PC. If you are building a PC then the price is going to be insanely high so you should still go with the Athlon's. Hopefully AMD will release a newer processor sometime soon. Hopefully my next update will be soon and we'll get some shocking information (oh, why the way, Steve Jobs just released the new iMac, www.apple.com, and I must say, it is ugly as sin!).
Update (April 30, 2002)
The new chips are here, the new chips are here! Intel has just released two new chips: the Pentium 4 2.4 GHz and the mobile 1.8 GHz P4. The 2.4 GHz is the highest yet and it looks like they're aiming for the 3GHz mark. The mobile processor is designed for laptops and is the fastest x86 chip out there for a laptop. AMD has released the 2100 XP which runs at 1.73 GHz, a far cry from the 2.4 of Intel. Apple has also just released the eMac--not i, e! It's for education and they've reverted back to a CRT monitor (something Steve Jobs didn't like, but they had to keep it under $1000). It's only for schools, but I think it's pretty cool anyway.
Update (November 16, 2002)
Intel has just released their 3GHz chip, and I must say, it's all over for AMD. They cannot keep up with Intel, and their marketshare is dropping. Not one major computer manufacterer offers a flagship PC with their chips, and I hate to say it, but Intel is just faster. Even while the clock speed isn't everything, AMD cannot keep saying that, because they have been outperformed over and over again. On the PowerPC side, Apple has released its fastest machine yet: a dual 1.25GHz system. It is fast, but not as fast as the x86 chips. In the next year or so, they will probably get a new chip. Still from Motorola, it's a toned-down version of the Power4 chip (I cannot seem to remember the exact name at the moment). There is also talk of them moving to the x86 architecture, although not very likely for any number of reasons. Oh, yeah, and the eMac was released to the public, so anybody can buy it. I guess an attempt to reclaim precious market share on the side of Apple.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
p2tpeoples
|
|
Location: -
Reviews written: 73
Trusted by: 9 members
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.