And AMD tested it on an...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| NoDough Jul 03, 2008 6:24 AM EDT |
Intel CPU. ??? Why would you perform your benchmarks on your competitor's hardware? Still, I am thrilled to see AMD/ATI carrying through with their commitment to FOSS and my next GPU will be an ATI. |
| gus3 Jul 03, 2008 7:38 AM EDT |
If they used all AMD/ATI chips, they would be accused of optimizing for only their own hardware. A few years ago, someone (a chip maker, I think) got caught detecting benchmark behavior and enabling special, optimized data paths for it. Their benchmark numbers were good, but the real-world performance was less-than-satisfactory. |
| cabreh Jul 03, 2008 8:20 AM EDT |
If they didn't want to be bothered to mess with their own CPU's to improve their graphics chip performance, yet wanted the best performance figures, they would have to use an Intel CPU. They are just faster than AMD CPUs and so would give the highest benchmark figures. Now, having said that I almost exclusively use AMD CPUs on my personal systems. They just seem more reliable and have fewer problems when running a 64 bit Linux system. |
| bigg Jul 03, 2008 8:27 AM EDT |
> They are just faster than AMD CPUs Is that on a per-dollar basis? |
| cabreh Jul 03, 2008 8:41 AM EDT |
@bigg No, all testing I've seen shows that on a comparable CPU clocking the Intels are faster. That's ignoring the AMD "rated" speed. Simply the clock speed being comparable. I would say on a per-dollar basis the AMD is the best bang for the buck. I initially chose them on my systems for that reason. Then I just found them a better fit compared to the Intels I generally have at the office. |
| bigg Jul 03, 2008 8:53 AM EDT |
I agree with that. My experience is definitely that an Intel processor with the same Ghz is a lot faster. Yet AMD is almost always cheaper. My current CPU is Athlon X2 5200. mwave.com lists that at $77, and a 2.6 Ghz Core 2 Duo at $138. Quite a difference for me. |
| jdixon Jul 03, 2008 9:47 AM EDT |
I'll also add that I prefer AMD processors for the price. Intel passed up AMD with their Core 2 series speedwise, but AMD's are almost always the best performance for the money. My current system is a fairly slow (by modern standards) Sempron 3400. I simply didn't need anything faster. |
| rijelkentaurus Jul 03, 2008 11:51 AM EDT |
@jdixon, it's a big advantage running Linux for us around here, two tin cans, a couple of strings and some spit to hold it all together runs the Penguin quite nicely...a Sempron 3400 is absolutely screaming. |
| hkwint Jul 03, 2008 12:51 PM EDT |
Doesn't the new Core 2 architecture provide more performance per dollar? Like you have guessed, I never consciously bought _anything_ Intel because they built factories in occupied Palestine regions (the Palestines were deportated if I understood correctly), the Pentium III serial no issue that left personalized fingerprints everywhere, because they invented stinking DRM and abuse their market position. So I boycot Intel as much as possible; I don't want to finance nor be a part in such activities. From a more neutral point of view they make very good products. I understood Core 2 was - looking at the price of the CPU only - more performance per Watt. However, this result perishes if you also count the price of the mobo, which for the Intel processors were / are more expensive. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!