AMD vs Intel [Was:Re:OT: PIII vs Celeron]

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 12:16:25PM -0400, Ansar Mohammed wrote:
> The AMD multi core architecture is more suited to memory intensive
> applications because of known bottlenecks in Intel's memory controller.

I would say that is wrong.

AMD's architecture is more suitable for multi socket systems than
intel's.  Each socket in an AMD includes a memory controller.  Intel has
only one memory controller for the whole system for now.

A quad core single socket AMD versus a quad core single socket intel
doesn't make any real difference in most cases.  Performance wise the
intel is quite a bit faster, even though for very highly memory
intensive work, the AMD might have an advantage, as long as it involves
lots of data moving between cores, rather than to and from system
memory.

There is the difference that the AMD quad core has full core to core
communication through the crossbar, while the intel has communications
within each pair of cores, but communication between the pairs goes over
the FSB or at least has to go through some cache.

I really hope AMD can mange to soon have a CPU that outperforms the Core
2 architecture.  It's sad to see them being trampled by intel again
after the great work on the K7 and K8 architectures, while intel fooled
around with their stupid netburst.  Given intel is coming with their new
interconnect sometime soon, AMD better do something before intel takes
away their last few advantages.

-- 
Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists