FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-22-2008, 10:05 PM
Neil Walker
 
Default AMD vs. Intel on Gentoo?

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

price/performance still favours AMD.



How on earth do you justify that statement? I am an AMD fan and have
been since the 486/133 (was a Cyrix fan before then) but I can certainly
tell you that the performance of the Intel Q6600 makes the AMD Phenom
7600 look decidedly pathetic and the Intel is cheaper - at least where
I shop. I have both so I am talking from practical experience. I have an
AMD Phenom 7500 sitting on the floor behind me which isn't even worth
sticking in a motherboard. Another Intel Q6600 arrives on Tuesday. I
really hope AMD get their lead back but they are struggling at the
moment.



Be lucky,

Neil


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 03-23-2008, 06:07 AM
Volker Armin Hemmann
 
Default AMD vs. Intel on Gentoo?

On Sonntag, 23. März 2008, Neil Walker wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > price/performance still favours AMD.
>
> How on earth do you justify that statement?


AMD Athlon64 X2 EE 6000+ 129€ (boxed)

Intel® Core 2 Duo E6850 234€
Intel® Core 2 Duo E4700 134€ (not boxed).

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 03-23-2008, 07:25 AM
Chris Walters
 
Default AMD vs. Intel on Gentoo?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Grant wrote:
| I had become an AMD guy, but I think I'm hearing that Intel is beating
| AMD in performance tests. Plus my AMD64 X2 desktop should be much
| faster than my Intel laptop but is actually slower. What do you guys
| think?
|
| - Grant

Well, as others have pointed out, the speed you experience, as an end consumer
has to do with every other component in your computer, in addition to the CPU.
For example, the bus speed of the mainboard, the chipset, the size, speed and
type of hard drives you have, and of course, the video hardware (including the
interfaces to the mainboard. Lest I forget, it also depends a lot on the
amount and speed of the RAM that you have in your system.

As for the performance tests, they are not generally a very good measure of how
well a processor will perform in the real world. AMD and Intel have been in
competition for the #1 spot since AMD was formed, and for a long time AMD was
ahead of Intel on a number of factors (performance and cost being two). Give
it some time, and you'll see a turn around, IMHO. I can't be certain, since I
haven't been keeping up with industry news, as I should, but I believe that AMD
has always had the better engineers.

Regards,
Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFH5hQGUx1jS/ORyCsRCkvpAKCLzX4d++WW+zW0tmeFkaD5OGzlFQCeI/Vq
wzMuNgCY1AekTiok5d/44V0=
=Xs2W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 03-23-2008, 11:17 AM
Neil Walker
 
Default AMD vs. Intel on Gentoo?

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
How on earth do you justify that statement?




AMD Athlon64 X2 EE 6000+ 129€ (boxed)

Intel® Core 2 Duo E6850 234€
Intel® Core 2 Duo E4700 134€ (not boxed).



There is no equivalence there in terms of actual processing power. The
best buy on the market for "bang per buck" is the Intel Q6600. Also,
whilst nominally a 2.4 GHz chip, it runs happily at 3.0 GHz with the
standard cooler - some examples even faster.


From Overclockers.co.uk:

Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 "Energy Efficient SLACR 95W Edition"
2.40GHz (1066FSB) - OEM
<http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-172-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=>


Quad Core Technology, 2.40GHz clock speed, 8MB L2 Cache, Intel
Speedstep Technology, EM64T 64-Bit Technology, Execute Disable Bit,
Energy Efficient Version, 1yr Warranty.


Average rating of 5.0
<http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-172-IN&tool=3&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=>
Intel 10+ in stock £123.99

(£145.69)




Be lucky,

Neil




--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 03-23-2008, 11:26 AM
"Mark Knecht"
 
Default AMD vs. Intel on Gentoo?

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> On Sonntag, 23. März 2008, Neil Walker wrote:
> > Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > price/performance still favours AMD.
> >
> > How on earth do you justify that statement?
>
>
> AMD Athlon64 X2 EE 6000+ 129€ (boxed)
>
> Intel(R) Core 2 Duo E6850 234€
> Intel(R) Core 2 Duo E4700 134€ (not boxed).
>
> --
> gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

I find Tom;s Hardware is a nice site to refer to:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 03-23-2008, 09:20 PM
James
 
Default AMD vs. Intel on Gentoo?

Chris Walters <cjw2004d <at> comcast.net> writes:


> As for the performance tests, they are not generally a very good measure of how
> well a processor will perform in the real world. AMD and Intel have been in
> competition for the #1 spot since AMD was formed, and for a long time AMD was
> ahead of Intel on a number of factors (performance and cost being two). Give
> it some time, and you'll see a turn around, IMHO. I can't be certain, since I
> haven't been keeping up with industry news, as I should, but I believe that AMD
> has always had the better engineers.


Well stated. Here's a tidbit where Intel is being sued by U of Wisconsin for
Patent infringement related to the core 2....


http://www.siliconvalley.com/latestheadlines/ci_8209087





James

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 03-24-2008, 01:55 PM
Enrico Weigelt
 
Default AMD vs. Intel on Gentoo?

Hi folks,

from an "typical" SME view (mostly workstation and fileservers)
I don't really see an performance difference worth thinking of
(as already stated, there're lot's of other bottlenecks, like
storage IO).

AMD tends to win this battle by price, but Intel tends to be a
bit more rubust: I'm still running a bunch of P3 boxes and never
get an CPU killed, but Athlon's ("plain", not notebook variants)
can be easily burned by improper cooling. But with an good cooling
(eg. NOT using cheap gel beared fans), I don't see major problems.

So for most cases I personally prefer AMD simply by costs.


BTW: I'd really interested in experience reports about completely
different architectures (eg. RISC based).

cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:09 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org