View Full Version : What is AMD doing that Intel isn't?

08-20-04, 09:54 PM
Why is it that the AMD XPs and especially 64s are outperforming Intel chips running a ghz+ faster than they are? Now back in the day it was all about mhz, the more you had the faster your proccesor was, and that was that. Now it seems AMD chips are faster than Intel, despite the much lower clockspeeds. What's the science behind this, how does it work? And why doesn't Intel just do whatever AMD is doing, copy it to their higher clockspeeds and end up with super-proccessors?

08-20-04, 09:57 PM
Its simple, Intel's chips have a much slower IPC therefore they do less work per clock cycle than AMD chips. Thats why a 2.2Ghz a64 proc runs at the equivalent of a 3.2Ghz P4 proc & are rated as such. Its all marketing. Intel is starting to rise up though and is finally getting away from the MHz myth.

08-20-04, 10:03 PM
As JuiceZ said its not all about mhz!!! Its about IPC...on which the 20+ stage pipeline in P4 erm pre-prescott and now 35+ stage in Prescott (the length is neccessary for Intel's quest for pure mhz crown) suffers too much of a penalty if something misses or goes wrong somewhere along that pipeline...which means u have to restart again and go thru that pipeline again...ie if something borks at the 30th stage...then u waste a lot of time because u have to do everything agan to the 30th stage and hope everything is fine this time round. K8s dun suffer as much penalty as its 15 stage I think pipeline. Furthermore K8's have on-die memory controller which also cuts a lot of cycles wasted waiting for data from the main memory thru outside northbridge chip running solwer and synchronized to an outside timer ;) i think...

08-20-04, 10:59 PM
you mean besides kicking hella ass? not too much... :)

08-21-04, 01:33 AM
Since the recent A64 price cut its almost funny now much AMD is kicking intels ass, and the worst part is apart from the mobile market intel really has nothing to fight back with. An A64 3000+ with a MSI k8t-FSR is actually cheaper then a P4 2.8 and any motherboard with an intel chipset. And then on the value side of things the Celeron is just a joke and the P4's old and tired competitor the AthlonXP is walking all over it.

08-21-04, 05:08 AM
Also, Intel was counting on being able to increase clock frequency massively. But as it turns out it is becoming much more difficult to increase clock frequency because of heat/electrical leakage. So instead of having 5+ ghz P4s today Intel is having trouble breaking 4ghz.

It was poor judgment on Intel’s part to focus on mhz and not overall speed. The bad thing is its going to be a couple years before they recover from their mistake. AMD is going to PWN intel next year.

08-21-04, 06:52 AM
Intel just recently did a hefty price cut so they aren't hurting quite as bad as they were before. Still, AMD clearly has the upper hand ATM.

08-21-04, 07:25 AM
I remember ppl on these boards saying, "this time next year we'll have 5ghz P4's!!", I always said it would never happen. :)

There are soo many reasons why long pipelines are bad, and higher clock speeds are bad. The faster the core runs, and the bigger the difference in speed between core and ram, then the more dependant you become on the cache to achieve good speed.

I just wish some of the big PC resellers would stock AMD. I find it almost monopolistic that Dell wont ship AMD equiped pc's. IMO, they should be sued for anti-competitive practises.

08-21-04, 08:10 AM
And it all started with the Pentium 4. Clock for clock, the pentium 3's were faster that the pentium 4's. I don't know if that hold's true any more, since I long ago wrote off intel. I need to stay with one brand now because I need to be able to assimilate my part's.

08-21-04, 08:13 AM
I find it almost monopolistic that Dell wont ship AMD equiped pc's. IMO, they should be sued for anti-competitive practises.
They get a sweet deal from Intel apparently and they (Dell) are doing well right now. While I would also like to see them sell some AMD powered machines at the same time what they're doing is working very well for them right now so there really isn't any big reason for them to change.

08-22-04, 11:28 AM
AMD's processor I believe have 9 Arithemetic Units, while the Pentium 4's have only 6...
so they get the luxury of more work done per clock cycle.

Intel's processor's have 20 Stage Pipelines, for their Wilamette/Northwood and 31 Stages for their Prescott. Longer then what AMD has in their processors, this help them increase clock speed faster, but it is also costly when their is a brach mis prediction as the pipe has to be flushed out an refilled, forunately branch prediction in Prescott is quite good.

AMD maybe winning the performance crown that maybe true, but Intel still holds the profit crown which is by far more important to Intel as a business.

08-22-04, 12:55 PM
AMD needs to capitalize as much as possible w/regard to the current situation. I think the price cuts they did last month are a step in the right direction. The 3500+ is a nice deal IMO.