Changing Chips

Iv'e finally decided to upgrade my PC and given the current state of the market i should be in for a good deal


My current system is intel and has Redhat Linux 6.1 and Windows 98 on a dual boot system but im considering purchasing a PC with an AMD chip can i still have the dual boot system and Apache and all my other development tools on AMD architecture


I need some information about AMD architechture does it do the same as the intel chip


Mark

As far as I can tell, AMD works exactly like intel- everything compiled for I386 works perfectly on AMD- k62, k63, and Athlon.

About the only place I've had to even think about it was when I recompile the linux kernel and choose the type of chip to optimize for, even then the standard Redhat kernel is the same for both AMD and Intel, so I doubt the optimizations would break anything if you switched architectures.

I have linux boxes with PII, PIII, PIV, k6-2, and Athlon and have never noticed any software-related differences. The only difference I've noticed is that AMD is way cheaper and performs very, very well, especially when you compare costs.

My point- if you switch to AMD, you shouldn't have any issues at all.

When it comes down to MHZ for currency AMD looks the better option even though the hardware depriciation is swifter than intel


Mark

You do know if you change from intel to amd you have to change mother boards, right? And check your ram too...

Marky_Mark

Well it seems you get more bang for your buck with AMD. We are currently running a dual 1.8 ghz AMD Athlon, with 3 gigs of ram and 10 72gig 10,000 rpm drive without a problem. AMD or Intel there does not seem to be a huge difference between the two.

AlCapone im talking about the whole pc not just the chip


Yeah you do get more processing power for your money but i gonna go for a p4 to be on the safeside


Im used to working on a 166mmx do you think i will notice any difference


Mark

If you don't mind paying more, PIV is fine.

Don't shun AMD because you're worried about compatibility or performance, both of these are non-issues. I think you'd be hard pressed to find folks who had a problem with AMD and Intel incompatabilities.

AMD makes great products. Never had a lick of a problem. I REFUSE to pay for Intel's advertising which is one reason why I always use AMD.

iamtgo3, you mean overlocked 1.8 ghz or 1800+? Or did amd go over 1.8 ghz while I was sleeping? 3 gigs of ram is almost max can get on asus or msi.... And did you really mean 10 hdds, 720gigs total?

If yes, yes and yes, may I ask what in the world that box is doing? I think thats too many horse powers under the hood for usual server...

Iv'e been doing loads of reading about the two chips and on paper Intel looks the best having more transistors per chip and a more complex architecture, but in tests Athlon XP beats P4 on both performance and price but Intel claim that their new processor is aimed at software that hasn't been written yet and the P4 is aimed at tomorrows applications and sell this fact, but AMD claim that the processing power is available today and why should users have to wait until tomorrow


One thing i don't like about the AMD setup is their misleading model numbers, they don't tally up with their clock speeds and this can be misleading


Like the Athlon XP 1600 is not a 1600 GHZ processor in fact it has a clock speed of 1400 GHZ even though some claim the AMD chip is faster than it's Intel counterpart these are not good tactics


Mark

I think it's up to AMD to judge if their naming is good tactic. One of their problems is that a 1.2GHz XP performs on par with a much higher clocked Intel, but if customers see only GHz then it's gonna be harder to sell so these numbers make more sense. Of course, some enquiring customers might figure out what these numbers really are, but enquiring customers like that should soon realize that AMD performs better than Intel clock by clock.

Anyway, if you want the most bang for the buck, there is no doubt, AMD is a clear winner. Also remember that the current AMD architechture is more mature than the P4 architechture.

Incorrect. Intel has a less complex architecture, which is why AMD can perform more ops per cycle and why an XP/MP will blow away a P4 at equivelent clock speeds.

This also explains why the need to change the numbering system of CPUs. It also explains why AMD is lagging behind Intel as far as the actual speed the chips run at. In the end, tho, Intel is in a loosing race as both will have the same ceiling for speed under any given manufacturing process, but at the same speed an AMD chip will run faster. Eventually Intel will have to change it's architechture as well to compete. Building on top of legacy architechture allowed Intel to get the P4 out the door faster than AMD but that's the only race that P4 will beat an XP/MP at.



What BS. Even if this was true, why would I pay top $ today for a processor that doesn't give an advantage TODAY? I'd wait until the software WAS available at which time the price of that same P4 is more reasonable or I can buy a faster one for the same price.

Like I said before, the reason Intels are more expensive is the advertising, and not to do with any non-existent, vaporware advantage. But the advertising the consumer pays for gets the uneducated to pay the extra to buy it. People who have never heard of AMD, Athlon, XP etc won't buy a machine with one, they feel comfortable with an Intel Pentium because of the name recognition, not because they've educated themselves.

I had a friend who is convinced that the sole reason my computer outperforms his is that I'm running a 'tweaked' (his word, not mine. He believes so because of my experience) Windows ME and has nothing to do with the fact that I have an Athlon 1.2 and he has a PIII 800 "cuz everyone knows Pentiums are the best."

Now, notice he believes my experience has allowed me to hack Windows into some sort of speed demon but doesn't believe me when my experience tells him that he's better off spending the money saved in buying an Athlon over a Pentium on extra memory. This is strictly due to the advertising.

BTW, this 'friend' isn't speaking to me since I wouldn't share my knowledge by 'tweaking' his OS.

This is my opinion and i have the right to exercise it
Any form of information that is misleading for whatever reason begs the question ...why?


I know the reason is because some people do not understand clock speeds etc... and might chose an Intel chip over an AMD chip because the clock speed is greater, but in my view thats no reason to mislead






No, in fact this is what Intel does, it's all part of the intel stategy they sell tomorrows technology


And your quote about transistors, im only going on what ive seen in black and white, Intel has more transistors per chip over it's rival chip manufacturer these comparisons were on earlier chipsets than the XP or MP so im not quite sure about the latest chips


Motorola has developed a new technology that allows more transistors to be layered on a new type of silicon that should be interesting


Mark

Not to be a pain, but if you've already made up your mind, Marky_Mark, why did you post this thread?

I use both. When work buys machines for me, we buy Intel. When I build machines for myself, I get AMD, simply because they are at least as fast, and sometime faster than Intel, and much cheaper.

Wonk out all you want on transistor counts. I'd rather save a couple of hundred bucks with a solid, well-performing chip. You can't really go wrong with either, except that you save money and don't sacrifice performance with AMD.