PDA

View Full Version : intel vs. amd



DOS-Master
April 23rd, 2006, 01:13 PM
which is better?

DOS-Master
April 23rd, 2006, 01:16 PM
I always thought that hey were even but does any1 else think different?

carlsson
April 23rd, 2006, 01:22 PM
Vintage wise or modern? To my knowledge, AMD to most part was a license or clone manufacturer of 486 (and 386 ?) chips, which ended with the Pentium generation when they became competitors, first on the same CPU interface and more recently forced to develop their own. In the old days, I think AMD and other companies extended the aftermarket by putting out old chips at higher speeds, an alternative to larger upgrade.

AMD had some 29000 series RISC chips too, and probably more integrated chips that I don't know about, but taking those in consideration makes it difficult to compare the two companies' products.

CP/M User
April 23rd, 2006, 02:18 PM
DOS-Master wrote:

> I always thought that hey were even but does any1
> else think different?

Nowdays the AMD processors are quite good with their Intel
counterparts, however I believe when they first came out with
their 486 processors they were quite upto the Intel 486s. I
was told it was here where Intel dropped the numbers & named
their processors Pentium - cause you couldn't Copyright a
number - in a sense it was because of AMD - cause they called
their processors 486s!

AMD are generally cheaper & if their anything like their Intel
counterpart - I reckon it's worth a try.

But who knows, a processor is a processor - if somebody wanted
a 486 processor which was slightly different, then I'd suggest
AMD! Does it make it better or worse that something is
different?

Terry Yager
April 23rd, 2006, 03:27 PM
In the 'ol' (486) dayz', AMD chips were considered more compatible than Cyrix chips, which suffered from the occaisional hiccup. AMD actually licenced the design from Intel, but rumour hath it that Intel didn't send 'em the latest versions of the masks, so they weren't 100% identical to the Intel version.

--T

alexkerhead
April 23rd, 2006, 06:05 PM
Each brand has their good traits. That is as far as it goes.

CP/M User
April 23rd, 2006, 11:27 PM
Terry Yager wrote:

> In the 'ol' (486) dayz', AMD chips were considered
> more compatible than Cyrix chips, which suffered from
> the occaisional hiccup.

I remember those Cyrix chips - it depends on what you want to
use it for. Perhaps though you could write stuff that's
unbeliabely impossible on an Intel/AMD processor & still get
good results. In other words don't hiccups occur for a reason.
Maybe though nobody made a decent OS for those Cyrix
processors due to their pessimistic attitude!

It would have been just like the good ol' days IBM compatable
based 8086/8088 & the non-IBM compatable based 8086/88
computers! :-)

> AMD actually licenced the design from Intel, but
> rumour hath it that Intel didn't send 'em the latest
> versions of the masks, so they weren't 100% identical
> to the Intel version.

Come to think of it, was it Cyrix or AMD which made Intel drop
the number based (e.g. 486) processor names. Perhaps it was
both & a combination of Copyright stating you can't copyright
a number!

CP/M User.

USSEnterprise
April 24th, 2006, 12:01 AM
As far as Modern CPU's go, the companies really started the competition when AMD came out with the Athlon 64. IIRC, Intel didn't have EM64T for a while after that. Most people recommend AMD over Intel for gaming, video processing, etc. AMD processor, even though the clock speeds are lower than Intel's, their FSB speed is usually a great deal higher

alexkerhead
April 24th, 2006, 08:11 AM
I thought people used intels for video processing. I know I do..lol

sfcspanky
April 24th, 2006, 11:53 AM
Current Intel processors (except for the Core line of chips) suffer from the horribly inefficient Netburst architecture.

This is why the AMD processors are generally regarded to be better than Intel processors.

Granted, the Pentium D 805 is a great bargain if you want a cheap dual core chip...

DOS-Master
April 24th, 2006, 11:59 AM
intel is way better

Vlad
April 24th, 2006, 12:00 PM
I like AMD....

EvanK
April 24th, 2006, 12:00 PM
"General discussion" means "general discussion ABOUT vintage computers"... this thread belongs in the off-topic section.

Erik & moderators: honest, I'm not trying to be difficult. But this is such an obvious misplacement of a post -- or worse, a troll.

Vlad
April 24th, 2006, 12:02 PM
There. Everyone Happy?

-VK

sfcspanky
April 24th, 2006, 12:04 PM
OK. Run some benchmarks between a P4 3.2, Athlon 64 3200+, and Athlon XP 3200+.

That p4 will come out at the bottom, FYI. This is also assuming NOTHING's been overclocked for the benchmark.

Erik
April 24th, 2006, 12:47 PM
"General discussion" means "general discussion ABOUT vintage computers"... this thread belongs in the off-topic section.

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. I was asleep at the wheel on this one! :D

DOS-Master
April 24th, 2006, 01:15 PM
"General discussion" means "general discussion ABOUT vintage computers"... this thread belongs in the off-topic section.

Erik & moderators: honest, I'm not trying to be difficult. But this is such an obvious misplacement of a post -- or worse, a troll.

dude you assume the worst in everything

alexkerhead
April 24th, 2006, 01:43 PM
OK. Run some benchmarks between a P4 3.2, Athlon 64 3200+, and Athlon XP 3200+.

That p4 will come out at the bottom, FYI. This is also assuming NOTHING's been overclocked for the benchmark.
Media and multitasking, intel would win, gaming the amd 64 would win, and the xp would lose to both the 64 and P4 at almost everything.
I know, I have owned all of those systems, of which I kept the P4 for multitasking and such.

alexkerhead
April 24th, 2006, 01:46 PM
exactly since were not on topic why do you care? this is OFF TOPIC so technically we're off the topic of vintage computers
This thread wasn't here when he posted that. :stupid:

CP/M User
April 24th, 2006, 02:16 PM
alexkerhead wrote:

> Media and multitasking, intel would win, gaming the
> amd 64 would win, and the xp would lose to both the
> 64 and P4 at almost everything.

> I know, I have owned all of those systems, of which I
> kept the P4 for multitasking and such.

Nope, I'd scrap all that & simply use one of those console
thingy's for Gaming - it's the only way!

If you insist on a computer, then it has to be DOS or CP/M for
games - there's just no way you can possibly run a game on one
of those GUI thingy's - eventually it kills the machine, use
DOS (or CP/M). Everything else is merely bells & whistles.

CP/M User.

CP/M User
April 24th, 2006, 02:18 PM
alexkerhead wrote:

> This thread wasn't here when he posted that.

Nope! It was in the other General Discussion - for Vintage
Computers! I did try to keep it clean.

CP/M User.

carlsson
April 24th, 2006, 03:38 PM
A few of us tried to focus on the vintage part of AMD and Intel, before someone stepped in telling about the differences of today. Oh well.

Terry Yager
April 24th, 2006, 03:39 PM
alexkerhead wrote:

> Media and multitasking, intel would win, gaming the
> amd 64 would win, and the xp would lose to both the
> 64 and P4 at almost everything.

> I know, I have owned all of those systems, of which I
> kept the P4 for multitasking and such.

Nope, I'd scrap all that & simply use one of those console
thingy's for Gaming - it's the only way!

If you insist on a computer, then it has to be DOS or CP/M for
games - there's just no way you can possibly run a game on one
of those GUI thingy's - eventually it kills the machine, use
DOS (or CP/M). Everything else is merely bells & whistles.

CP/M User.

<chanting><waving pistol around>...CLI, Si...GUI, No! CLI, Si...GUI, No!...

--T

CP/M User
April 24th, 2006, 09:53 PM
Is this something of a joke now?

CP/M User.

Terry Yager
April 25th, 2006, 02:16 AM
No, I'm serious. I was hoping that between the two of us, we might be able to get some kinda counter-revolution going.

--T

CP/M User
April 25th, 2006, 02:59 AM
Terry Yager wrote:

> No, I'm serious. I was hoping that between the two of
> us, we might be able to get some kinda counter-
> revolution going.

World domination eh?!?

CP/M User.

Terry Yager
April 25th, 2006, 03:14 AM
Not total domination, just to push the pointy-clickey folks aside enough to make room for some real computin' on an equal level, more-or-less. I mean, when's the last time you saw a new 'killer app' for DOS come out? We need to band together and make ourselves heard. Let 'em know we're tired of being pushed aside and ignored! We're mad as hell and we ain't go-...<falling off from soap-box>...ugh...

--T

CP/M User
April 25th, 2006, 04:11 AM
Terry Yager wrote:

> Not total domination, just to push the pointy-clickey
> folks aside enough to make room for some real
> computin' on an equal level, more-or-less. I mean,
> when's the last time you saw a new 'killer app' for
> DOS come out? We need to band together and make
> ourselves heard. Let 'em know we're tired of being
> pushed aside and ignored! We're mad as hell and we
> ain't go-...<falling off from soap-box>...ugh...

Too right, unless you want to revive GEM! Smash some
Windows! :-)

Na - if the community were still using DOS - we certainally
wouldn't be using these 2 Ghz+ machines!

If assembly was the primary language found in schools & used
by Computer Programmers, we'd certainally wouldn't need a
computer with 1Gb Memory - or better still think of the
possibilites of giving DOS access to this memory & video &
write some Kick butt games. It's certainally possible.

CP/M User.

Terry Yager
April 25th, 2006, 04:15 AM
Yes, I'm certain that 3D under DOS on a multi-GHz machine is doable.

--T

CP/M User
April 25th, 2006, 04:27 AM
Terry Yager wrote:

> Yes, I'm certain that 3D under DOS on a multi-GHz
> machine is doable.

Yeah well, not sure how true 3D you can get. Early 2002 I
ported a program - using Turbo Pascal 3 which appears to be
3D. In the Doom sense I guess it's true to. This was a virtual
Landscape featurning Oceans, Islands, Mountains & Lakes, all
done in 64k for CP/M-86 V1.1! Even by CP/M's standards that
program blows away what you can do in CP/M!

CP/M User.

Terry Yager
April 25th, 2006, 06:04 AM
Yeah, I realize that there's you and J. Elliot, and a few others who are still cranking-out some neat stuff for CP/M, that's why I specifically mentioned DOS (which is not necessarily my weapon-of-choice).

--T

carlsson
April 25th, 2006, 06:47 AM
Hm-okay, so now this whole thread has travelled from General Discussions, via General Off-Topic into Humor, and suddenly a comparison of AMD and Intel is a humorous thing to do? :-?

sfcspanky
April 25th, 2006, 07:01 AM
Yeah... AMD vs Intel is funny.

I don't get the joke, but it sounds good...

mbbrutman
April 25th, 2006, 07:05 AM
Carlsson,

We're having a little churn in moderator land ... Mostly trying to figure out the policy on what is on topic, off topic, and just needs to be deleted. Please ignore the hiccups while we straighten policy out.

Terry moved it here to Humor. I'm going to move it back to General off-topic, and hopefully it will stay there for a while. :-)

alexkerhead
April 25th, 2006, 07:19 AM
Cyrix for the Win!

Erik
April 25th, 2006, 07:24 AM
Terry moved it here to Humor. I'm going to move it back to General off-topic, and hopefully it will stay there for a while. :-)

I thought moving it to humor was the joke??!! :rolleyes:

Terry Yager
April 25th, 2006, 07:50 AM
I thought moving it to humor was the joke??!! :rolleyes:

Well, I'm glad somebody got it...

--T

Terry Yager
April 25th, 2006, 07:56 AM
Actually, I couldn't find a specific forum for discussion of 'Religious Issues', (Ford vs Chevy, Mac vs PeeCee, etc.) so I thought 'Humour' was close enough.

--T

Terry Yager
April 25th, 2006, 08:09 AM
Carlsson,

Terry moved it here to Humor. I'm going to move it back to General off-topic, and hopefully it will stay there for a while. :-)


Don't mind me, I just had a minor 'Psychotic Episode' last night. Yeah, that's it...blame it on mental illness...The voice of 'Rumor Control' took possesion of me...yeah...ok...daDebil made me do it...


--T

CP/M User
April 29th, 2006, 05:26 AM
Terry Yager wrote:

> Yeah, I realize that there's you and J. Elliot, and a
> few others who are still cranking-out some neat stuff
> for CP/M, that's why I specifically mentioned DOS
> (which is not necessarily my weapon-of-choice).

Oh well good, cause here's your real enermy:


but I was hoping more about pixelated smut than CPM ;D

They can't even get the name right!

Yeah, poor DOS needs a boot in to get back at GUI. It's good
to see some once DOS Shareware making into the Freeware arena
- but it's stuff done in the last 10 years, we need new fresh
programs, Web Browsers & new TSRs to handle new hardwares.
Aparantly USB Jump Drives have been on the list of work ins
for DOS - which sounds good - a Windows solution to USB was to
upgrade to 98 - not good. Now we could really do with improved
Security & Internet for programs like Arachne in DOS.

Some new games to whip Windows on the back be good too. Unlike
CP/M, DOS has the advantage of having heaps of Programming
Languages available - for nothing! The sad news is CP/M-86
could certainally do with a few more. One language I picked up
for DOS is an interesting BASIC like C like program called
Moonrock (which produces 8088 programs), works well under DOS
- though porting code to CP/M is real tricky - cause this
language takes your source & puts it into Assembly & is
assemblied using Arrow Assembler (another Free DOS Assembler)
- which relies heavily on INT 21h DOS Interrupt Calls to get
the stuff going (not easy to translate to CP/M - even though
INT 224 in CP/M caters for some of the DOS stuff).

CP/M User.