AMD vs Intel Processors

I know this has the potential to turn into a flame war, but I'm not here to simply ask which is better.

I'm interested in building a new computer and considering trying different processors.  I'm pretty much an Intel person, but thinking about AMD.  My main question though is relating to the operating frequency (GHz)

Right now, I have an Intel Pentium 4 that is 3.0 GHz.  Looking at a comparable AMD chip is, for example, only like 1.8 - 2.+ GHz.  Now to me, this seems like a step back.  Isn't the higher frequency (GHz) more desireable?  How could an AMD possibly be faster?

AMD processors (and Pentium M's too) get more done per clock cycle. There are a large number of reasons for this (flushing pipelines of different lengths, number of execution units, signal propagation delay, memory latency, etc).

In fact, Intel has decided this is the way to go. The Core architecture they're currently finalizing is going AMD's (and everyone else's) direction.

>>2
So more GHz doesn't really mean anything?  I'm one of those people who think that GHz is everything.  Help me get out of that mindset if that is not the case.

As a rule of thumb, AMD processors are "better" than Intel processors. The large exception to this rule is that Intel occasionally does bizarre things with their chips.

For example, the 2.4ghz 800mhz fsb processor and the 3.0ghz 1ghz fsb Northwood processors are the *same chip*. The reason for that is that it actually cost Intel less overall to manufacture twice as many of the better chip and break its legs to sell to the "average joe" customer at a lower price than it would have cost to set up an additional production facility to handle a lower quality chip. Hence, the 2.4ghz Northwood can be overclocked 25% on stock cooling for a massive performance increase, all for about $40 last I checked.

So if you find a good Intel,m go for it.

>>4
Mkay, but this is more of a GHz-related question.

Like how could a http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103529 (which is only 2.4GHz) be faster than say http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116006 (which is 3.6 GHz)  To me, this obviously means that it's faster, right?

I'm trying, 4chan.  I'm trying.

So more GHz doesn't really mean anything?

Well, they do, but not as much as most people think. They only mean something when you're dealing with the same type of processor. The moment you compare different types (eg: a Turion versus a Northwood), that goes out the window.

Actually, comparing modern processors is amazingly complicated. There are so many possible variables. The best we can really do are use benchmarks, and even those are far from perfect.

And then you start comparing external factors, like >>4 says.

If you want to get a feel for the myriad design choices that go into a CPU, read these two articles, both by the excellent Hannibal:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/p4andg4e.ars
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/amd-hammer-1.ars

Beware, there be details!

You see, as >>2 mentionned between the lines, Gigahertz are only measuring cycles per second, and not OPERATIONS per second. That last factor is influenced by many more factors, relative to the quality of the processor chip itself, and not its frequency or frontside bus.

Let's analyze the difference between the two top-notch processors at the moment :

-AMD Athlon 64 FX-60, Dual Core, 2.6GHz, 2000MHz FSB, 2MB L2 cache
-Intel Pentium EX 840, Dual Core, 3,2GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2MB L2 cache

This means the AMD processor goes through 2,6 billion cycles every second, while the Intel processor can go through 3,2 billion cycles per second.

However, if you look at the Frontside Bus speeds, AMD's Frontside Bus is much, much faster. This means the AMD processor can communicate faster with other components in your computer, like RAM.

Quick conclusion : they say AMD is for gaming and Intel for workstations, and it's true. While a workstation doesn't need constant communication with the memory, as with games, it does need to go through as much cycles per second as possible, to do more work. On the other side, AMD processors have faster communication with other components, which is useful in games, but less so in workstations, since once your work application is loaded, it's loaded. There are fewer data exchanges with the system memory when working than when gaming.

There are other factors, but quickly considered, this is the result. I believe there are other internal factors which makes AMD processors a much more powerful alternative, but I'm getting a little lost, so I'll let someone else continue, or I'll continue later.

AMD for gaming, Intel for workstations, I believe.... Don't go thinking that Intel made its cash on gamers!

>>8
I don't follow chips much, but do Intel chips generally come with more cache? It seems like that would do a lot to level out the FSB speed difference. Also, are AMD's still hot like the sun or have AMD and Intel worked out their thermal issues yet?

Newer intel chips do have more cache, and are now .65nm, meaning they have better heat dissipitation than previous Intel chips, but are still not on par in any way with AMD's older processors. When the new Conroe chips come out, I'll be interested to see what they will be like, but AMD also has socket AM-2 coming out soon. You can wait a few months for those techs, which you will know little about but may be significantly better, or you can go with what I recommend to prettymuch everyone which is to go with a socket 939 dual core opteron. 1mb cache per core, great over-clocking if you want it, great stock performance if you don't, rock solid either way, better quality memory controllers than the A64 X2's, etc. etc.. And don't be fooled by the old A64 vs. HT crap, AMD's dual core processors wipe the floor with anything Intel has, <b>no matter what you use the machine for</b>

Listen to 10. The 939 dual core opteron is one of those gold chips like the 2.4c northwood or the 1.2 P3-M or the K6 333 that *nobody* regrets buying.

I am an intel guy myself too or used to be. I just recently switched from an Intel processor to an AMD Athlon 64, and I can say I am more than pleased with this switch. The AMD processor packs great potential and did not cost much at all, either. The only second thought I have is that maybe I should of went for Opetron. But I am glad I didn't go with a new intel, I could of never gotten a motherboard I like more than this one with an intel, I am sure of it.