[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: CPU Question preference (AMD, Intel)
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: RE: CPU Question preference (AMD, Intel)
- From: "Wingate, Steve [IBM NON J&J]" <SWingate_(_at_)_NEUUS_(_dot_)_JNJ_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:15:38 -0400
I try to avoid these AMD/Intel discussions because they always turn into
pissing contests and personal preference. Alot of people don't like Intel
simply because of their ties to Microshaft.
Athlon's have a cache running at 1/2 the cpu speed. However, for 700+ cpu's
AMD slowed the L2 cache to 2/5 the cpu speed. For the 1Ghz they slowed it
even more to 1/3 the cpu speed. Intel keeps the cache at 1/2 the cpu speed
throughout the entire cpu range, resulting in a faster cache on the upper
end units. Slowing the cache was how they managed to beat Intel to market
with the 1Ghz cpu. In other words on the high end cpu's there might be an
advantage with Intel (at least until you factor cost back into it).
Personally I just like Intel because the Athlon hasn't been around long
enough for the potential hickups to be 'known'. Anyway, that's the beginning
and the end of my opinion on this.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Cappuccio [SMTP:chris_(_at_)_dqc_(_dot_)_org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 9:46 AM
> To: lamerhq_(_at_)_gmx_(_dot_)_de
> Cc: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
> Subject: Re: CPU Question preference (AMD, Intel)
> With P-2 and Athlon CPUs, there is no advantage to the Intel CPU according
> benchmarks that are out on the net
> With the P-3 and "advanced transfer cache", the Intel CPU can sometimes
> the Athlon, marginally. But, since the Athlon was designed mainly as a
> competitor to the P-2, this is not suprising
> There is a new athlon coming out which will beat the latest P-3....
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 lamerhq_(_at_)_gmx_(_dot_)_de wrote:
> | > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, moh wrote:
> | >
> | > > I am getting ready to build a new OpenBSD server, and I have the
> | > option of
> | > > going with either the AMD Athalon or an Intel processor.
> | >
> | > Well, since OpenBSD doesn't yet support SMP (and you probably
> | > wait
> | > and buy a second processor later when it does), I'd say Intel's only
> | > advantage over AMD is (questionably) floating point.
> | I'm using both AMD Athlon and intel PIII cpus to run very floating
> | simulations (simulations of surface processos on atomar level) and the
> | advantage of Intel cpus over the athlons is marginal to nonexistant.
> | As he is planning to use the machine as a server we wont run anything
> | fpu intensive as these simulations i suppose.
> | You might want to notice that according to the renowned german magazine
> | ct' the advantage of intel cpus in the widely used spec2000 benchmark
> | suite
> | is partly caused by the fact that it uses intels ISSE instruction
> | extensions.
> | > Then again, if OpenBSD gets solid SMP support before you start, you
> | > want
> | > to look at whether you need that, and if so, whether or not AMD's
> | > out
> | > SMP Athlons (I believe they're due over the summer or early fall).
> | Today's Athlons themselves are capable of working in SMP environments,
> | the problem are that there are yet no chipsets for the slot A that
> | support SMP. I think I've read AMD stated their own smp chipset was to
> | due in late fall.
> | > > Does anyone have any ideas on which works better, if at all?
> | >
> | > I'm running OpenBSD on a lowly (!) K6-2/266 at home just fine...
> | Tobias Paprotta
> | Security Consultant NSC Solutions, Germany
> | Use OpenBSD, Secure by default - www.openbsd.org
> | --
> | Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
> Reverend Chris Cappuccio
Visit your host, monkey.org