My reason for choosing AMD

In the light of Core2Duo, it's been getting thick in here, and in many forums. I've decided to do a little write-up due to even myself being regarded as a fanboy for AMD.

If you were to ask me which I'd prefer, AMD or Intel, I would say AMD. Am I a fanboy for this? If you think so, then I'd consider you an Intel fanboy. I never said Intel Core2Duo was bad, nor have I talked down about it. In fact, if you do a search on my posts, you will see me saying that it is faster, consumes less power(if you don't include total system, meaning, the chipset), overclocks very well, and is reasonably priced. So then, why would I still prefer AMD? Well, read on.

First off, when I talk of AMD, the foundation of my discussion is AM2. Currently, as has been said, Core2Duo has better offerings than anything on AM2. But people seem to forget that AM2 was released solely as a platform for DDR2, and was never said to be anything more. And while yes, it is only fair to compare what is currently available, let's look at what we are comparing. AMD K8 architecture is over three years old, Intel Core2Duo is brand spanking new. K8 is 90nm , Core2Duo is 65nm. K8 is made on 200mm wafers, Core2Duo is made on 300mm wafers, along with many more fabs(this has to due with price). All this, and Core2Duo, on average, is 15% better than K8 AM2, and prices are within range of each other.

It is just as fair to compare what is out now to what will be out later. And that is where the meat of my decision is. By the end of the year, AMD will release 65nm cpu's made on 300mm wafers. Based on that alone, one can assume AMD will be dropping their prices due to higher production. One can also assume the power consumption will come down as well, to levels of Core2Duo, and with integrated memory controller. Remember now, we're still talking about K8. Now, will it be a dumb shrink, that's still up for debate. I personally think there will be AT LEAST a few improvements. And as when AMD went from 130nm to 90nm, I'm sure we'll see better overclocks, and better scaling. Also remember Dell, the largest pc distributor, is about to start selling AMD-based notebooks, desktops, and servers. This will add to the lowering of AMD's prices.

Now let's talk 4x4. While latest news has left me a little disappointed, I'm still optimistic, as this is what I really want. 4x4 offers the enthusiast two sockets for, from the start, two dual-cores. Later they will offer quad-cores. Why is this worth it over going s1207 Opteron? First, it will allow you to use unbuffered ram, which is generally cheaper, lower latency, and many more options. Second, there will be more options on motherboards. Most, if not all, enthusiast motherboard makers have given praise to the platform, and will be making boards. This means not only better competition for better prices, but also better overclocking potential. 4x4 is also good due to AMD's Direct Connect technology over Hypertransport(HT) lanes. This will allow the sharing of each cpu's cache and memory. This alone will improve games, which are generally gpu bottlenecked, add to that more processing power for background programs, and the fact games are becoming multi-threaded. Intel just dosn't, and can't for that matter, have anything to compare. This is due out by the end of the year as well. All these we are to assume will benefit s1207 Opterons as well.

Now let's talk K8L. K8L is supposed to be AMD's new architecture. Let's not get into what's considered new architecture, we all know both companies are really just improving on their P3 and K6 architectures. What we are considering are major jumps in technology. K8L will add another set of instructions, fpu, ipc improvements, more HT links, updated Direct Connect, shared L3, and many other things. While nothing can be set in stone, if you don't believe it won't AT LEAST compete with Core2Duo, then you really are an Intel fanboy. And remember, this less than one year after Core2Duo's release, not the three years we had to wait on Core2Duo after K8's release. K8L will be on socket AM2, and of course, 4x4. It is also going to be the architecture when socket AM3 releases. Any cpu released on AM3 will work on socket AM2, as has been stated by AMD. K8L will be native quad-core, and won't have the possibility of bottlenecking from front-side bus(FSB) due to it's integrated memory controller(IMC). Not to mention when you have two quad-cores on 4x4, or up to eight quad-cores on s1207 Opterons.

To me, as people ask what and when AMD will have something to compete with Intel Core2Duo, I ask what and when Intel will have to compete with K8L. Well, according to Intel, the when will be at least two years from now. Intel has stated they will release a 'new architecture' every two years. Well, good luck to you I say. And I do hope they produce to keep the competition strong. Both companies are stating 45nm by '08. This means you will see 45nm on AM2, since as has been said, any cpu for socket AM3 will work on AM2. It's also good to know that if you're on AM3, and socket AM4 comes out, AM4 cpu's will work on AM3, as has been stated by AMD. So, if A=B, and B=C, then A=C, in other words, AM4 should work on AM2. Of course, by the time AM4 comes out, we should all be about 3-4 years older. Could this change? Of course. In fact, I believe it will, as I don't see AMD not making the change to LGA for mainstream, if not something else.

Now let's talk about AMD's aquisition of ATI. What will this bring? Well, even I'm a little short on this subject. First off, AMD will now have it's own integrated video chipsets, made by the leader of integrated video chipset makers. You can bet they will connect to the cpu via some HT lanes, increasing bandwidth and reducing latency. You should see AMD surge in the laptop market due to this. Remember, more production means lower prices. It also means more money for R&D. Both companies have stated they will have integrated video controllers, meaning more bus lanes. But being ATI is the second largest distributor of video cards, expect them to get a great boost in developement and production, meaning better technology and lower prices respectively. You also better bet ATI cards will run better on AMD platforms than they will on Intel platforms. And wether or not Intel will renew their contract with ATI for Intel chipsets is in the air as well, meaning no more crossfire on Intel chipset-based Intel platforms. Intel chipset based Intel platforms already lack SLI, except maybe mobile platforms. i975 still hasn't gotten nVidia's approval. And don't expect nVidia to stop making chipsets for AMD, as they are the largest chipset maker for AMD. Neither AMD nor nVidia want to lose this, at least, not right off the back. Like Intel, AMD will now have it's own chipset worth a flip. Infact, as we've all seen, ATI already has proven itself with it's chipset for s939. This can only improve. But, the question is, will SLI work on "ATI", now AMD, chipsets, and if so, will crossfire work on nVidia chipsets? I think so, I don't see either company putting themselves in Intel's current position of apparent stuborness. All this is supposedly going to fall under "Torrenza", and along with that, AMD seems to want to set a whole new set of standards, something Intel has been doing up untill 64-bit came along.

So, let's talk about what I think Intel will/needs to do. First, they will need to produce cpu's with an IMC and some form of technology similar to AMD's Direct Connect. Now, Intel has slated something along the lines of 'Direct Connect', but the only mention of an IMC was on an article about Itanium. Intel will also be behind in the fact that AMD will be producing video cards, and I'm left to wonder if Intel will too, or if even aquisition of nVidia is in the talks. As AMD's aquisition of ATI instill's a little fear in my mind, should Intel aquire nVidia, that makes me fear even more. That will leave just two companies making cpu's, chipsets for those cpu's, and gpu's. Sure there are others, but none that really show promise for competition. While two is better than one, more is better, as they only have to really compete with each other.

Well, there you have it. That's my thinking. Flame away.

If people made decisions based upon 'what's next' instead of 'what's now' - within reason, a week or so isn't a big deal compared to months or a year - then they would always be stuck waiting.

It is just as fair to compare what is out now to what will be out later....

Click to expand...

Why is that fair? At the time when someone is going to make a purchase they have to buy what's available. The rest of this section may or may not be correct, lots of assumptions. Did prices drop when AMD went from 130nm to 90nm? I don't think they did. Process changes and wafer sizes aren't meant to lower end prices but rather to keep products advancing and decrease manufacturing cost/increase profitabililty.

4x4 is definitely interesting but it's not a panacea. First off I don't know why it hasn't sunk in that the benefits imply buying two CPUs which means higher cost. Prices won't be set on a 'per-core equivalent' basis because there's more to the cost than number of cores. Evidence for this can be seen by looking at current single vs dual-core prices. I look forward to seeing how it works out and it's definitely technically interesting but it seems to be suited more toward professional and server application. This is a good move for AMD since they've made lots of gain in those markets but that doesn't automatically make it a direct competitor to desktop platforms.

If you were to ask me which I'd prefer, AMD or Intel, I would say AMD. Am I a fanboy for this?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's pretty much the definition of a fanboy - preferring one company because it's that company, instead of a given product.

Interesting post but lots of speculation. To me the proof is in the silicon.

well, the main reason, which i guess i could have pointed out more, is upgradeability...and i'm not picking amd simply because it is amd

so am i a fan boy for liking the cost of my processor and what i got for that cost?

The problem is, from what has been produced in the past, it doesn't look like what you can upgrade to will be any better then what you can get now.
A dumb shrink might get the extra perfomance but not enough scalablity to come close to competeing for an overclocker.
I don't think anyone can seriously think your a fanboy, just possibly overly optimistic.

If most people liked Amd and buyed only Amd, then we will have a good competition with Amd/Intel, as much more people now prefer Intel, and they were buying Intel when Amd have better processors. And Amd have only 20% market share, so Amd need people that buy their product regularly if they wannt to stay in that market. And i apreciate people who buy Amd because they help that Amd stay in market. I dont like people who buy Intel/other big company product, just because of name (or mostly because of name, yet they will say they buying it, because it dont give them problems etc..).

Molester said:

well, the main reason, which i guess i could have pointed out more, is upgradeability...and i'm not picking amd simply because it is amd

Click to expand...

Does 4x4 allow mixing any processor types in a system or do they have to be the same model a la SLI?

Molestor... Nice write-up. Some well thought out points there.

If AMD can do what they say they can do, then I think their future looks much brighter than Intel's. Again, time and silicon will tell.

Also, I ask a question for those that were a member of the forums when AMD came out with the Athlon 64. As I understand, it was beating Intel in many aspects just like Conroe is besting AM2. Were the reactions similar back then as they are now?

Very nice writeup, lots of very interesting points.

The only problem i see was already stated in the first reply... I dont think you can compare an already released processer and already proven processor, against something that will be released in the not-so-near-but-not-so-far future. Now, if it was a month or so away, that i can see comparing it to.

What about people who need to buy something now? Then they can only buy what is physicaly released. Now, this is where AMD has the advantage over intel, with there am2 socket (like you said). Future-proof. Intels socket 775 is becoming very.. outdated i should say. More, uncompatible with future processors.

I have no problem with saying intel has taken the chip lead... but only for now. AMD will counter with there 4x4 and K8L, but we have to wait to see.

Ill end my reply with, good job intel (and about time). Lets see what ya got, AMD.

Yes actually, everyone was saying AMD was elite and only idiots would buy intel. Simply though it's your decision so get what you like. It's seems though you are not really looking at the facts clearly. First off for the past 3 years everyone was saying buy AMD not wait for Intel, so by saying it took Intel 3 years and AMD only 1 means basically nothing. No one 3 years ago said lets wait 3 years for Intel and not buy AMD because Intel will only take 3 years, everyone said lets buy the best CPU/Price deal we can get. Also you are comparing AMD tech of the future with Intel of now, you seem to be skipping the point of Intel also releasing new CPUs in the future such as Kentsfield. Intel took 3 years to get the crown back, but a CPUs made by AMD were not 3 years ahead of Intel as you seem to be saying. AMD just kept releasing updated CPUs that were ahead of Intel and kept it up for many years, and as far as we know Intel is going to be doing the same thing. Your right thogh K8 is an old arch while Conroe is new, though does that mean we should say K8 is still good just because it is older? Personally I think the future for AMD is very bright, though I don't think your logic is that full proof.

Well I've got an AMD processor in my computer today...

...and I'm selling that processor tomorrow.

I haven't owned an Intel product since the PENTIUM 2.

...yup. I believe that was almost a full ten years ago. Some of you were TEN when I had my last (also my first I believe) Intel CPU. But I didn't like the identification system they added for the Pentium III so I went with a slot 1... BOY was that a mistake. Afterwards I went with a KT8 board... also 1ghz. ALSO a mistake. Both sockets were upgraded or discontinued and I was left holding the bag. Bringing me up to the board I have now... the Socket A A7N8X-E. A *wonderful* motherboard... well you KNOW what happened with that.

All that said AM2 strikes me as just another AMD gimmick board. They may make 65nm versions of their existing chips... but you and I know very well that they will release an AM3 motherboard. Probably around the same time as the AM2s. Maybe it will work with the AM2 motherboards like they say... maybe it won't.

This is what? The fourth, fifth socket upgrade I've done with AMD with one chip per motherboard? I can't afford to take the risk. There are a hundred different options right now for Intel boards (I can go down to celeron and make something for my nephews, up to an extreme edition (one of two types), over to the D series, AND my board is supposed to support Kentsfield too...) I'm sure AMD will pull a rabbit out of their hat (they always do) but that only makes me all the more confident it at least won't be on any CURRENT AM2 motherboards. And that's speaking from experience.

As a side note you shouldn't care so much what people on the internet say about you. I mean come on! "Some guy in Switzerland called me a name... He said I was an AMD fanboy..." Also from experience, you should only care what big guys standing in your face just before closing time at a bar say about you.

Molester said:

To me, as people ask what and when AMD will have something to compete with Intel Core2Duo, I ask what and when Intel will have to compete with K8L. Well, according to Intel, the when will be at least two years from now. Intel has stated they will release a 'new architecture' every two years. Well, good luck to you I say. And I do hope they produce to keep the competition strong. Both companies are stating 45nm by '08. This means you will see 45nm on AM2, since as has been said, any cpu for socket AM3 will work on AM2. It's also good to know that if you're on AM3, and socket AM4 comes out, AM4 cpu's will work on AM3, as has been stated by AMD. So, if A=B, and B=C, then A=C, in other words, AM4 should work on AM2. Of course, by the time AM4 comes out, we should all be about 3-4 years older. Could this change? Of course. In fact, I believe it will, as I don't see AMD not making the change to LGA for mainstream, if not something else.

Click to expand...

i thought AMD said that they would make some AM3 cpu's for AM2? do you have a link to back up what you are getting at here? i guarantee AMD will create a reason to buy AM3. sure they will make some K8L cpu's for AM2, but i seriously doubt that you will be able to run all of them. to run the latest and greatest you will have to buy AM3 (and then AM4).

btw, no i don't think of you as a fanboy, but you have really bought into a "vision" of the future for AMD's product line up that would best be described as tentative.

Good post. I actually stopped reading here for awhile because the majority of the posts I ended up reading involved some reference of "AMD sucks, get Conroe" (not exact words, that's just summing it up). But this board is still better than all the others I visit. The most hilarious thing I've seen in this whole debate are the people (other boards) giving huge reasons to get Conroe, price, performance, etc... are the same people that built a P4 system in 2003/2004, heh. They bought it when it wasn't the absolute best because they liked it and they like the company. Everybody else should do the same thing.

Some people can't afford to play favorites, and when funds are tight must get whatever is the best for the dollar at the moment. I'm poor as dirt still, being only 25, but better off than those younger. I remember when upgrades were sacred. At this stage, though, I choose AMD over Intel due to philosophy and business practices. Luckily, when I was in my teens and earlier 20s, that meant that I got my favorite brand, and the best performance. Now, if AMD just completely goes to hell to the point that their products aren't even viable or comparable, then sure, that will change. But the rig-in-the-sig performs wonderfully and I've yet to be able to slow it down with anything except synthetic benching software.

shadin said:

The most hilarious thing I've seen in this whole debate are the people (other boards) giving huge reasons to get Conroe, price, performance, etc... are the same people that built a P4 system in 2003/2004, heh. They bought it when it wasn't the absolute best because they liked it

Click to expand...

Or they bought it because it was dirt cheap used(Mine for instance, got cpu/mobo/hs cheaper then the CPU alone went for). Anyway though in that case I find it funny everyone backing AMD up; excusing them seems to be running an AMD rig. I don't see how you can imply someones opinion is invalid because they built an Intel rig 3 years ago when you have no idea why they built it or if they still think like that. You may want to google some reviews if you don't see why people are saying switch.

Or they bought it because it was dirt cheap used(Mine for instance, got cpu/mobo/hs cheaper then the CPU alone went for). Anyway though in that case I find it funny everyone backing AMD up; excusing them seems to be running an AMD rig. I don't see how you can imply someones opinion is invalid because they built an Intel rig 3 years ago when you have no idea why they built it or if they still think like that. You may want to google some reviews if you don't see why people are saying switch.

Click to expand...

Should've made myself more clear. The reason I think it's funny is that those people that are preaching the loudest are throwing around the word fanboy the most, when there are lots of reasons why someone would choose one brand over another, price/performance being just one. But that's the only one they bring up, yet that obviously isn't the reason they themselves decided to go with a P4 back in the day. I don't think their opinion is invalid, I think they're just being kind of hypocritical.

As for people backing up AMD or "excusing" them (for what? having a different dev cycle?) having AMD rigs, that's not even really something to compare. AMD has been on top for years now until just recently, so a lot of people that aren't loyal or even have a preference ended up with AMD.

And I've read all about Conroe, I've seen all the benchmarks, what I'm saying is it doesn't matter. People should buy what they want. AMD and Intel both make viable solutions. Not everyone runs benchmarks all day long.

It should be noted that I'm primarily a gamer, so the CPU isn't exactly the utmost component in my main build. My rig runs everything at ultra high right now, and will continue to do so when I upgrade the video card (once games come out that need it).

people need to first read the title of this thread, my reason for choosing amd, but i will entertain some questions/comments...

firstly, i didn't forget kentsfield(intel quad-cores), it's just that amd will be releasing quad-cores at the same time, MAYBE a month later.... the discussion was on architecture/upgrade/price: performance: power/and future... core count is but 1 thing in that, and something both companies will have. if you don't believe in the bottleneck that is FSB on intel's, look only at who sells more 4u and 8u servers, then ask yourself why....while it is true today that neither solution(dual-core single cpu) uses all the bandwidth available with ddr2, add 2 more cores/Vista/future games/etc. and this will become more apparant. intel is claiming up to 1333 fsb on coming cpu's, but you better believe it will hit a wall soon, much less get chewed up on quad-cores...but like i said, if they integrate the memcontroller(which there is talks) and adopt HyperTransport(which they REFUSE to do) this will be answered, but it won't happen on Core2Duo/lga775. you better expect a whole new platform when intel puts out their next architecture...

people also need to understand that Core2Duo will not work in 99% of all socket T(lga775) motherboards made before this month, you WILL have to upgrade your motherboard

socket AM3 will bring DDR3, as well as some improvements, like vcore control for each CORE, much less each cpu(4x4), there are even talks on being able to run different speeds on different CPU's(not core, but who knows), by this time, ati(which as a brand name IS GOING AWAY) chipsets will be very-well improved, and the vid cards...well...lol...no need to continue....while this sucks for competition, oh well, intel fanboys can't yell about it too much, they've been buying intel chipsets for how long now? and the only arguement is, 'well, they work the best', yeah, and they charge you for it too, and it will be the same for amd unfortunately

the arguement can be made for Core2Duo right now, as i've said, it is faster/priced well/and uses little power, and if you CAN afford a whole new system when you like, go for it, if you can't, and need something that has an upgrade path that also shows promise, AM2 is the way to go IN MY OPINION

as for links...well, i might dig them up and post them, but forgive me if i don't feel obligated to do so because YOU don't keep up yourself...and remember, this thread is about my decision, not what decision you should make, thus i don't think i'm going to cheat myself with nonsense....

shadin said:

Should've made myself more clear. The reason I think it's funny is that those people that are preaching the loudest are throwing around the word fanboy the most, when there are lots of reasons why someone would choose one brand over another, price/performance being just one. But that's the only one they bring up, yet that obviously isn't the reason they themselves decided to go with a P4 back in the day. I don't think their opinion is invalid, I think they're just being kind of hypocritical.

As for people backing up AMD or "excusing" them (for what? having a different dev cycle?) having AMD rigs, that's not even really something to compare. AMD has been on top for years now until just recently, so a lot of people that aren't loyal or even have a preference ended up with AMD.

And I've read all about Conroe, I've seen all the benchmarks, what I'm saying is it doesn't matter. People should buy what they want. AMD and Intel both make viable solutions. Not everyone runs benchmarks all day long.

It should be noted that I'm primarily a gamer, so the CPU isn't exactly the utmost component in my main build. My rig runs everything at ultra high right now, and will continue to do so when I upgrade the video card (once games come out that need it).

Click to expand...

So then why exactly should you buy a new CPU if not for price/performance? Personally I don't think I owe Intel or AMD anything and go with whatever is the best deal, which as I stated yet to repeated could be Intel. New Intel was overprice and was slower, though I got mine used for a much better deal then anything else at the time, does that mean I bought it because I like Intel? I would think not since the last 3 PC builds I have done for friends who wanted new gear were all AMD. What I was saying about people with the AMD rig is you seem to think because someone built an Intel rig 3 years ago they are an Intel fanboy now, so then if that's true it's safe for me to say anyone giving AMD credit now that runs and AMD CPU is an AMD fanboy. As for a different Dev cycle I agree on that, what I am saying though is people seem to be resorting to saying that K8 is 3 years old so it's only right that Conroe would beat it. Which is true, that does not mean we should still consider it in the top just because AMD has not updated in 3 years. I also agree on not running benchmarks all day. Though I do run my computer all day and a Conroe is not just a way to get more points in 3Dmark, it also can improve gaming/app performance. As I said before though it's your decision so do what you like, if you for some reason feel better if you CPU says Intel or AMD and are willing to spend more for less or wait then go right ahead.

So then why exactly should you buy a new CPU if not for price/performance? Personally I don't think I owe Intel or AMD anything and go with whatever is the best deal, which as I stated yet to repeated could be Intel. New Intel was overprice and was slower, though I got mine used for a much better deal then anything else at the time, does that mean I bought it because I like Intel? I would think not since the last 3 PC builds I have done for friends who wanted new gear were all AMD.

Click to expand...

You buying it used is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people bitching at others for getting AMD now, when they built new Intel based systems back when A64 was obviously superior in benchmarks.

Note that last part in benchmarks. I'm sure they got great performance out of their P4s and liked their systems just fine. Real world, probably couldn't tell much of a difference.

What I was saying about people with the AMD rig is you seem to think because someone built an Intel rig 3 years ago they are an Intel fanboy now, so then if that's true it's safe for me to say anyone giving AMD credit now that runs and AMD CPU is an AMD fanboy.

Click to expand...

I can't even understand what the hell you're talking about here. Giving them credit for what? And I never called anyone a fanboy, I hate the term and think it's retarded. There's lots of reasons someone might choose one brand over another, that doesn't mean their choice is somehow inferior.

As for a different Dev cycle I agree on that, what I am saying though is people seem to be resorting to saying that K8 is 3 years old so it's only right that Conroe would beat it. Which is true, that does not mean we should still consider it in the top just because AMD has not updated in 3 years.

Click to expand...

Who in the hell stated that it should be considered the top? I said it should be considered viable, in real-world performance. I stated specifically that Intel was in the lead now, as did the OP. There's no question of that, K8 is three years old and Intel's dev cycle hit before AMD's, they're definitely on top right now. But that doesn't make someone a retard for sacrificing 5-15% (depending on the app, sometimes nilch) by going AMD over Conroe. It's their choice.

I also agree on not running benchmarks all day. Though I do run my computer all day and a Conroe is not just a way to get more points in 3Dmark, it also can improve gaming/app performance.

Click to expand...

Depends on the game/app. Games I have a hard time believing, as GPU is where its at. You're going to max frames with even a lower-end A64 if you've got the right card setup.

As I said before though it's your decision so do what you like, if you for some reason feel better if you CPU says Intel or AMD and are willing to spend more for less or wait then go right ahead.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along, it comes down to choice, and both Intel and AMD currently have great choices for a plethora of computing needs.

Nice post Molester, you should have submitted it for the front page. There's some points I agree on, some I hope for, some I doubt, but all in all it's a good post.

I wish people would relax a little about all this Conroe madness and just look at the options, then buy whatever meets your needs. I myself am leaning towards Conroe for the rig I build for X-mas, but I haven't ruled out AMD either. Maybe we'll start seeing problems with the retail Conroes, maybe AMD's 65nm shrink will be a dud, who knows. That's why I say, buy what you want, when you want and stop freaking out.

Molester said:

While nothing can be set in stone, if you don't believe it won't AT LEAST compete with Core2Duo, then you really are an Intel fanboy.

Click to expand...

So now we're fanboys if we don't "believe." Give me a break. Why should I make any purchases based on anything that "isn't set in stone"?