What do you find better AMD or Intel.

I find AMD is better in cost, and fast on performance and Intel high on price but fast in performance too.

EDIT: ooo my first poll :D

I would prefer Intel

The AMD Opteron beats Intel hands down, it can do 64 bit along with 32 bit, plus it's just straight faster in the 32 bit mode. It even assigns memory to each CPU when you do it in a dual configuration.. :)

Edited to add: What more can you ask for????

VOTE AMD then :P

I did... Before I posted..

i prefer AMD too
but i am unable to understand pricing.
in retail store i see these prices for CPU:
Xenon 2.4 GHz = 232$
Opteron 242 = 203 $

so AMD CPU is cheaper.
But Dedicated Servers with AMD inside are massivly more expensive than Servers with Intel inside (+50% and more expensive)

this makes me frustrated

Don't know that they are that much more expensive, but they can use better ram than the xeons can. I just put together 5 dual opterons for a customer. It was definately cheaper than building my dual xeon. Part of it could be that the hosts already have the xeons paid off that they are offering so don't have to make as much money back to recoup the hardware investment. Of course, that is if they are running their own hardware.. :)

Originally posted by alexmue
i prefer AMD too
but i am unable to understand pricing.
in retail store i see these prices for CPU:
Xenon 2.4 GHz = 232$
Opteron 242 = 203 $

so AMD CPU is cheaper.
But Dedicated Servers with AMD inside are massivly more expensive than Servers with Intel inside (+50% and more expensive)

this makes me frustrated

50% is a big difference, I don't know where you got that number from. Opteron servers CAN be a bit more expensive than Dual Xeons because of motherboard costs.

i just was on your website and only found dual xenons there (no opterons)!!

but with the prices you charge for the dual xenos, i am sure that you can offer dual opterons cheaper ;)

actually I complained at one hosting company about that they offer opterons more expensive than xenons, and got as reply that they buy from HP, and at HP prices for Opteron servers ar higher.
i did not believed this until i went on hp-store and saw it with my own eyes:
dual 2.4 ghz xenon server = around 1500$
dual 242 opteron server = around 2100$
(everything else same at both: 1GB ram, 1* 80 GB hd)

but what you says is also what i see: the parts for dual opterons are cheaper.
somehow a miracle, that a server assambled with cheaper parts gets more expensive

Well in my case, our hardware provider has a partnership with Intel. They are able to provide us with Intel motherboards/processors at a fraction of the cost people usually pay for them. For custom AMD orders however, we need to special order every party and it ends up costing us more.

Originally posted by HstCreations
Well in my case, our hardware provider has a partnership with Intel. They are able to provide us with Intel motherboards/processors at a fraction of the cost people usually pay for them. For custom AMD orders however, we need to special order every party and it ends up costing us more.

ok, this sounds resonable, buying AMD server at a Intel partner may get expensive.
but there must be also hardware providers which have a partnership with AMD and can provide AMD stuff for a fraction of the cost people usually pay for them.

so if hosting providers would have the *will* to offer nice opteron offers, i think this should be possible. but therefore they maybee would need to look for different supplier?

Just got a dual AMD MP, will know once we have put it in production.

i wouldnt mind having a dual AMD server :D dont think i could afford it mind you :P

well for me i just found that dual opterons are much better than the dual xeons and found a place with some good deals on AMD's

http://www.versaweb.net/services/dedicated.htm

Originally posted by Boost
well for me i just found that dual opterons are much better than the dual xeons and found a place with some good deals on AMD's

http://www.versaweb.net/services/dedicated.htm

YES!!
finely at last *ONE* company starting to switch to AMD and at try to make good offers with them.
but they seem to be sold out with dual opterons (actually no wonder when single company with nice AMD deals)

versaweb seems to be hosted in dinix. Are they are reseller?

Currently I am using a Intel, but next I would go with AMD.

A bit off topic my personal experience, I had a Pentium 4 2Ghz with 512MB for my personal use with Windows XP, just a couple of weeks back I got a AMD 2600 XP, Just wanted to see myself how well the AMD performed coz I heard a lot about them (and the pricing was also a lot better), to my surprise the AMD box with Windows XP is great and I am really impressed...... it heats a bit more than the Intel P4 but the performance is more than I expected.

Again even if you compare the Price to performance ratio, AMD gets a thumbs up from me :stickout:

i was in pc world today (a uk based pc shop) and noticed that an AMD 2.0 ghz operates below 2.0 (i new that anyway). but an intel 2.0 ghz actually operates at 2.0 ghz how odd is that. unless it depends what hardware is being used i suppose?

Hi,

First of all AMD processors are about half the price of Intel's which gives them a fair advantage to start with, but it's when we start to move onto performance that the real benefits are seen ....

It's no longer purely clock speed that counts, processors can now run multiple clock cycles at once meaning that they can give performance higher than the actual clock speed. AMD use this system, their athlon 64 3000+ actually only runs at 2ghz but it beats Intel's equivalent down to the ground.

I currently have two dual opteron 240 machines and they are some of, if not the fastest machines I have ever worked on. Plus running at 64bit makes a massive speed difference. In benchmarks they fly past Intel's Xeon equivalent.

The only downside I have ever seen to AMD processors is their high running temparature, but recently some manufacturers have explored this market and created quieter and more effective coolers.

Thus my choice is the AMD Platform :)

Dan

Originally posted by Flumps
i was in pc world today (a uk based pc shop) and noticed that an AMD 2.0 ghz operates below 2.0 (i new that anyway). but an intel 2.0 ghz actually operates at 2.0 ghz how odd is that. unless it depends what hardware is being used i suppose?

Explaining the concept behind this typically ends up in debates, but just to help clarify what is going on here I'll sum this up quickly...

AMD uses PR ratings to compare their chips with Intel chips when it comes to marketing primarily because the majority of people believe in in the "Clock Speed Matters" myth.

While the PR ratings are sometimes way out of wack, they give you a general idea of the comparative performce between AMD's processor and Intel's processor.

For instance, AMD's AthlonXP 2000+ actually runs at 1.67GHz on a 266MHz FSB, whereas Intel's Pentium IV 2.0GHz runs at 2.0GHz on a 400MHz or 533MHz FSB. The reasons that AMD's AthlonXP can deliver equal if not greater performance at a lower clock speed is because of many different factors, namely the length of the pipe.

Intel's processors take 20 'stages' to complete a task that AMD's processor can complete in 12. So consequently the Intel chip must be clocked higher than the AMD processor to complete the same task in the same amount of time.

That is only one example though. There are many different reasons why this does (or does not) work.

As a side note, the whole "AMD is Cheaper with equal performance" idea has completely gone to waste with the new Athlon64 processors, which if you haven't noticed seem to be pulling a price premium over Intel chips. Same goes for motherboards supporting AMD64, they are more expensive than the Intel counterparts. So at the end of the day, it really comes down to price, and altough I'm a big fan of AMD, I can build a faster system using Intel right now than I could using AMD.

Although razorblue beat me to the punch, I thought I'd clear up a few things in his post...

The current advantages of running processors in 64Bit (using Linux as Windows 64-bit is still only beta) is marginal. On average you will see a 2-8% increase in performance. It will probably be next year before we are able to take full advantage of 64 bit technology.

And contrary to popular belief, Athlon64 / AthlonFX / Opteron processors generate LESS HEAT THAN INTEL PROCESSORS, especially Prescott processors.

As for the comparison between why processors are faster and why they aren't, read my above post.

*EDIT* -- AMD got my vote just FYI.

netivex,

I am with u on the assessment of clock speed and heat output on AMD vs Intel.

however, Opteron platform is really quite affordable nowadays.
for 'true' server-class board based rack-mount's:

UP
===
Opteron 144 (1.8G) + Tyan S2850 = $390
P4-3.0G HT + superMicro P4SCI = $430

High-end DP
===
Dual Opteron 242 (1.6G) + Tyan S2881 = $950
Dual Xeon 2.8G + Supermicro X5DPE = $1030

all of above can be installed in the same 1U chassis with passive cooling/copper heatsink, all come with on-board ATI video, dual Intel gigabit NICs, all are using ECC reg. DDR (except P4SCI). so the choice is rather clear to me because we know, for server applications, Opteron really put Intel in shameful position! remember, Intel R&D budget is 10-times of AMD's.

the difference is that P4 can be installed in $500~$1000 budget 1U servers with desktop type motherboard & prey-to-work active cooling, but there are no really low-cost solutions for AMD Athlon/Opteron based platform

Originally posted by Netivex
...For instance, AMD's AthlonXP 2000+ actually runs at 1.67GHz on a 266MHz FSB, whereas Intel's Pentium IV 2.0GHz runs at 2.0GHz on a 400MHz or 533MHz FSB....

to this day, the fastest clock on Itanium 2 is just 1.5Ghz/400fsb and costs from $1.5K (3M L3) to $5K (6M L3) per chip. so, clock-speed really doesn't mean much on new generation of processor unless you are comparing within same CPU family of same brand.

Sorry, I should have clarified on what I was comparing in terms of price.

I was more less comparing the Athlon64 to the Pentium IV, and not the Opteron 2xx to the Xeon, or the Opteron 1xx to the Xeon.

That said, Opteron 1xx servers require ECC Registered Memory whereas Intel Pentium IV based servers do not, which adds a marginal price difference.

Check out http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=budgetwebserving&page=1 for a little comparison. But remember, one review is not enough to justify the tables either way.

I would take a Dual Opteron system any day over an Dual Xeon even if the Opteron was more expensive. But unfortunately I cannot say the same about an Athlon64 vs PentiumIV for a 'not so server' class system.

Originally posted by Netivex

That said, Opteron 1xx servers require ECC Registered Memory whereas Intel Pentium IV based servers do not, which adds a marginal price difference.


so to further claryfy:

when assable Opteron or P4/Xenon the opteron is cheaper when in both cases the same high-end parts (RAM, server-motherboard) are used.

the P4/Xenon can only be made cheaper by using bullcrap-parts to assemble.
and the bad thing is the endcustomer sits 1000 miles away from the server and will never know if good parts or crap parts where used.

when taking a opteron you can be sure good parts are used since no crap available for opterons