Thread: why does amd have half the front side bus speed of intell and does it matter

  1. #46
    According to Tom's Hardware, Intel has the highest preformance, but AMD has better performance/price ratio.
    and thats whats stuck up fanboys butts, they dont have the money to buy intel so they are stuck with AMD and try to defend it.

  2. #47
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    I think it's funny that an AMD AthlonXP with a clock frequency of 2133 whipped an Intel Pentium 4 with a clock frequency of 2600, albeit by one point (and in data compression)...but still...
    Last edited by Hillbillie; 11-17-2002 at 01:45 PM.

  3. #48
    I lurk
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Originally posted by Cgawd
    and thats whats stuck up fanboys butts, they dont have the money to buy intel so they are stuck with AMD and try to defend it.
    Oh, I see what you're doing... leaving all the facts and intellectual observations until the end, in an effort to take us all by surprise.

  4. #49
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Originally posted by Hillbillie
    I think it's funny that an AMD AthlonXP with a clock frequency of 2133 whipped an Intel Pentium 4 with a clock frequency of 2600, albeit by one point (and in data compression)...but still...
    What matters is that Intel's fastest processor currently is faster that AMD's fastest. When AMD releases a new one that fact is likely the opposite until Intel releases a new one, ad infinitum.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  5. #50
    Much older and wiser Fountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Originally posted by TravisS
    Intel has is better in video editing, and things of that nature. AMD is better at, well, pretty much everything else.

    Intel, as much as the company themeselves hates it, is better at overclocking. Is cooler, and will SAFELY (yes SAFELY) run without a heatsink. That isn't even close to possible for an AMD. You can actually run a PIV with no heatsink and you won't fry your chip. Try that with AMD, and it's just a matter of seconds.

    So, it depends on what you want. Intel has it's benefits (as few and useless as they are) and AMD had it's benefits. I have an PIII right now, and have no complaint. My next will likely be an AMD though, because AMD's benefits outweigh intels.

    I am kind of with you here Travis, but lets cut the crap about running with no heatsink. Why would you want to? Beggars belief.

    I happily run my 1900xp AMD with NO problems whatsoever.

    If people get reliability etc with whichever CPU they be it.

    But, why pay more for the priveledge? Answer me that one Intel gods.

    N.B. No, I have no stability/speed/setting on fire and burning my house down issues with my AMD. And nobody I know has a duff AMD xp chip. (If they have left it alone)
    Such is life.

  6. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002

    Re: AMD/Intel

    Originally posted by Compuboy
      Oh, for goodness' sake! At the hardware level, the AMD processors are Intel clones. They use the same instruction set and do the same things. The only thing in question is which one is cheaper for its clock speed, which one is more efficient, and which one overheats easier. As far as high-level tasks (multimedia, gaming) are concerned, they don't know they're doing them, so neither one can be so selective! All they know is that they're churning instructions. They both churn the same instructions, so you can't say one is better at games and the other is better at multimedia, it's purely a matter of the speed at which they both churn.

      In the hope of settling the matter, here are the facts as I know them:

        Intel processors:
          Are more expensive for their clock speed.
          Have more safety mechanisms.
          Overheat with difficulty.

        AMD processors:
          Are less expensive for their clock speed.
          Have virtually no safety mechanisms.
          Overheat easily.

      It's a simple matter of compromise. You can have it cheap or you can have it ultra-safe. It's up to the buyer. I don't really mind either way, so long as it works!
    this isn't totally correct, because deep down inside they are still different. but, that's to be expected. amd does use the x86 instruction set, but of course in different manners. also, they each have their own thing, like amd has 3dnow and such.

  7. #52
    Registered User Compuboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002


      JoeSixpack, I think you will find that I also mentioned efficiency as a factor, as well as clock speed. By this I meant the efficiency with which they carried out the machine code instructions.

      Stallion, they are indeed implemented differently, but they use exactly the same instruction set. Their speed, therefore, is dictated by their clock speed and their clock cycle efficiency (if such a term exists). They do have their own special registers, but as far as I know, these are accessed in the same way for both Intel and AMD processors.

  8. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    I like amd because its better and cheaper. I saw this comparison in a magazine (pc gamer I think) where they tested a slower amd (1.5 ghz or something) against a faster pentium (2.? ghz) and the amd won most of the tests (there were a couple that the intel won), thats pretty amazing in my oppinion, I mean, how could intel chips cost so much more yet SUCK SO MUCH more.

  9. #54
    Registered User TravisS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Originally posted by Fountain
    I am kind of with you here Travis, but lets cut the crap about running with no heatsink. Why would you want to? Beggars belief.
    Good question

    However, it is possible to buy a cheap heatsink with not enough cooling abilities and slap it on an AMD. This won't make it fry after a few seconds, such as with no heatsink, but it will reduce the life.

    So, don't try to save $5 and just get a better heatsink

  10. #55
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Ok, at risk of flames, i am posting a rant i found on a website i was looking at. Its back and forth on intel vs AMD, includes accurate information, and its worth the read for both amd and pentium fans.

    Neither of us, amd or intel, are going to agree, its just a good read.

    AMD and Intel Rant
    Having a personal web site with "good" information has it's advantages.
    A great many people visit to thank me for the information that I offer, and as a result, I have helped them fix or make their computer perform better than ever.
    Many people take time out of their busy schedule to comment on my domain, saying it is well done and thank me for the time and effort I have put into it.
    Others comment favorably about "No banners".
    A drawback: Questions arise from all walks of life, whether that may be good or bad, while asking for my opinion on touchy subjects.

    Why no AMD?
    Some people have asked me, "Even though you have a few computers, why are NONE of them AMD based?!?"
    Simple. I do not like AMD.

    If you feel you cannot handle what is contained in this document, by all means, do not read it.

    I have, sort of, avoided this topic for sometime. Since initially posting the No Hacks, Cracks and Cheats Rant, I have received many Flames from some very voiced individuals. I am also well aware of the devoted following of AMD users. Whether those people are out to get the "best-bang-for-buck" performance, believe the marketing hype (PR Rating), always went for "the little guy", or just gave-a-go for something different and enjoyed the result: AMD users can be... rather... Persistent or I would like to say, closed-minded.

    I am not out to ........ anyone off, nor slam someone's beliefs in a product, but what I am going to do is answer the "why" I (read me, Black Viper) do not personally own any AMD products. It is not because I decided last week that I am not going to get one... It has been a long time coming. This Rant, as with the other ones, may contain some rather random and fragmented thoughts, and many of the "facts" are my observations and beliefs. Do not be discouraged. Read on.

    Intel has always been more stable (IMHO) and I feel that stability is a major concern. No one can get ANYTHING done if a computer crashes all of the time. It is some hardware and some software problems, but when the majority of programs run "well" on an Intel platform, that is what I am going for.

    Why does this happen? I think that since Intel is the "big dog", they have more available resources to work with the other Monopolies on the planet (M$) to have "better" support for their products. This is not a bad thing, but sad for the little guy to get support of their products.

    This could be a load of BS, but just my opinion.

    Power Use
    AMD also has a history of high power usage and heat dissipation problems, which in turn contribute to stability issues. Sure, it may be a little bit more than Intel, but when it comes to keeping the inside of your case cool in the summer time, it is best not to have a fire running in it.

    Pentium 4 CPU's tend to require a bit more power, now, but I like the RAMBUS memory style and it will be my next choice of PC.

    AMD Performance
    I remember back when AMD (and the other CPU makers) were struggling to keep up with Intel's performance and superior floating-point instruction set. I enjoy high performance hardware just as much as anyone else, but I am also willing to pay for it. Cheaper is not always better... in fact, I cannot come up with a "Cheaper is better" example, but I can come up with plenty of inferior examples. The AMD CPU's were cheaper because they performed "under" the more expensive, comparing MHz, Intel CPU's.

    I had a Cyrix (is that how it is spelled?) CPU in my first "real" PC. I thought that the 133 MHz speed would smoke anything on the planet... but in fact, I was very wrong. My good friends P90 performed "better" than my value 133. Since, at the time, the CPU prices were exponential, a "comparable" Intel CPU that was 133 MHz was obscenely expensive, but the Cyrix was "cheap". It was cheap for a reason. It did not perform well. I was upset. I than went to a "rather expensive" P166 later on and it was like night and day for "only 33MHz". Yeah, right. I learned that MHz is not always a good indication of performance really early on.

    The AMD Athlon was going to "blow anything Intel could put out" away. They were so much better, that no one should even think about any other possibility of getting a different kind of computer! That, as you may have figured out, was not always the case.

    On AMD's Site, they state that MHz is not everything. That is very true, as sited in my previous example... Nevertheless, they went a little too far in trying to "adjust" the publics’ perception of "how" performance should be measured.


    I remember when PC100 and a P2 that supported it was just hitting the streets. People were benching the "highest at the time" P233 with PC66 memory and pitting it up against an (again) obscenely expensive P2 300MHz with PC100. Wow. Not much comparison. Of course, the P2 won out... so "PC100 performed better" than PC66 did... not to mention, the computer having almost 25% more MHz behind it... That is how, I feel, the "AMD is better" comparison surfaced... after many years of the fans laying in wait. Finally, they can come out of the closet and express that "AMD IS BETTER" to all of those "Intel loving sellouts". Wow.

    "But it LOOKS like it can go 300 miles per hour!"
    As with the Athlon XP, the "blah+" rating was marketing hype to attempt to compete with the MHz (well, now its Ghz) battle. AMD's "PR" rating was the final straw. Think about this: If a car company placed "V8+" on a four-banger, even though it "performs like a V8", wouldn't that raise some eyebrows? I was considering building a Multi-processor system that had AMD's Athlon MP CPU's. The more I thought of the "2000+" model spec with "Quantaspeed" operating at "blah MHz" and the more I thought of how the "uninformed" is swayed by these numbers, the more I leaned toward Intel. Unfortunately, I built a VIA based computer with Dual P3's. That was a total flop, but not the fault of the CPU... What?!?! CPU is not everything?!?!

    I have to say that the Intel 810 chipset with a P3 1Ghz was a total flop, also. However, Intel also kicked out (yup, you guessed it), a more expensive version, how ever slight, called the 815. This powers a few of my current computers without fail.

    When the Athlon and XP was gaining momentum (and a cult following), it was, I feel, due to the P4 being saddled with PC133 memory. People would bench an AMD with DDR and a P4 with PC133 (No DDR support at the time) and call the Athlon a winner. What kind of crap is that?

    The P4 was built for RAMBUS memory. In every benchmark I have viewed, P4 with RAMBUS performs very well up against a "comparable" AMD Model Blah+ and even smokes them in the most important Benchmark: Gaming. Yeah, I know... More cost... But remember, I am not in the hardware junkie category while trying to save money. Then again, even stamp collecting is going up in price.

    But you can over clock it!
    Sure, but placing more stress on a CPU that is already "over spec'ed", as I feel, tends to not make any sense.

    I do admit that a "different-from-norm" cooled CPU and components, as in water-cooled, is a great idea and a super geek way to go! The amount of time, effort and money to get a system up and running reliably is quite a task in itself, but obtainable, nonetheless.

    I have wanted to do that just because; even without over clocking my system components... just because it is "cool". Pardon the unneeded pun.

    Oddly enough, the same person that "saves" $100 on a CPU will go and get 4 case fans, a water cooling system and pretty neon lights when they could have spent that money on a "better" CPU. Then again, if your over clocking efforts fail, you will not have to spend much more money on replacing your fried components.


    At a LAN party (ok, I will get to that part), I had a, becoming dated by my standards; P2 300 MHz with duel Voodoo 2's installed. I tweaked the OS beyond the call of duty and optimized the graphics settings for many games. Not once, sacrificing the tweaking for stability, nor graphics quality... What is the point of 120 Frames Per Second if it looks like crap?!?

    I must admit, though, the Voodoo 2's would put out to much heat. With out an additional case fan or a small "cpu" fan blowing between the cards, the system would lock up every so often. I also knew it was due to heat because at the previous location of the system, the room temperature was a constant 68 degrees (or, sometimes, even much cooler) and never had a bit of troubles. After placing the 2 fans in the case (probably only needed one), I did not have another problem.

    A guy arrived at the LAN party (told you I would get here), that also had duel V2's. We exchanged many supportive 3dfx stories and both enjoyed the performance of the cards. Under usual circumstances, the V2's all performed "very well" at many CPU ranges... This person had an AMD CPU 300 Mhz (I believe K5 or 6, one of them) over clocked to 450MHz. He had the side panel "permanently" removed due to "cooling" issues. Even with that, it did not help. The system locked up almost every 10 minutes (like clockwork.) Each time, I would giggle and say the customary "AMD" slam or something along those lines while he returned some Intel bashing comments and blame the "higher than normal room temp" for the crashing. He told me "If it was stable, It would smoke your system". I took that challenge.

    Finally, we decided to try and place a desk fan (read big 14 inch box fan) constantly blowing inside the open case. We were then able to play a complete game of Quake 2 without interruption.

    The challenge began. We did the benchmark (demo) with the currently configured (as in, no time to "tweak" for performance) system and I came out on top... Way out on top. By around 25 to 40% increase. Needless to say, the rest of the night, I did not hear anymore "pro" AMD or "anti" Intel comments.

    Once again... as AMD clearly is trying to impress upon people... MHz is not everything. However, also note that over clocking your computers other components may not be the solution. Check into making your system perform better without sacrificing stability to do it!

    I thing that the majority of AMD purchasers are not looking for "more" performance, but the cheapest they can get. AMD, hands down, win that title... but it is not always a good title.

    Looking in my inbox, I have to guess, from my experience, that about 80% of the "My computer crashes all of the time, it must be the OS's fault" are running AMD and (usually) VIA chipset boards... Not a good record of accomplishment if you consider the "amount of market share" AMD has. If people are seeking cost reduction, VIA is the way to go... unfortunately, I have had very poor experience with VIA chipset boards, had floods of email telling me about all of the problems relating, and pin pointing to them. From AGP to USB to total system lockups, AMD and VIA are at the root cause... Take note... they are the cause for Intel Failures; also... as sited in my previous duel CPU example. Can it be fixed? I am sure, but I am not about to wait around 6 months for an updated BIOS to fix a problem that should not have been around, anyway

    Update: is an outstanding spot to locate information about VIA chipsets. I am not about to reproduce the information here. If you are having problems, please search the Forums and FAQ for more information.

    I am even considering firing up the CUV4X-D again after Service Pack 1's release, updated BIOS, "better" drivers, etc.

    Update 03NOV2002:
    The Duel P3 board CUV4X-D has been running just fine for a few months, now. It seems as though my problems were solved by updated BIOS, 4in1 drivers and a higher end powersupply.

    A better fix for that dilemma? If you are going to reduce the cost of your next PC, please get a "High end" AMD CPU and an AMD chipset board... As with Intel, I feel that the CPU manufacture knows "best" as to how to interface with their chip for better overall performance and stability... and the price of more money. You will thank me later.

    I thank you for making it this far in my dribble about AMD and Intel. I am sure that, from the comments and "facts" that I have, I am going to get flames from the AMD supporters, but that is OK! I am not trying to tell you never to get AMD. I want you to be happy. Whether you get an Apple, AMD or an overly priced SGI, I couldn't care less. Just remember that if you ask for my opinion or recommendations on a subject, you will get it... whether or not you agree with it is totally up to you.

    Black Viper
    July 30, 2002

  11. #56
    Visionary Philosopher Sayeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    to stallion:

    I haven't read all your posts in this thread, but IMHO you're confused on a couple of points I saw right off--

    that doesn't make a difference. speed is not everything, and it's almost nothing compared to what's really important for a processor.
    Wrong. speed _IS_ everything. It comes down to one simple thing-- how many instructions can you perform per cycle. Since all CPU makers now use RISC (Intel has not used CISC for years), this is the only _honest_ way to rate a processor. Al processors do the same thing- base 2, binary. They add, they shift, etc.

    CISC = Complex Instruction Set Computing
    RISC = Reduced Instruction Set Computing

    Benchmark applications, which once were excellent, now are "feelgood" tools that obfuscate the truth by adding layers of code and "business usefulness" between the processor and the test results.

    In fact, benchmarks applications today can't even compare and AMD processor to an Intel P4 processor, because AMD only uses 8 pipelines, and Intel uses 20.

    Intel chips have real horsepower due to engineering. The fact that a P4 will run at 2GHz and be mildly warm to the touch, while an AMD is overclocked at that rate and runs blisteringly hot, tells the story of which engineering is real--- and better.

    AMD is outdated and trying desperately to keep up. Intel is simply walking away from them.

    You are correct that Intel and AMD chips are not clones. They aren't. They must physically execute instructions differently at the circuit level-- this is due to patent infringement laws.


    So, to be fair and honest, Nobody can honestly compare AMD top-end processors with Intel P4 processors on a one-on-one footing-- they aren't the same.

    Fundamentally, Intel chips are superior because of their engineering, 100% compatibility, and future potential. Faster bus-based RAM, and more. AMD on the other hand is running out of time-- overclocking, heat issues, and an old-style RAM interface are the indicators. And AMD doesn't know what to do.

    Likewise, if you only keep your computer 2 years before buying a new one-- it doesn't really matter. Not at today's prices. You can just get whichever one happens to be the best at the time.

    As for me and my wallet-- I'll go Intel.
    It is not the spoon that bends, it is you who bends around the spoon.

  12. #57
    Visionary Philosopher Sayeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    And another thing--

    If you have a benchmark application that runs on a 2GHz box (that's 2-billion+ instructions per second) and beats the same benchmark on a system that runs at 2.5GHz (2.5-billion+ instructions per second) it can only mean ONE THING--

    The benchmark is written incorrectly.


    Most people today, including most developers, have not a CLUE how much work can be done with a processor at these speeds. Too much poor coding.
    It is not the spoon that bends, it is you who bends around the spoon.

  13. #58
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    The benchmark is written incorrectly.

    WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG! Did u read that article? if you said yes go back and pay attention this time.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    The last I knew AMD did 9 instructions per cycle, where intel did 6. Multiply that by the mhz and that's all that maters. All accurate, or unaccurate facts aside..

    Besides, intel is almost like microsoft with their ludicris prices.
    As long as AMD's 2700+ (333mhz bus) gives better, or similar performance to Intel's stuff at a far cheaper price than Intel can stomach to offer, I'll go with them.

    And, if the performance of Intel outweighs the price of AMD in the future...guess what, I'll change my choices immediately with no hesitation. It's all about performance and a good deal - not what you like or have opinions on.

    - edit -
    > Something sucks when you use it...and it just sucks? Wow, that's over my head.
    hahahahaha, good one hillbillie
    You got people behind you on all those comments
    Last edited by Shadow; 11-21-2002 at 08:58 AM.
    The world is waiting. I must leave you now.

  15. #60
    I lurk
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    I'm pretty sure that not all instructions are equal (eg, take equal time to execute) therefore I don't see how one processor can be said to do so and so instructions per cycle.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed