• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

intel vs. amd

Vintage wise or modern? To my knowledge, AMD to most part was a license or clone manufacturer of 486 (and 386 ?) chips, which ended with the Pentium generation when they became competitors, first on the same CPU interface and more recently forced to develop their own. In the old days, I think AMD and other companies extended the aftermarket by putting out old chips at higher speeds, an alternative to larger upgrade.

AMD had some 29000 series RISC chips too, and probably more integrated chips that I don't know about, but taking those in consideration makes it difficult to compare the two companies' products.
 
DOS-Master wrote:

> I always thought that hey were even but does any1
> else think different?

Nowdays the AMD processors are quite good with their Intel
counterparts, however I believe when they first came out with
their 486 processors they were quite upto the Intel 486s. I
was told it was here where Intel dropped the numbers & named
their processors Pentium - cause you couldn't Copyright a
number - in a sense it was because of AMD - cause they called
their processors 486s!

AMD are generally cheaper & if their anything like their Intel
counterpart - I reckon it's worth a try.

But who knows, a processor is a processor - if somebody wanted
a 486 processor which was slightly different, then I'd suggest
AMD! Does it make it better or worse that something is
different?
 
In the 'ol' (486) dayz', AMD chips were considered more compatible than Cyrix chips, which suffered from the occaisional hiccup. AMD actually licenced the design from Intel, but rumour hath it that Intel didn't send 'em the latest versions of the masks, so they weren't 100% identical to the Intel version.

--T
 
Terry Yager wrote:

> In the 'ol' (486) dayz', AMD chips were considered
> more compatible than Cyrix chips, which suffered from
> the occaisional hiccup.

I remember those Cyrix chips - it depends on what you want to
use it for. Perhaps though you could write stuff that's
unbeliabely impossible on an Intel/AMD processor & still get
good results. In other words don't hiccups occur for a reason.
Maybe though nobody made a decent OS for those Cyrix
processors due to their pessimistic attitude!

It would have been just like the good ol' days IBM compatable
based 8086/8088 & the non-IBM compatable based 8086/88
computers! :)

> AMD actually licenced the design from Intel, but
> rumour hath it that Intel didn't send 'em the latest
> versions of the masks, so they weren't 100% identical
> to the Intel version.

Come to think of it, was it Cyrix or AMD which made Intel drop
the number based (e.g. 486) processor names. Perhaps it was
both & a combination of Copyright stating you can't copyright
a number!

CP/M User.
 
As far as Modern CPU's go, the companies really started the competition when AMD came out with the Athlon 64. IIRC, Intel didn't have EM64T for a while after that. Most people recommend AMD over Intel for gaming, video processing, etc. AMD processor, even though the clock speeds are lower than Intel's, their FSB speed is usually a great deal higher
 
Current Intel processors (except for the Core line of chips) suffer from the horribly inefficient Netburst architecture.

This is why the AMD processors are generally regarded to be better than Intel processors.

Granted, the Pentium D 805 is a great bargain if you want a cheap dual core chip...
 
"General discussion" means "general discussion ABOUT vintage computers"... this thread belongs in the off-topic section.

Erik & moderators: honest, I'm not trying to be difficult. But this is such an obvious misplacement of a post -- or worse, a troll.
 
OK. Run some benchmarks between a P4 3.2, Athlon 64 3200+, and Athlon XP 3200+.

That p4 will come out at the bottom, FYI. This is also assuming NOTHING's been overclocked for the benchmark.
 
mobilemaster said:
"General discussion" means "general discussion ABOUT vintage computers"... this thread belongs in the off-topic section.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. I was asleep at the wheel on this one! :D
 
mobilemaster said:
"General discussion" means "general discussion ABOUT vintage computers"... this thread belongs in the off-topic section.

Erik & moderators: honest, I'm not trying to be difficult. But this is such an obvious misplacement of a post -- or worse, a troll.
Click to expand...

dude you assume the worst in everything
 
Last edited:
sfcspanky said:
OK. Run some benchmarks between a P4 3.2, Athlon 64 3200+, and Athlon XP 3200+.

That p4 will come out at the bottom, FYI. This is also assuming NOTHING's been overclocked for the benchmark.
Click to expand...
Media and multitasking, intel would win, gaming the amd 64 would win, and the xp would lose to both the 64 and P4 at almost everything.
I know, I have owned all of those systems, of which I kept the P4 for multitasking and such.
 
alexkerhead wrote:

> Media and multitasking, intel would win, gaming the
> amd 64 would win, and the xp would lose to both the
> 64 and P4 at almost everything.

> I know, I have owned all of those systems, of which I
> kept the P4 for multitasking and such.

Nope, I'd scrap all that & simply use one of those console
thingy's for Gaming - it's the only way!

If you insist on a computer, then it has to be DOS or CP/M for
games - there's just no way you can possibly run a game on one
of those GUI thingy's - eventually it kills the machine, use
DOS (or CP/M). Everything else is merely bells & whistles.

CP/M User.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top