±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: nbrich1
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6596

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 125
Total: 125
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Community Forums
03: Home
04: Community Forums
05: Community Forums
06: Home
07: Photo Gallery
08: Photo Gallery
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: Community Forums
14: Photo Gallery
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Photo Gallery
20: Downloads
21: Member Screenshots
22: Your Account
23: Home
24: Community Forums
25: Photo Gallery
26: Photo Gallery
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Photo Gallery
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Community Forums
34: Community Forums
35: Photo Gallery
36: Photo Gallery
37: Photo Gallery
38: Community Forums
39: Community Forums
40: Community Forums
41: News
42: Photo Gallery
43: Community Forums
44: Photo Gallery
45: Community Forums
46: Photo Gallery
47: Photo Gallery
48: Community Forums
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: Photo Gallery
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Community Forums
55: Community Forums
56: Community Forums
57: Photo Gallery
58: Community Forums
59: Community Forums
60: Photo Gallery
61: Photo Gallery
62: Photo Gallery
63: Photo Gallery
64: Community Forums
65: Downloads
66: Community Forums
67: Downloads
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: Photo Gallery
71: Community Forums
72: Home
73: Community Forums
74: Community Forums
75: Community Forums
76: News
77: Community Forums
78: News
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: Community Forums
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: News
87: Community Forums
88: Community Forums
89: Community Forums
90: Community Forums
91: Community Forums
92: Community Forums
93: Community Forums
94: Photo Gallery
95: Community Forums
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: Home
99: Community Forums
100: Community Forums
101: Community Forums
102: Photo Gallery
103: Photo Gallery
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Community Forums
108: Community Forums
109: Home
110: Community Forums
111: Photo Gallery
112: Community Forums
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: Photo Gallery
116: Community Forums
117: Community Forums
118: Community Forums
119: Community Forums
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Photo Gallery
123: Home
124: Community Forums
125: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
AMD v Intel...another comparison? Oh wait, this is cool!! :: Archived
Resolve issues with your computer problems here or read about the latest computer parts and information.
Post new topic    Revive this topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  Hardware

Topic Archived View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Shadow_Bshwackr
Janitor

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 6944
Location: Central Illinois, USA
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:51 am
Post subject: AMD v Intel...another comparison? Oh wait, this is cool!!

No really, IT IS!

Many people equate Windows PCs with Intel Pentium processors (and soon will likely be doing the same with Macs), but we've seen dual-core CPU AMD systems power ahead of dual-core Intel-based PCs on more than one occasion.

To answer the question once and for all, we circled up a bunch of cars in an abandoned parking garage and set ourselves to a no-holds-barred dual-core desktop CPU fistfight. AMD submitted its five dual-core CPUs, and Intel matched with its lineup of four. We built two test beds as nearly identical as we could for the two platforms and ran each chip through a battery of tests. We then ran those results through our price-vs.-performance calculator to find out not only which is the best overall dual-core CPU in terms of raw performance but also which one offers the most bang for your buck.


To read the whole article: Click HERE!

Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Uhu_Fledermaus
Aircraft Demolition Expert

Offline Offline
Joined: Nov 27, 2004
Posts: 4367
Location: Blaricum, The Netherlands ~GMT+1
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:02 pm
Post subject: Re: AMD v Intel...another comparison? Oh wait, this is cool!!

Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile ICQ Number MSN Messenger Photo Gallery
Shadow_Homfixr
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
Posts: 527
Location: Fort Walton Beach, FL-USA
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:12 pm
Post subject: Re: AMD v Intel...another comparison? Oh wait, this is cool!

Love MY AMD! Laughing

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail MSN Messenger Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Shadow_Bshwackr
Janitor

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 6944
Location: Central Illinois, USA
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:43 am
Post subject: Re: AMD v Intel...another comparison? Oh wait, this is cool!

Some additional info and articles about AMD. I have to tell you, I've openly admitted my admiration for Intel, but AMD is starting to change my mind as time goes on...

Take a look at these two articles I've come across...

Many of us are familiar with standard gaming benchmarks. Whether you're testing Doom 3, Half-Life 2, or Far Cry, most gaming benchmarks are made from the "Quake Timedemo" mold. They run through a sequence of recorded gameplay or simply walk the player through parts of the game, counting frames and time to give you an average frame rate.

This is good for benchmarking graphics cards because it provides repeatable and predictable results. Every time you run the benchmark, the same thing is displayed on screen. Eliminating variables introduced by normal gameplay is a very useful part of performance evaluation. Ideally, you want to eliminate every variable except the one you're trying to test (a graphics card or CPU, for instance), right?

The problem with these gaming benchmarks is that they don't test the true gaming experience during gameplay. When playing back a standard "timedemo" style recorded benchmark, many of the game's systems either don't operate, or function in a controlled, pre-determined fashion. AI, physics, and much of the core game logic are often disabled when playing back recorded benchmark demos. These are CPU-intensive tasks, and removing them from the picture can be useful in graphics benchmarking, but what if you want to see which CPUs perform best in real-world gaming scenarios?

In this feature, we'll be using a popular program called Fraps to measure performance during real gameplay in six different games across multiple genres. We'll look at how the games run faster and slower over time, and get into a bit of a discussion about "how many frames-per-second is enough." The point is to figure out whether Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 processors make for a better gaming platform, and to this end, we'll compare two CPUs that are easy on the checkbook.


Read more:Click HERE!

This second article digs a big deeper on the internals of Chipset and EXE coding...

Early last week, we received an email from Igor Levicki, commenting about Jason Cross's feature article, Real Gaming Challenge: Intel vs. AMD. Levicki wasn't disputing Jason's conclusion�that AMD beats Intel by wide margins in gaming tests. But he apparently decided to dig a little deeper. Here's what he did, in his own words:

It intrigued me why Intel CPUs have inferior performance in some games and in others they are on par with AMD.

Therefore, I have reverse-engineered Battlefield 2 game executable and come to the following conclusions:

1. It was compiled using Visual Studio 2003 C++ compiler.
2. It was compiled in blended mode almost without any optimizations.

We headed over to Microsoft's MSDN web site and obtained this little tidbit about blended mode:

"When no /Gx option is specified, the compiler defaults to /GB, "blended" optimization mode. In both the 2002 and 2003 releases of Visual C++ .NET, /GB is equivalent to /G6, which is said to optimize code for the Intel Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and Pentium III."

But Microsoft recommends that code writers use /G7 when designing code for Pentium 4's and AMD Athlon systems. Again, here's more from the MSDN web site on the topic:

"The performance improvement achieved by compiling an application with /G7 varies, but when comparing to code generated by Visual C++ .NET 2002, it's not unusual to see 5-10 percent reduction in execution time for typical programs, and even 10-15 percent for programs that contain a lot of floating-point code. The range of improvement can vary greatly, and in some cases users will see over 20 percent improvement when compiling with /G7 and running on the latest generation processors. Using /G7 does not mean that the compiler will produce code that only runs on the Intel Pentium 4 and AMD Athlon processors. Code compiled with /G7 will continue to run on older generations of these processors, although there might be some minor performance penalty. In addition, we've observed some cases where compiling with /G7 produces code that runs slower on the AMD Athlon."


Read more: Click HERE!

Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Revive this topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  Hardware
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours

Archive Revive
Username:
This is an archived topic - your reply will not be appended here.
Instead, a new topic will be generated in the active forum.
The new topic will provide a reference link to this archived topic.