Please support AMD

Which do you run on your machine/s?

  • Intel

    Votes: 40 45.5%

  • AMD

    Votes: 29 33.0%

  • Both Intel and AMD

    Votes: 19 21.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    88
nivek said:
Yes true didnt think of the HP's and the Dell's, the picture is very different with them involved. But Intel dominates the OEM side, and a huge share of the branded market too..

Intel's current server boards (5000 series) are quite nice actually.. and if you're going to run an embedded raid controller regardless of the make of board, then suffer the consequences, but atleast the option is there..
Click to expand...

I'm not just talking about their onboard stuff (re: the quality). Both the controllers mentioned are available as add-on cards.

They have a 6-port SATA-RAID card - can't remember the model but it's an LSI Megaraid 150-6 card that they simply stick in an intel branded package - they didn't even put an intel skin over the firmware interface - just changed the POST messages. This card (both the LSI and 'Intel' variants performs like an absolute dog, much worse than software raid.

The Marvel chip I've seen on Intel branded PCI cards as well. From what I've read several firmware and driver updates have improved these chips very much, but they still are no match for the kind of server card that you pay about R1000 for - the type that should be built onto a server board costing R5000.

If I was going to build a server with Intel CPUs in I'd look at someone like Tyan to supply the motherboard.

With regards to Dell and HP, the servers I'm referring to are HP DL385 G2 Opteron based and Dell PowerEdge 2950 Xeon based. Because we buy so many we get to specify configurations not available on their website, so in our case we have identical evertything except just about the chassis, boards and PCUs. We don't use dedicated network controllers (more for the specific features we want than anything else), dedicated RAID cards, the same discs and RAM, etc.

The problem with benchmarks is they are written to be 100% optimised the the hardware they'll benchmark, while most software that ends up rinning on servers in real world situations are not not even written properly for running at all, let alone specific hardware. In the web and application hosting business, the vast majority of developers write horrible code, that do horrible things to the hardware. Add to the mix that most servers gets used in a shared configuration, you can get an idea of what can happen. In these *real world* applications, the Opeteron server simply handle the load much better than the Intel boxes. They just cope better...
 
NoADSLyet said:
Hell we better check, how many previously Disadvantaged Saffas works there now. BEE candidates galore.

It just sounds so incompetant and normal as per new ZAR standards. Maybe those cards will be stamped "SABS'' to make it acceptable for importing to here!
Click to expand...

erm, and this has what to do with AMD? I meet AMD people regularly and I promise you that I have yet to meet any South African who works in R&D or any position in management. Please stick to the topic at hand and leave your myopic opinions out of the section.

AMD's problems are primarily based on their inability to deliver at a silicon level and nothing else. Hector's leadership has been under question for a long time along with the seemingly less than smart purchase of ATI at an inflated price...

Its like asking low plebs like us to buy AMD junk with our hard earned cash while AMD execs can live it up in Monte Carlo on their billion dollar incomes,
maybe THEY should return some of that money and get more R&D going.
Click to expand...
er, see now that above is genius of another kind. Wouldn' you think it impossible for anybody to be earning billions if the company only has 1.5BN U$D in its coffers? :o ah but then again, you're usually right about these sort of things.

AMD's share in the server market grew quiet significantly with the Opteron, but its would be a grave mistake to think that their share is even half of Intel's because it isn't. They have room there to maneuver because in the market there are far more important factors than outright performance in terms of CPU IPC count and the usual metrics we use for desktop computing. Truth is Intel's share has grown again the server space at AMD's expense.

I liked what AMD produced and what the company stood for, but lets not blind ourselves because of misplaced compassion for a company that's been failing to execute properly for several quarters now. This is not the school playground, Intel is in the business of making money and you need good products to make money. Something AMD has not had in a very long time.
 
Last edited:
If AMD chips have decent performance vs price in about a years time, I'll probably get one, for now Intel rules ;)
 
xeo57 said:
If AMD chips have decent performance vs price in about a years time, I'll probably get one, for now Intel rules ;)
Click to expand...

Intel would have brought out thier new "45Nm" CPU's! at first they would be a bit much but the prices will even out at they make more models just look at the Pentium E core 2 range! from E2140 - E6850! and a whole lot in the middle!! :D

Intel vs. AMD
Nvidia vs. ATI

lol it can go on and on for years... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Currently it's pretty clear. AMD is 10% behind per Ghz, but in most cases they are a lot cheaper.

On CPU's Any desktop CPU under R1400 AMD is tops.
The 2.1Ghz AMD A64 X2 is the same price at the E2140 Intel (dual 1.6). You would be stupid to buy intel there.

The 5600+ AMD (2.8Ghz) is the same price as the intel E6550 (2.33Ghz).

Good intel boards are hugely expensive. You need to spend at least R1200 to get a decent and R2500 to get a good one.

The Current AMD boards are available for R700 for a decent one and R1700 for a good one.

Also, if you bought a socket AM2 board 1 year ago (end 2006), you will be able to stick a AM3 processor in it in 2009!!! With Intel you will need a new board and new RAM.

Thus for people who upgrade regularly, AMD is a far lower cost platform. You really are not going to feel the 10% they are lacking in performance right now, but you will feel the extra 1-2K in your pocket.

Even with these advantages, I still see AMD struggling for the foreseeable future. The problem is that people buy Intel without thinking/knowing that AMD has/had a better solution. AMD's biggest problem is that most consumers are stupid.

Like People are still buying VW, even though they are nearly as expensive a BMW's and Merc, badly made and hugely expensive to repair.
 
Not quiet.
Currently there are so few AM2+ compatible AM2 boards its scary... Also AM3 is not compatible with any AM2 board, but will work on an AM2+ board that has DDR3 support.
 
AMD All the way....when the AMD Quad market becomes stable im taking that no questions asked,cause they have better compatibility for future,yeah there might be a performance hit but it will get sorted out.Have looked at some benchmarks for New AMD Quad in some cases its gets whipped by Intel and others equals them or few FPS/Points behind, in the real world it doesnt matter cause we all goin to setup up our software/hardware differently.
 
Sapphiron said:
Currently it's pretty clear. AMD is 10% behind per Ghz, but in most cases they are a lot cheaper.

On CPU's Any desktop CPU under R1400 AMD is tops.
The 2.1Ghz AMD A64 X2 is the same price at the E2140 Intel (dual 1.6). You would be stupid to buy intel there.
Click to expand...

I hope you weren't reading those prices off the Rectron pricelist...because the Athlon X2 4000+ went up R100 from the pricelist price. That makes the AMD R599, and the E2140 R485, both ex VAT. And from a few quick reviews I skimmed over, the E2140 outperforms the the X2 4000+.
 
ShockG said:
Not quiet.
Currently there are so few AM2+ compatible AM2 boards its scary... Also AM3 is not compatible with any AM2 board, but will work on an AM2+ board that has DDR3 support.
Click to expand...

Um. Wrong. Weither the board is compatible with AM2+ or AM3 is down to chipset and if the Board Manufacturer updates the microcode with a BIOS update. All AMD chipset boards would work out of the box, Nvidia chipset ones need a BIOS update. ATM the only ones that don't work are the VIA based ones. And AM3 processors will fit in AM2 boards. They are building a DDR2 and DDR3 memory controller into the CPU.

supersunbird said:
Arent nearly all AM2 boards AM2+ compatible with a BIOS update?
Click to expand...

Except some old boards with VIA chipsets.

Claymore said:
I hope you weren't reading those prices off the Rectron pricelist...because the Athlon X2 4000+ went up R100 from the pricelist price. That makes the AMD R599, and the E2140 R485, both ex VAT. And from a few quick reviews I skimmed over, the E2140 outperforms the the X2 4000+.
Click to expand...

Rectron :sick:
Rectron does not do AMD anymore. Intel Bought them out.
Prices are much closer than that: AMD is R511 vs R485.
Even the Pro Intel Tomshardware rates the 4000+ as faster as the 2140.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=936&model2=884&chart=419
 
actually intel have a cpu that beats every amd in all prices range's

amd quadcore which is their slowest quadcore is more expensive than intel's slowest quaddie but intel slowest is faster than amd's fastest quadcore

do the maths :)
 
killadoob said:
actually intel have a cpu that beats every amd in all prices range's

amd quadcore which is their slowest quadcore is more expensive than intel's slowest quaddie but intel slowest is faster than amd's fastest quadcore

do the maths :)
Click to expand...

A good Intel Motherboard is R500-R1000 more expensive. So I pick AMD
 
not really my mobo was 1.3k

also bare in mind the expensive mobo's are for overclockers, you get really intel mobo's that run everything stock

i think the extra cash for 75 - 100 % overclocks is worth the extra money

take amd's fastest cpu the 6400+ black edition, this cpu is beaten by 2140 overclocked to 2.8ghz

are good amd mobo's more expensive than this?
 
you can get a good AMD motherboard with the same features as your intel Board for R800.

and AMD's can overclock too. Not as well as the Core2, but .

Still, buy a AMD now and save R2000 later.

I will concede that the competition is closer than ever. Intel is faster, but AMD is still cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Sapphiron said:
you can get a good AMD motherboard with the same features as your intel Board for R800.

and AMD's can overclock too. Not as well as the Core2, but .

Still, buy a AMD now and save R2000 later.

I will concede that the competition is closer than ever. Intel is faster, but AMD is still cheaper.
Click to expand...

It seems that you realise that you're wrong, but are just too stubborn to admit it! Did you misread what killadoob wrote? The E2140 (bottom of the range) + any decent mobo (overclocking ability) = faster than AMD's top of the range CPU plus whatever mobo you care to stick with it.

And then, with that same mobo, you can go and buy yourself a Q600, and seriously wip the AMD, or, if you win the lottery, the QX9650!

Unless you're a serious fanboy (which it seems you are) there is no viable reason to buy AMD for your PC!




IMO...
 
overclocking an amd is kinda pointless

25% oc on amd is nothing

you should see the ocing ability of these intel cpu's with stock cooling

amd is not cheaper than intel anymore

go and do some research and you will find that most intel cpu's out perform the amd's and cost less or the same

the only time an intel mobo is more expensive is when you want to overclock
even cheap intel boards for 500 bucks can oc pretty well

not as well as the higher end

intel has more bang for buck than amd now
intel have better performance than amd now

this is not my feelings this is a fact
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X