Chapter 4
Research - Chapter 4
As stated in the syllabus, all research from this point will be posted on this blog. Be sure to research (and spell check) before you post. Each assignment will require that you research on the Internet, then post both a summary and relevant URL along with your name. This is part of collaborative learning, so be sure to read what others have posted. Let's get started.
Compare two processors currently used in personal computers. Use standard industry benchmarks for your comparison and briefly list the advantages/disadvatages of each. You can compare different processors from the same manufacturers (such as Intel) or processors from different manufactures such as Intel and AMD. Be sure to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate.
20 Comments:
This is my example of a comment. I must include 1)my summary (INTEL processors have been used in Windows computers for years), 2)my analysis (old is not necessarily the best), 3)my relevant URL http://microsoft.com, and my name (Jane).
The rivalry between Intel and AMD for the top spot in the processor world has been around for a number of years. Each has its own unique offerings, however in the end, the overall winner is still Intel. While AMD offers a decent processor at an economical price, what they offer in savings, they lose in power. They lack the stability and processing power of equivalent Intel platform. Having personally owned systems that have had both Intel and AMD processors, through my own experience I have found AMD processors to run extremely hot under normal conditions, and as a result run considerably slower than their stated benchmarks. Intel processors of equal speed and size, while a bit more expensive, have proven to run cooler, more stable and at no loss of speed when being taxed with several ongoing processes. I have literally burned up more than one AMD processor, even while using advanced cooling systems.
This is all supported in several benchmark tests of Intel and AMD processors.
AMD’s current high-end processor, the Phenom II X4 965 currently ranks 42 out of 213 other common processor. It is also the first AMD processor on the list, after 41 Intel processors preceding it, and many of the Intel processors were rated at a lower size and power rating by comparison. Ultimately, if price is more important than power and stability, then an AMD is a fair choice, but if you are looking for power and long lasting performance, Intel is the answer.
http://www.geek.com/laptop-processors/
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=337
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html
I would like to compare Intel and AMD future desktop processers; the Intel Nehalem vs. the AMD Bulldozer.
Intel has followed AMD’s lead and brings a total redesign including integrated memory controllers and integrated video processors to their new technology. Intel has also brought back an improved hyper-threading technology. In contrast, AMD has had integrated memory controllers, and is addressing hyper-threading by enabling per core multithreading and increasing hardware.
I believe Nehalem is set to cruise to all types of platforms from desktop to mobile and since it has consistently surpassed AMD in benchmarks (Intel i7 vs AMD Phenom II in High End CPU tests) we can bet that the Intel Nehalem will stay true to form and outperform the AMD Bulldozer in future benchmarks. To me it seems AMD is facing some lean years ahead. More hardware may keep them out of the mobile market, and the more hardware is increased, the more compatibility issues may arise.
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/index.htm
http://www.devhardware.com/c/a/Computer-Processors/Intel-Nehalem/
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/17948
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
Ted
Timothy
For many years only single-core processors containing one processing unit were available. However over the last few years dual-core processors that contain two identical processing units and quad-core processors that contain four identical processing units have become available from AMD and Intel.
http://www.reviewcentre.com
http://www.techsupportforum.com
http://www.amd.com
Timothy
I believe in you get what you pay for. Therefore I think society today would be better off with Intel than AMD.
The Intel Core 2 Duo I5-661 and AMD Phenom 2 X4 910E are two common processors used by consumers today. Although the Intel operates at a faster speed, the AMD consumes less energy. The AMD has 2 more cores than the Intel, giving it more potential processing power; however, when tested with threaded programs, both produced similar results. The Intel has a turbo boost that automatically starts when under heavy loads. Also the Intel uses less support chips from 2 to 1 because the graphics processor is relocated to the same die as the CPU. The AMD is less expensive by about thirty dollars., and unless the budget prohibits it, the Intel Core I5-661 is the better buy.
I have two different computers that I use for different purposes. My HP Laptop (Intel® Celeron processor 900) and my Dell Vostro desktop(Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400) have strikingly different features. The Celeron processor was made in 2009 and has a frequency of 2.2 GHz, a 1MB Cache, and a 800MHz FSB speed. The Intel Core processor was also made in 2009 and has 4 cores and 4 threads. Its frequency is 2.66GHz and a FSB speed of 1333 MHz; the Cache is 4MB. The Dell Vostro is the fastest computer I’ve ever worked with as far as processing different jobs. It’s processor is far more superior than that of the HP laptop even though they are of the same brands.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41498
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=38512
I used these URLs and the instruction booklets the computers came with.
Ryan J. O’Neal
The computing devices within the personal computing category is getting smaller, faster, and full of advanced features which rivals that of the high end systems. The industry’s capability of fitting a wide array of features such as smaller size, lower power requirements, and faster processors would eventually push the industry to produce the most advanced personal computers known to man. I will compare 2 Intel processors, Intel Core i7-950 and Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 processor.
According to Intel Corp., the new 2010 Intel Core i7-950 processor provides ultimate smart performance by a combination of greater cache size and higher frequencies which gives you ultimate performance for a wide variety of application tasks. It has Intel turbo boost technology which automatically speeds up your processor when your pc needs extra performance. It has Intel hyper-threading technology which provides for 8-way or 4-way multi-task processing allowing each core of the processor to work on two tasks at the same time, delivering the performance you need for smart multi-tasking. The advantages of Intel Core i7-950 are superior smart processing performance which is the best that money can buy for a wide variety of application tasks. The downside is its price. Here is the technical specification for the Intel Core i7-950 processor: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37147.
The Intel Core 2 Q9650 3.0 GHZ Quad Core processor brings four computing cores running at 3.00 GHZ in a single processor for the ultimate in efficiency and performance. It features 12 MB of L2 cache and a 1333 MHZ front side bus, and it uses the LGA775 socket for wide compatibility with motherboards. The latest and most advanced software applications can open and run faster with superior responsiveness. When used with the latest multimedia software and next generation games, dropped frames, long waiting times, and stuttering performance are completely minimized. Here is a link for complete specifications of the processor: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35428 . The advantages of Intel Core Q9650 seems directed to graphics intensive applications and games. This processor has a cheaper price and would be suitable for a baseline system with lesser budget.
The Intel Core i7-950 outperforms the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 because of the following benchmarks:
http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/consumer.htm?iid=perf_desktop_lhn+i7_consumer-performance.
In summary, if price is not the issue and a high end quality processor is needed then the Intel Core i7-950 is your choice. If there is a budget constraint issue but you need a decent processor to perform like a high end type then the Intel Core 2 Q9650 is for you.
References:
http://www.intel.com/Consumer/Products/Processors/corei7.htm
http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/Intel_Q9650_Quad_Core_Processor/
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37147
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35428
Michael Simpson
I also believe in you get what you pay for i have always used intel products and never had a major problem
forgot my urls for my comment:
http://computershopper.com/components/reviews/intel-core-i5-661
http://computershopper.com/components/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x4-910e
I compared Intel to Amd and Intel won hands down. Intel has a dual quad core processors which out-space AMDs current Athlon 64 x2/fx processor families. A long time ago AMD was better than Intel in performance. AMD was left with out a good CPU and Intel is cheaper. It is wise to go with Intel before deciding to go with AMD, because Intel is cheaper and more affective.
URL http//:pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2164
http//:floats.n//yupw/intel-4469.php catherine alexander
I turned the first assignment in under anonymous
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition 3.33GHz compared to an AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition 3.4GHz
The big difference between Intel and AMD is that Intel CPU's generally score better at synthetic tasks while AMD CPU's are much cheaper and perform as well as Intel’s at in gaming applications. This is good news for gamers, but a not as much for people who require their computers to be good at both.
The i7-975 is superior to the Phenom II series although it costs around 100% more than the Phenom II with the same clock speed.
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition is very powerful for just less than 1/4 of the cost of the i7 extreme. If you want the best of the best the i7-975 is the only single socket CPU you can get in today market.
However, one should not consider the i7 975 unless their computer will be used for synthetic tasks such as video editing, CAD, 3dsMax and things of that nature. If your computer will be used solely for gaming, then there is no point in purchasing and installing an i7 over a Phenom II because there is no significant performance gain. You won’t be using the i7 to its full potential because the i7 wasn't designed for gaming. The i7-975 was designed for tasks such as video encoding and image editing. It would be like buying a Indy Stock race car knowing you’re only will drive back and forth to work which is 5 miles away. On the other hand if you demand a computer that can perform both then you may want to go for the i7 because of the extra bandwidth that the i7 platform has over the AM3 platform.
Adfter reviewing pcgamershardware.com, I found that they they conducted a review for overclocking the i7 and gave the following take on the processor.
“The Core i7-975 XE has an open multiplier and this makes over clocking easier in most cases. With a default frequency of 3.33 GHz the CPU is running at a high level already, but nevertheless we were able to reach 3,850 MHz (29 x 133) with a water cooling system while running at default voltage (1.2 volt) and 4,350 MHz (29 x 150) at 1.4 volt. With common air cooling 3.5 GHz (20 x 175) at 1.26 volt were possible already - this matches the settings of our graphics card test setup. It is quite unsurprising to see that the Core i7-975 XE is the fastest CPU currently available on the market, but the rather small performance advantage in games compared to a Core 2 Quad Q9650 or a Phenom II X4 955 BE doesn't justify the price of effort of changing the CPU. The Extreme Edition is, like all the others before, a prestige object for benchmark records and wealthy enthusiasts. Everyone else should be satisfied with the Core i7-920, the Core 2 Quad or the Phenom II X4 955 BE, which still offers the best price performance ratio I the upper class.”
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/03/intels-core-i7-975-extreme-edition-is-worlds-fastest-desktop-p/
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,686084/Intel-Core-i7-975-XE-reviewed/Reviews/
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=1
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+955
The computing devices within the personal computing category is getting smaller, faster, and full of advanced features which rivals that of the high end systems. The industry’s capability of fitting a wide array of features such as smaller size, lower power requirements, and faster processors would eventually push the industry to produce the most advanced personal computers known to man. I will compare 2 Intel processors, Intel Core i7-950 and Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 processor.
According to Intel Corp., the new 2010 Intel Core i7-950 processor provides ultimate smart performance by a combination of greater cache size and higher frequencies which gives you ultimate performance for a wide variety of application tasks. It has Intel turbo boost technology which automatically speeds up your processor when your pc needs extra performance. It has Intel hyper-threading technology which provides for 8-way or 4-way multi-task processing allowing each core of the processor to work on two tasks at the same time, delivering the performance you need for smart multi-tasking. The advantages of Intel Core i7-950 are superior smart processing performance which is the best that money can buy for a wide variety of application tasks. The downside is its price. Here is the technical specification for the Intel Core i7-950 processor: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37147.
The Intel Core 2 Q9650 3.0 GHZ Quad Core processor brings four computing cores running at 3.00 GHZ in a single processor for the ultimate in efficiency and performance. It features 12 MB of L2 cache and a 1333 MHZ front side bus, and it uses the LGA775 socket for wide compatibility with motherboards. The latest and most advanced software applications can open and run faster with superior responsiveness. When used with the latest multimedia software and next generation games, dropped frames, long waiting times, and stuttering performance are completely minimized. Here is a link for complete specifications of the processor: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35428 . The advantages of Intel Core Q9650 seems directed to graphics intensive applications and games. This processor has a cheaper price and would be suitable for a baseline system with lesser budget.
The Intel Core i7-950 outperforms the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 because of the following benchmarks:
http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/consumer.htm?iid=perf_desktop_lhn+i7_consumer-performance.
In summary, if price is not the issue and a high end quality processor is needed then the Intel Core i7-950 is your choice. If there is a budget constraint issue but you need a decent processor to perform like a high end type then the Intel Core 2 Q9650 is for you.
References:
http://www.intel.com/Consumer/Products/Processors/corei7.htm
http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/Intel_Q9650_Quad_Core_Processor/
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37147
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35428
My comparison is between Intel dual core processors and AMD dual core processors. I personaly prefer intel processors and have abias toward their products. I know there are people who prefer AMD also but they have to be crazy or didn’t get the right information. So I went out and looked up some benchmark results at some web sites. In the first comparison of price AMD won that fairly easily so one point went to AMD. in one comparison AMD was faster and did better in almost every area than intel. I was puzzled but, the data proved me wrong.
So I said I had better look some other data this can’t be true. In this more current comparison of Intel and AMD, Intel was far ahead of AMD in all area except price. It wasn’t even close. So it seems in this more recent comparison the big guy was able to improve it’s product line up considerably.
The changes Intel has made put it in the lead in the processor war. The technology they have built is far superior to that of AMD that it will be top for a the near future. Don’t processor change quickly so that may not be as long as you think. Look for new advances in size, energy consumption and speed. In the future the 25nm will be considered large and maybe 1nm will happen in a few years
Many people today are confused about the difference between Intel’s Pentium Dual Core and their Core 2 Duo.
The Dual Core is essentially a striped down version of the Core 2 Duo. With it you get two processors in one. This increases processing power without the problem of overheating that was seen in the Pentium D. It was made to compete with the lower prices of the AMD X2 range line up to AMD X2 4000.
The Core 2 Duo is a more advanced processor than Dual Core. It was made using Core technology. It has much higher Clock rates while still remaining cool.
http://www.chotocheeta.com/2007/09/01/difference-between-intel-core-2-duo-vs-intel-dual-core-vs-intel-pentium-d/
http://binaryday.com/2009/01/15/difference-between-intel-core-2-duo-vs-intel-dual-core-vs-intel-pentium-d/
Livelock is An endless loop in program execution. It occurs when a process repeats itself, because it continues to receive erroneous information. It can also occur when a process that calls another process is itself called by that process, and there is no logic to detect this situation and stop the operation. A livelock differs from a "deadlock," in that processing continues to take place, rather than just waiting in an idle loop
In com computer terms livelock is When two or more processes continuously change their state in response to changes in the other process(es) without doing any useful work.
This is similar to deadlock in that no progress is made but differs in that neither process is blocked or waiting for anything.
A human example of livelock would be two people who meet face-to-face in a corridor and each moves aside to let the other pass, but they end up swaying from side to side without making any progress because they always move the same way at the same time.
Back when I had built my first computer I did this very assignment. Although the processors that I was considering were much less powerful than whats available today. I was looking at the Pentium 4 and the AMD Athlon 64. Both were single core, and both had HT technology, although the terminology was different. What really drew me to the AMD side was the FSB. Intel had FSB of 800Mhz while AMD was 1000Mhz. AMD was the choice for entrant builders where the power to cost ratio was much better than intel. With the introduction of quad core, Intel pulled ahead. The computer power and ability to overclock made Intel shine as the gamers choice of CPUs. According to CPUbenchmark.net, the highest scoring AMD CPU, AMD Phenom II X4 955 ranked 36 out of 50 processors tested with a score of 4,680. Intel's Xeon X5650 topped the chart with a score of 12,239. Intel is the clear winner here for high end usage.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/overclocked_cpus.html
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2331&page=2
The previous post from "new moon" Is from me. I'm not sure why the name posted the way it did.
Jesse L
intel cpu's are to me is better than amd since the core duo. the one thing is that the core duo won't run 64 bit operating systems. the core 2 duo will. the only downside is that intel cpu's are more expensive. still- they are better in both performance and performance / watt.AMD's quad-core Phenom II CPUs have been a hit with enthusiasts and upgraders who want speed but don't have the cash for the expensive motherboards and RAM that Intel's high-end Core i7 CPUs require. While AMD's chips haven't thus far been able to match Intel's costly Core i7 processors for raw speed, they are good upgrade options because they're compatible with last-generation AM2+ motherboards and cheap DDR2 memory. And for those who opt for a new AM3 motherboard and DDR3 memory to host one of these chips, they offer enough performance muscle to keep most power users pleased.
http://computershopper.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home