OSDev.org

Well I wanted to get some opinions on hardware from you guys.

Let's start off with AMD vs. Intel for processors. What kind of differences are there? Which do you guys think is better and for what types of things? What is the pros and cons for each of those processor types? I know the AMD has the 64 bit processor, but doesn't Intel have something called EM64 what exactly is that? Does the EM stand for emulation or something, which would mean it's a 32 bit processor that can run some 64 bit apps? And how does the EM64 technology compare to the AMD64. I did notice that spec wise I see alot higher processor speeds on the intels, but that doesn't always determine everything... for instance dual core processors like the X2 AMD64 processor at 2.2 GHz might perform better than an Intel Pentium at 3.0 GHz. I also heard the AMD64 bit processor runs a bit hot. Is this true?

My next question is along the lines of Nvidia Geforce vs. ATI Radeon graphics cards. Which do you guys think is better and for what reasons? I see some stuff on the Ubuntu linux forums saying that the nvidia cards work better in Ubuntu. But on a whole how well does these brands vary and which ends up working better?

Intel has EM64T, it is basically the same as AMD64, it just isn't very good for marketing to say "Buy the new Intel Pentium 6 with AMD64 Technology". IIRC, "EM64T" stands for "Enhanced Memory 64bit Technology" or something along those lines (which is rather watered down since AMD64 adds more than just that).

Clock speed is only one factor of CPU performance, the trouble with Intel CPUs is that Intel has all but neglected everything else, it may have a high clock speed but it will probably choke under load. I think it was Solar who said previously that he could make a LED operate at 5Ghz but that doesn't make it particularly useful for anything.

My current CPU does run rather hot though (AMD Athlon64 3000+), either that or hmonitor is a lousy tool but I'd have to reboot to check in the BIOS, it is currently at 70C but under load it only fluctuates by 1 degree.

The intel CPUs do tend to have larger caches though. AS I understand it, the CPU design Intel uses tends to favour unbroken code streams (and so do large caches), they use long instruction pipelines which allow the CPU to more easily handle long streams of code without branch instructions which tends to be more automated tasks like encoding video or running a server but the shorter pipelines in AMD CPUs are supposed make it more 'agile' with typical multipurpose desktop use.

Can't say too much about ATi vs nVidia, I've always used Geforces which I haven't had any trouble with. I did recently consider buying an ATi to replace an old nVidia Geforce 4 MX440 before determining that most of the cheap cards on sale were actually less powerful. I reviewed some of the newer ATi cards but they cost more than the Geforce 4 did originally and were still not much more powerful especially when compared to nVidia cards of the same price. I was also further put off by a google search for the catalyst drivers which revealed lots of forum posts discussing severe problems with the drivers. Apparently the ATi drivers for Linux are also not particulary good either (which seems to be why everyone recommends nVidia cards with Linux). I should again emphasise that I haven't had any personal experience with them though.

For 99.9% of the users, the differences don't matter anymore, really. Both CPU lines offer much more power than you will ever need, unless you're a high-end gamer.

AMD Athlon and Intel Pentium IV are in one league, the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 and the Pentium D in the other (dunno, is the Pentium D 64bit?). Intel has the Pentium M in the mobile sector, which has much lower clock speeds but more "bang per clock". AFAIK, AMD only has "mobile" versions of their Sempron CPU in that league.

All in all, 64bit CPUs might have the brighter future, but their usefulness is severly limited by the lack of software that makes full use of it.

The AMD CPUs are "rated", i.e. they come with a number (3000+, 2800+) that is intended to roughly indicate what Pentium 4 clock speed the CPU is equivalent to. Apply fudge factors and marketing biases as you see fit.

If you can live with abysmal 3D performance, the best gfx cards there are for office / productivity work are still the Matrox cards. Both nVidia and ATI achieve their 3D performance only by sacrificing signal quality, while Matrox gives excellently crisp picture while giving next to no 3D performance at all. Even a Kyro II or a years-old GeForce runs circles around a Matrox.

I have been using a Matrox G550, nVidia FX5200, and (currently) ATI 9550 under Gentoo Linux, no troubles with any of them. I had the impression that the ATI driver support is a tad better (they provide their own brand of xorgconfig, which helps if you want to set up the more esoteric options quickly), but that's just me.

An ancient DirectX version provided a fog system that isn't supported on ATI cards, but that's usually not a problem with newer games. (Combat Mission is an example where ATI cards don't render the fog at all.)

For me, noise was a significant decision factor, as my computer frequently runs while my wife or both of us are sleeping. Hence, I chose a measly Athlon 2200+ that does work quite well with a CopperSilent II cooler, and an ATI 9550 card that doesn't require active cooling at all. Enough to play World of Warcraft.

I do agree that the 64 bit does get a bit wasted... although from some stuff I have read you can get like a 10% increase in performance in 32 bit applications... although not all applications showed the same improvements, some did get slower, but not as many got slower as compared to how many got faster.

But if I do go 64 bit next time I upgrade to a new computer, it won't be a waste since I have a 64 bit ubuntu disc on it's way... well 5 of them on the way actually. And 10 x86 discs for my 32 bit system. Although the 64 bit ubuntu is still in need of refinement so I could just end up using the 32 bit version on the 64 bit machine till it's more stable.

Solar wrote: AMD Athlon and Intel Pentium IV are in one league, the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 and the Pentium D in the other (dunno, is the Pentium D 64bit?).

Would surprise me if it were not, AFAIK all newer Pentium and Xeon chips are sold with EM64T.

Solar wrote: Intel has the Pentium M in the mobile sector, which has much lower clock speeds but more "bang per clock". AFAIK, AMD only has "mobile" versions of their Sempron CPU in that league.

Don't forget about the Turion! Its performance is comparable to the Pentium M, but AFAIK it is a _bit_ more power consuming. The Sempron goes in the other direction - less computing power but superior power management (less than 25W, IIRC).

cheers Joe