psychologist

AMD, with its 64 bit processors, gained a huge fan following, because of its supreme multitasking and graphic features. Intel, the older player in the field and the largest semiconductor manufacturer, was the initial undisputed winner, before the things changed. Let's try to figure out whether the quad-core processors manufactured by Intel have brought it back into the war.

AMD and Intel, both manufacture microprocessors based on the x86 architecture. The war between these two organizations has probably been the most prolonged war in the computer world. The corporate rivalry dates back to 1969, with the setting up of the Advanced Micro Devices Corporation, just one year after the establishment of Intel Corporation. In January 1995, both the organizations settled their litigations, but the processor wars continued. Let us try to compare and contrast both the processors, on the various platforms on which they are tested.

Power Consumption
When it comes to the overall power consumption of a system, Intel definitely suffered the initial setback. Its Pentium 4 processors had a very bad reputation of 150W TDP. Intel tried to solve the problem in its Core 2 Duo processor, which goes to less than 75W TDP. But, experiments have still proved that a machine running on an Intel Core 2 Duo processor consumed, at least 7W more power, than an AMD Sempron.

Price vs. Performance
When it comes to the performance to cost ratio, AMD has definitely been the winner, for a long time. Its processors were cheaper, as compared to Intel and they definitely did provide high value performance. But, with the advent of the Intel's Quadcore and Core 2 Duo processors, the situation has totally changed. The performance of a quad-core processor is, perhaps, the best in the market and its price is continuously falling.

3D Gaming
This is basically the feature that had allowed AMD to hold its top position for a long time. Even with no graphics card, AMD's 64 bit processor could take on the load and support the gaming features of advanced games. Intel, however, suffered an initial setback because the multithreading features that it allowed, were not used by many games then. The AMD Athlon 64 bit could beat the Pentium 4 computers, in almost all respects, when it came to gaming. But, the turnover again, happened with the introduction of the Quadcore and Core 2 Duo processors. The scenario changed completely. Besides the equivalent features that these two processors could provide (when compared to the AMD Athlon 64), they also had an added feature of supporting dual video cards.

Graphics
The comparison would again be the same, as that of the 3D gaming. AMD is a winner when its processors are compared to Intel's previous processors, but Quadcore and Core 2 Duo processors, with their supreme features, have helped Intelto re gain the share of the market that it deserves.

MP3 and Video Encoding
AMD's 64 bit processors provided faster encoding of MP3s, as well as videos. The reason is simple - a 64 bit processor will, of course, be faster than a 32 bit processor. Intel's 32 bit processors had higher clock frequencies, but while the clock frequency of a 64 bit processor could be less, it worked at almost twice the speed than what was mentioned in its manual. This feature was also combated by Intel with its Core 2 Duo and Quadcore processors. If we do not run experiments to test the minutest details, then both the companies can provide good encoding capability for any average user.

Cooling and Productivity
Computers working on Intel's Core 2 Duo processor and Quadcore processors definitely have superior cooling features and better heat sinks, when compared to the AMD machines. Not only this, but the Core 2 Duo processors could reach to a speed of 3.2 GHz on proper cooling.

Office Productivity and Multitasking
Finally, we come down to the basic features, that every computer user is worried about - the level of office productivity, internet browsing speeds and multitasking that their machines would provide. Just as a 32 bit processor and a 64 bit processor cannot be compared with respect to office productivity; similarly, it is better if we don't compare these processors as well, on the level of their office productivity. You cannot actually notice a spreadsheet launching faster on your screen or your letters being typed faster. Both the organizations are equivalent, when compared on the basis of their office productivity. But, coming down to multitasking, AMD with its 64 bit processors provided better multitasking features and none of the Intel's processors, before the launching of the Core 2 Duo processors could match up to it. But with the entry of Intel's Core 2 Duo and Quadcore on the scene, we can again consider the situation balanced.

Before we end this discussion, let us consider a few more common features that both these processors can handle equivalently. It may not be of much concern to many people, but the processors manufactured by both the organizations support the sharing of the DDR2 RAM, peripherals and the video cards equally well. As a computer user, it is, in fact not necessary, to be a die-hard fan follower of the chips of either organizations. Just wait for the more advanced chip to be launched; it may be from any organization, but you will definitely be the one to benefit.

Labels: laptops and computers