What is Digg?131 Comments
- davdev, on 11/16/2009, -3/+69I have never understood why Fanboys care which one is better. Personally I have Intel Chips in a few PC's, and AMD chips in others. I just go with what I think best fits the goal of my build. Whether I want a cost is no object Gaming System, or a cheap office machine, I get the chip that performs best for the price I am looking to pay.
I know this article is about Supercomputers, but you know this thread is just going to turn into a pissing match - Myztry, on 11/16/2009, -3/+63But can they play Frogger.
Intel > AMD > Intel > AMD > Intel > AMD > Intel > AMD > Intel > AMD > Intel > AMD > Intel > AMD >
Frankly I don't care who is 'winning'. I just want to see the other party push them away from complacency.
For when one party wins, the motivation for innovation disappears. - tenbosch, on 11/16/2009, -7/+59More like, AMD cheaper then Intel. Building this out with Intel chips would be quite a bit more expensive.
- strictnein, on 11/16/2009, -1/+43And here's the actual list:
http://www.top500.org/lists/2009/11 - specialK16, on 11/16/2009, -5/+45What????????? AMD is way cheaper than Intel. What the hell are you talking about?
- cards, on 11/16/2009, -2/+38Watch me make it worse:
The top 3 are all running linux! Micro$oft FTL! - EnigmaOX, on 11/16/2009, -2/+35The first one in the list has 224162 Cores
- 4DFX, on 11/16/2009, -1/+29None of them belong to me, so I don't really give a *****.
- TVarmy, on 11/16/2009, -0/+24That's over...
No, I'm sorry. Forget it. It's old. - Phatfiddler, on 11/16/2009, -1/+22Over 8999?
- Dragonis, on 11/16/2009, -2/+21just because something is better quality doesn't mean it sells the best. iPods aren't the best quality MP3 player, Beta was better than VHS etc...
- forcedfx, on 11/16/2009, -0/+18Yeah... AMD definitely takes the cake when it comes to price.
- Phatfiddler, on 11/16/2009, -20/+38HURRR DURRR I guess they forgot to mention that over 400 of the top 500 use Intel
- neutron7, on 11/16/2009, -11/+28McDonalds sell the most hamburgers, i guess that means they are the best ones it is possible to buy.
- richi, on 11/16/2009, -3/+19Having said that, Intel has always been weaker on floating-point. For the most FLOPS per core (as well as per $) looks like Opteron has it.
- NeoNevermore, on 11/16/2009, -0/+14224162 > 9000
- TVarmy, on 11/16/2009, -0/+14I always see processors in terms of performance by cost. Sheer performance is a bad figure, unless you want to buy the top of the line processors (which can go into four figures). Yes, the most expensive processor will become the cheap one in a few years, but if you're in the market to build a PC right now, the processor that works best in the budget you have is most important.
AMD tends to win for low end systems, like what you would use for an office. Intel recently has been the best value for midrange to high end. - GorfTron, on 11/16/2009, -0/+13AMD had me at the 386DX-40.
- evil-doer, on 11/16/2009, -6/+19than
- wyrdness, on 11/16/2009, -0/+12Yes, exactly. Does anyone remember how overpriced and under-performing Intel's processors were in the days before AMD became a serious competitor?
- corripio, on 11/16/2009, -0/+12Actually, the cost of the processor is pretty irrelevant (for commodity chips) when pricing super computer nodes. A super computer center is not paying retail prices and the cost of the power supply, board, cooling, and case also adds up pretty fast when you need to get high end parts (keep in mind that these nodes need to be able to withstand being run on pretty much 24/7). In most cases, the debate between buying Intel vs. AMD for your cluster is personal preference (and other factors such as processor to PCI-Xpress latency if you are making a hybrid system with Teslas attached, and if that is the case, AMD was winning as of last year). A large portion of the total cost of each node (currently about 30-50%) comes from investment into high-speed, low-latency networking which is essential for getting good scale up when running on a large number of nodes. The current Cray systems are basically really high-end networking built around a commodity chip.
Another huge factor that is very important is that price/flops but rather flops/watts...power consumption is huge on these systems, as is heat generation...you need to invest a ton of money into cooling these systems (and when the A/C goes down, the cluster gets taken offline immediately). - TimOgg, on 11/16/2009, -1/+13I wish i could digg this comment more than once
Spot on - tenbosch, on 11/16/2009, -5/+16Thank you. Your contributions are highly regarded.
- Jektal, on 11/16/2009, -1/+12Same reason we have the Cult of Mac.
If you spend a lot of money on something you want to be able to justify the price, so Intel owners want to reinforce the idea that Intel chips are far better than the competition. Meanwhile AMD owners see these overly-inflated ego-based claims and feel like they're being insulted for picking a product which is slightly inferior performance-wise but is being purported as grossly inferior. - Jektal, on 11/16/2009, -0/+10Once you figure in motherboard and RAM costs, AMD usually wins in midrange comparisons too. I'm not arguing the superiority of Intel's chips, but the extra cost rarely makes it worthwhile for the added performance.
- pussnuts, on 11/16/2009, -0/+10A super computing top N list does not officialize a "better than" rating between two commercial CPU manufacturers.
- HonoredMule, on 11/16/2009, -0/+9I would have a mix of Intel and AMD parts, but it would end up costing me more for less utility when it comes time to buy some upgrades and redistribute parts, having lost flexibility to mix motherboards and processors at will. On top of that, every time I've set out to make a purchase (the last time around I eagerly anticipated getting a core 2 system) the final tally for appropriate purchases always worked out a few hundred cheaper for AMD.
- lolwatermelon, on 11/16/2009, -3/+12Maybe better than Intel for giant clusters, but what about home use? AMD had the edge with their Athlon 64 line, but they fell behind when Intel introduced the Core Duos, and AMD has been playing catch-up ever since.
- Countess666, on 11/16/2009, -0/+9not really, intel just didn't have anything available that scales in any way as well, and only resently caught up with AMD when they made nehalem is available on 4+ socket machines.
now it will take a year or so to develop a super computer based them.
AMD meanwhile profits from their backward-compatibility, they've already have a scalable design for years, and have many super computers based on it. and now the same super computers that started out with all dual cores, got a upgrade to quad cores, and now six-core Istanbul. - richi, on 11/16/2009, -2/+10Right, except that the Cray based on Opterons kicked the IBM machine's backside this time. Fun and games.
- kkm3, on 11/16/2009, -1/+9Pretty bad analogy. If you failed to comprehend, he said TOP 400 out of the TOP 500 are intel. He didn't just say intel makes the most chips.
Fail! - bdbr, on 11/16/2009, -0/+8Probably because your customers aren't building multi-processor supercomputers...like most people.
- Elranzer, on 11/16/2009, -1/+8Overused?
- strictnein, on 11/16/2009, -0/+72. DOE/NNSA/LANL
- BladeCenter QS22/LS21 Cluster, PowerXCell 8i 3.2 Ghz / Opteron DC 1.8 GHz, Voltaire Infiniband
IBM
IBM's computer is #2. It was built using, in part, those "crappy chips".
Also, wtf is a "supercomputer chip"? - rmxz, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7"sold off ... because they are so focused on research"
LOL. You mean because they find consulting to have higher profit margins than selling computers. - richi, on 11/16/2009, -4/+11meow!
- Dragonis, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7http://digitalliving.cnet.co.uk/specials/0,3903078 ...
try reading that. there's a lot more articles backing up my statement.
the only articles you will find saying VHS is better and basically saying that VHS had cheaper players available and had more movies to offer the public. that doesn't make the technology better. it's all politics cause Beta didn't have proper hardware vendor support and therefore had more expensive players - mkriss5681, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7Thanks. I'll actually do a little research on the Phenom II
- RagnabroK, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7They fight, we win!
- lolwatermelon, on 11/16/2009, -5/+12Official according to who? A magazine that hasn't been relevant in years? Well, damn, I guess it IS official.
Having the top 4 is nice, but Intel outnumbers AMD by 4 to 1. - strictnein, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6@KevinRowz:
Stop pretending like you know everything, because you clearly don't. IBM does a ton of consulting and makes lots of money providing services to companies. That accounts for almost $20 billion a year in revenue for them. They aren't just some R&D group that sells high end servers.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr ...
"In IBM's biggest foray in business consulting since it acquired PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting in 2002, the company announced on Apr. 14 that it is setting up a 4,000-person organization focused on helping corporations analyze data better and make smarter decisions.
...
The new business unit, IBM Business Analytics & Optimization Services, is the first major move by Frank Kern, who had run IBM's sales force until January, since he was shifted to lead the $19.6 billion Global Business Services division.
...
Business consulting has become a mainstay at IBM (IBM) since the PricewaterhouseCoopers deal. In 2003, GBS delivered $184 million in profit. Its contribution swelled to $2.3 billion by last year." - comrademikhail, on 11/16/2009, -2/+8"I'm all for competition, and AMD still has its niche out there, but Since Core2, Intel has put the lobster steamer Lid on AMD. the soon to be released i3 will bring AMD to an even more rapid boil."
You've never paid much attention to the CPU market have you?? AMD and Intel have been bouncing back and forth between who has the better performing chips for YEARS... This isn't a "lobster steamer lid"... This is the normal bouncing back and forth exactly like it's been ever since I can remember. - venom8599, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6Intel and AMD never have to steal from each other. They cross license their patents, since otherwise they'd both be suing each other out of existence.
- Zippo, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6Frankly, if AMD wants to better compete, they need to market themselves better. Ever since the Core 2 Duo came out, no one really talks about an AMD CPU anymore. I certainly haven't seen any advertising from AMD.
Maybe now that AMD is profiting from the ATI brand, they're just happy and content? - venom8599, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6@thattruth101
Actually, no, they've been cross licensing tech from each other for years. (Specifically any extensions or revisions to the x86 architecture. Think MMX, SSE, AMD64/EM64T.) It goes back to the early 1980s when IBM insisted that they be able to purchase CPUs for the original IBM PC from another company besides Intel. The exact terms under which they are licensed has been kept confidential, however.
And, contrary to your statement, AMD has historically adopted more of Intel's extensions and revisions than vice versa. - thatruth101, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6fanboy fail
- thatruth101, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5I think he's just too young to remember that a few years ago AMD was on top...infact from 1997-mid 2000 AMD was THE BEST processors.
- neutron7, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5But people who just have one PC think they have to defend what they bought.
- ericcc, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5My most recent build had Intel edging out AMD by a hair but I would have had to spend $35 more for an Intel board with the features I was looking for. I decided to go AMD and put that money towards a better CPU instead. That's a huge upgrade when you're talking ~$100 chips.
- thatruth101, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5I second that. the L3 cache adds a nice touch even though it's not always used by programs. plus it has *2* on die memory controllers, AM2/AM3 compatibility, DDR2/DDR3 support, SSE4, and run's pretty cool. It also uses an entirely new fabrication process, which is one reason why it doesn't suffer from the cold bug like EVERY other processor. None of intels processors are this versatile.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is