Expert Opinions: I was informed by a computer 'Geek' ...

[Terry McCracken]

...working for a Computer Outlet that the Intel Core2 Quad isn't a True Quad Core but a mere Core 2 Dualx2 unlike the AMD 4 Core Processor. He went on to say the AMD True 4 Core is faster when overclocked and that Intel doesn't allow for overclocking on their recent line of processors. It's his opinion by experience that Intel is behind.

What's your take on all this? Expert opinions appreciated.

Terry

Here's the truth. The intel quad _is_ a true quad-core. What they do is each core has its own Level-1 cache. Each pair of cores share a larger L2 cache. The primary difference is that the AMD processors share a L3 on-chip cache, with private L1/L2 for each processor.

The AMD L3 is pretty comparable with the Intel L2 so that is not a big issue, except for the AMD sharing L3 across all 4 cores, while with Intel each pair of cores has a separate cache. The AMD approach is technically better, but the Intel Core-2 architecture is so much better the AMD processors still fall far behind in performance...

Thanks Bob! If you could send me even more detailed information and/or good readable links on this topic (here or my inbox) it would be more than appreciated.

Thanks Again!

Best,
Terry

tom's hardware page is a good resource. And a google of "quad core" will turn up a ton of information (you might add either AMD or Intel to get more specific).

where say:

...except for the AMD sharing L3 across all 4 cores, while with Intel each pair of cores has a separate cache....

(while with Intel each pair of cores has a separate cache) ??? then it´s not a quad core access...

intel said and write the last year that they can not do a "real" quad cpu today... this test numbers are good because the sacrificate a lot of "better" options for a good cpu... for have a good result on integer numbers test... and good retro compatible system operation 32-64 bits...

but a powerpc, in fact the cpu power6 it´s a lot of better cpu that intel... this cpu (powe6, IBM), is use on servers, hp, sun, etc... and have this:

PowerXCell 8i 3200 MHz (12.8 GFlops)

(los PowerxCell del Roadrunner dan 12.8 gigaflops).

procesador Core 2 Duo E6700 - 12-13 gigaflops

3 GHz PowerPC G5 processors with over 35 gigaflops of processing power per system.

As of 2008, the PC (quad-core) perform over 51 GFLOPS(QX9775).

The CPU will run at speeds between 4-5GHz with a total of 8Mbytes L2 cache and a 75Gbyte/second link to external memory.

The Power6 doubles the frequency and bandwidth of the existing Power5 without increasing its power consumption or the depth of its execution pipeline. The move lets IBM ship the chip as a mid-2007 refresh for its existing p-series server line.

IBM may surpass Intel in the speed race, although it has not determined exact speeds for shipping parts yet. Intel currently ships versions of its single-core Pentium running at up to 3.8GHz, but it slows its dual-core CPUs down to 2.93GHz or less to keep power and heat in check.

Actually from rythie's post, a 4.7 GHz POWER6 running a single thread seems to be ~= 3.5 GHz Core 2 in integer, and ~= 4.2 GHz Core 2 in floating point. That's pretty good IPC.

Add in the second thread on that core and the per-core IPC might even be higher than Core 2 in floating point, although this is purely speculative and assuming that there is an overall improvement of 20% when running the second thread (no way do I think IBM's SMP implementation is going to suck like HyperThreading).

Power 6 performs like a Core Duo(Yonah) in integer except it runs at 4.7GHz. It is really impressive. I estimate Intel needs a 3.7GHz Core 2 in SpecInt2006 and 5.2GHz Core 2 in SpecFP2006 to equal the 4.7GHz Power 6. Power 6 has better performance per clock in FP than Core 2. Sure, Power 6 does have massive bandwidth advantage so if we assume the same happens for Core 2, Core 2 should gain performance advantage per clock in SpecFP2006.

The 8-core results show a 4.7GHz POWER6 getting over twice the scores (both int_rate and fp_rate) of an 8-core 3GHz Opteron system (which beat the 8-core Xeon system and an 8-core 1.6GHz Itanium system).

in the paper, and in the real work, IBM power6 is a lot of better cpu, have better results floating point, and in integer too when power6 runs 4,7 Ghz...

and the next... power7. run with 4 or 8 REAL Cores... small cache for core, and big cache for "all" cores...

alone intel makes patches, good patches to go throwing with retro-compatibility. but they sacrifice a lot for it... they sacrifice results in floating point, (for have to decent results on integer), it consumes energy, and speed in Ghz... the are very slowly... compare with power6... (power 6 is expensive, linux system ?, or IBM system, and have a lot of power of to count peas ... )

all the foundations of the new intel processors, are a patch, to go throwing 2 or 3 years...

why intel is good sales ? because is cheap very. only that. offers cpus.

intel have not a real cpu quad.. ( do the domestic market need that ?)
amd have goods ideas, but that are some problems to "up" speed in Ghz... but the concepts are better for future desings... only need "more speed"... and some better chipset MB... only need more TIME... intel would be died if AMD and IBM go to de domestic market with masive paralel cpus... and better designs...

but this need a good system program software... and good programs that permit use correctly the masive cpu cores... ( with small ¡ cache ¡¡)

the designs with a lot of cpu have small cache for core... to get a good ratio of speed among them...

AMD is better for futute..

IBM power6 ans power7 are the BEST for now.

PD: only need good programs... and programers... ( with dual-quad-octo-neurons in his brains... ... )

in the servers cpu market , the results are very diferents...

bye, from spain. oliver.

Oliver, we're not talking about IBM chips, that another kettle of fish altogether.

If semantics troubles you so much and claim Intel hasn't a quad core chip and can't make one as you claim then read this...

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/a ... _chip.html

[Terry McCracken]

There shouldn't be too much surprise that there's skepticism of Intel marketing claims. After all, this is the company that told us that hyperthreading in the Pentium IV was just like having two processors. Yeah, more like 1.15 processors, and that's on a good day.

Yes, Intel has pulled some real boners. However, AMD has made some misleading claims as well. If Intel never went the horrible P4 route I don't think there would have neen a snowball's chance in hell that AMD would have grabbed the market for more than half a decade and this discussion would never have existed.

[M ANSARI]

In a sense it is true that Intel's Quadcore is not a true Quadcore like AMD's. It is 2 Dual core CPU's connected together and set in one CPU with minor modifications on the die. AMD on the otherhand has a Quadcore design from the get go. But really what matters is how the final iteration performs ... and in this aspect the Intel Quadcore will match the AMD ghz per ghz. Not only that, the Intel CPU has tremendously more headroom to overclock. AMD CPU's might have an advantage by having an on CPU memory controller, but this has been more than made up for with the Core 2 much more superior design. Intel will come up with an onboard memory controller with Nehalem ... and with that will come a list of other improvements that will be as much of a performance jump as Core 2 was from Pentium 4 (that says a lot).

I have nothing against AMD and for a long time I would use AMD instead of Intel. But today there is absolutely no question that Intel has left AMD in the dust with a much better product and much higher performance throughout the performance range.

[Terry McCracken]

In a sense it is true that Intel's Quadcore is not a true Quadcore like AMD's. It is 2 Dual core CPU's connected together and set in one CPU with minor modifications on the die. AMD on the otherhand has a Quadcore design from the get go. But really what matters is how the final iteration performs ... and in this aspect the Intel Quadcore will match the AMD ghz per ghz. Not only that, the Intel CPU has tremendously more headroom to overclock. AMD CPU's might have an advantage by having an on CPU memory controller, but this has been more than made up for with the Core 2 much more superior design. Intel will come up with an onboard memory controller with Nehalem ... and with that will come a list of other improvements that will be as much of a performance jump as Core 2 was from Pentium 4 (that says a lot).

I have nothing against AMD and for a long time I would use AMD instead of Intel. But today there is absolutely no question that Intel has left AMD in the dust with a much better product and much higher performance throughout the performance range.

Thanks ANSARI , but I feel somewhat underpowered with my Q6600 @ 2.40 Ghz., the slowest and oldest of Intel's new versions. Still it's a hell of a lot faster than a single core AMD 32bit Sempron 2600+ @ 1.833 Ghz.

Terry

[Leto]

Fritz 11 benchmark result chart from Tomshardware.com shows Intel's top chip outperforming AMD's by 140%.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desk ... 1,837.html

The chart also shows that the very well priced Intel Q6600 at just under $200 outperforms the best AMD chip.

[Terry McCracken]

Fritz 11 benchmark result chart from Tomshardware.com shows Intel's top chip outperforming AMD's by 140%.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desk ... 1,837.html

The chart also shows that the very well priced Intel Q6600 at just under $200 outperforms the best AMD chip.

Thanks, Great Link!

[Bo Persson]

the Intel Core2 Quad isn't a True Quad Core but a mere Core 2 Dualx2 unlike the AMD 4 Core Processor.

-> True

He went on to say the AMD True 4 Core is faster when overclocked

-> False

Intel doesn't allow for overclocking on their recent line of processors.

-> False

Actually that is what I thought. I knew Intel put to duals on one chip.

I still considered it a quad core as you can use up to four cores at once.

The difference with the Phenom is it has 4 cores on 1 die as opposed to 2 dies.

How much real difference does this make, 2 dies 4 cores to a single die 4 cores? Is there any real speed-up? Should Intel adopt the same strategy to boost their Quad Core line? I think maybe they should?

In theory there is, in AMD's practice it is not enough.

Intel will do it as soon as their next line is ready.

[bob]

...working for a Computer Outlet that the Intel Core2 Quad isn't a True Quad Core but a mere Core 2 Dualx2 unlike the AMD 4 Core Processor. He went on to say the AMD True 4 Core is faster when overclocked and that Intel doesn't allow for overclocking on their recent line of processors. It's his opinion by experience that Intel is behind.

What's your take on all this? Expert opinions appreciated.

Terry

Here's the truth. The intel quad _is_ a true quad-core. What they do is each core has its own Level-1 cache. Each pair of cores share a larger L2 cache. The primary difference is that the AMD processors share a L3 on-chip cache, with private L1/L2 for each processor.

The AMD L3 is pretty comparable with the Intel L2 so that is not a big issue, except for the AMD sharing L3 across all 4 cores, while with Intel each pair of cores has a separate cache. The AMD approach is technically better, but the Intel Core-2 architecture is so much better the AMD processors still fall far behind in performance...

Thanks Bob! If you could send me even more detailed information and/or good readable links on this topic (here or my inbox) it would be more than appreciated.

Thanks Again!

Best,
Terry

tom's hardware page is a good resource. And a google of "quad core" will turn up a ton of information (you might add either AMD or Intel to get more specific).

where say:

...except for the AMD sharing L3 across all 4 cores, while with Intel each pair of cores has a separate cache....

(while with Intel each pair of cores has a separate cache) ??? then it´s not a quad core access...

"quad core" means "chip has four processor cores. Intel certainly has that.

intel said and write the last year that they can not do a "real" quad cpu today... this test numbers are good because the sacrificate a lot of "better" options for a good cpu... for have a good result on integer numbers test... and good retro compatible system operation 32-64 bits...

but a powerpc, in fact the cpu power6 it´s a lot of better cpu that intel... this cpu (powe6, IBM), is use on servers, hp, sun, etc... and have this:

PowerXCell 8i 3200 MHz (12.8 GFlops)

(los PowerxCell del Roadrunner dan 12.8 gigaflops).

procesador Core 2 Duo E6700 - 12-13 gigaflops

Who cares? I don't do any floating point operations in my chess program, so I end up caring only about integer instruction execution speed.

3 GHz PowerPC G5 processors with over 35 gigaflops of processing power per system.

As of 2008, the PC (quad-core) perform over 51 GFLOPS(QX9775).

The CPU will run at speeds between 4-5GHz with a total of 8Mbytes L2 cache and a 75Gbyte/second link to external memory.

The Power6 doubles the frequency and bandwidth of the existing Power5 without increasing its power consumption or the depth of its execution pipeline. The move lets IBM ship the chip as a mid-2007 refresh for its existing p-series server line.

IBM may surpass Intel in the speed race, although it has not determined exact speeds for shipping parts yet. Intel currently ships versions of its single-core Pentium running at up to 3.8GHz, but it slows its dual-core CPUs down to 2.93GHz or less to keep power and heat in check.

Actually from rythie's post, a 4.7 GHz POWER6 running a single thread seems to be ~= 3.5 GHz Core 2 in integer, and ~= 4.2 GHz Core 2 in floating point. That's pretty good IPC.

Add in the second thread on that core and the per-core IPC might even be higher than Core 2 in floating point, although this is purely speculative and assuming that there is an overall improvement of 20% when running the second thread (no way do I think IBM's SMP implementation is going to suck like HyperThreading).

Power 6 performs like a Core Duo(Yonah) in integer except it runs at 4.7GHz. It is really impressive. I estimate Intel needs a 3.7GHz Core 2 in SpecInt2006 and 5.2GHz Core 2 in SpecFP2006 to equal the 4.7GHz Power 6. Power 6 has better performance per clock in FP than Core 2. Sure, Power 6 does have massive bandwidth advantage so if we assume the same happens for Core 2, Core 2 should gain performance advantage per clock in SpecFP2006.


The 8-core results show a 4.7GHz POWER6 getting over twice the scores (both int_rate and fp_rate) of an 8-core 3GHz Opteron system (which beat the 8-core Xeon system and an 8-core 1.6GHz Itanium system).

in the paper, and in the real work, IBM power6 is a lot of better cpu, have better results floating point, and in integer too when power6 runs 4,7 Ghz...

and the next... power7. run with 4 or 8 REAL Cores... small cache for core, and big cache for "all" cores...

alone intel makes patches, good patches to go throwing with retro-compatibility. but they sacrifice a lot for it... they sacrifice results in floating point, (for have to decent results on integer), it consumes energy, and speed in Ghz... the are very slowly... compare with power6... (power 6 is expensive, linux system ?, or IBM system, and have a lot of power of to count peas ... )

all the foundations of the new intel processors, are a patch, to go throwing 2 or 3 years...

why intel is good sales ? because is cheap very. only that. offers cpus.

intel have not a real cpu quad.. ( do the domestic market need that ?)
amd have goods ideas, but that are some problems to "up" speed in Ghz... but the concepts are better for future desings... only need "more speed"... and some better chipset MB... only need more TIME... intel would be died if AMD and IBM go to de domestic market with masive paralel cpus... and better designs...

but this need a good system program software... and good programs that permit use correctly the masive cpu cores... ( with small ¡ cache ¡¡)

the designs with a lot of cpu have small cache for core... to get a good ratio of speed among them...

AMD is better for futute.

IBM power6 ans power7 are the BEST for now.

PD: only need good programs... and programers... ( with dual-quad-octo-neurons in his brains... ... )

in the servers cpu market , the results are very diferents...

bye, from spain. oliver.

The question was "which is better today?" and the answer is Intel. I run on one of our clusters with dual chip quad-core Intel xeons all the time. I haverun on everything AMD has made as well. A couple of years ago it was different, but today, Intel is at the front of the pack, and out in front by a wide margin compared to AMD...