AMD desktop chips edge ahead of Intel

Advanced Micro Devices' top-end desktop processors are faster than Intel's for most applications, according to benchmarks from ZDNet Germany's labs.

In a test, Intel's Pentium 4 560 running at 3.6GHz and the 3.4GHz Pentium 4 550 failed to outperform alternatives from AMD. The Pentiums, both with the new Prescott core and 1MB of onboard Level 2 cache, were pitted against the Athlon 64 3800+ running at 2.4GHz and the 2.2GHz 3500+.

The benchmarks indicated that the Athlon 64 has an advantage in office and Internet applications, and with 3D games, said Kai Schmerer, the senior editor who conducted the tests for ZDNet Germany, which is part of CNET Networks.

But AMD's processors did not come out on top in all tests. "The Pentium 4 scored with optimized software--particularly 3D and video rendering," Schmerer said. "The multitasking tests also show an advantage for Intel's Pentium 4."

In Winstone benchmark tests, which measure performance in business and content creation tasks such as converting video files or delivering a PowerPoint presentation, the AMD chips were 10 percent to 16 percent faster than the Intel ones. But with multitasking switched on to take advantage of Intel's hyperthreading technology, the Intel chips took up the lead by 9 percent.

Read the full benchmark review here.

Overall, the test results tended to favor AMD's chips for mainstream applications. That's a potential challenge for Intel, given that the AMD parts are cheaper and cooler. The 3800+ chip consumes 91 watts of power at idle, rising to 172 watts under a full load. That compares with 155 watts at idle and 258 watts under a full load for the Pentium 4 560.

The lower power consumption of the AMD parts arises from their lower clock frequency, as well as from AMD's use of silicon-on-insulator technology.

AMD's 64-bit chips also support the NX (No Execute) feature, which safeguards them from certain virus attacks. Intel has announced that the Pentium 4 is to support the NX feature later this year.

Matt Loney of ZDNet UK reported from London.

AMD vs. Intel

I strongly urge readers to examine the full benchmark review link posted in this article. It provides good information on what building blocks these processors were benchmarked on.

While the ZD Labs attempt to make the playing field as even as possible when benchmarking processors, the subtle differences in platforms can create results that favor AMD in some cases, and Intel in others.

It is for this reason that I do not believe articles like this should be written. Is it possible to do an exact processor-to-processor comparison between Intel and AMD? My opinion is no.

However, you can compare the two companies.

Even though AMD has been able to create new processors and processor features, it has not created new market share for their products. Nor do they have the ability to provide the marketplace with enough of their processors to even compete at Intels level.

Intels product pipeline in the upcoming months and years will provide the marketplace with some of the most innovative and revolutionary technologies for the home, business, government, education, science, and research.

I am sure the AMD vs. Intel discussion will continue for years and years to come. Regardless of who argues what, look beyond the processor speed, and examine the truly important question of which company can produce and deliver amazing technologies for decades to come, and meet/create demand in the marketplace.

I believe the answer to that question is Intel.

- J. Nicholes

[TimeBomb]

Yeah, let me translate...

So what you're saying is: "AMD performs better than Intel, but buy Intel anyway."

Give me a break.

AMD doesn't have Intel's market share, so you should buy Intel.

Give me a break.

How could any company gain market share if people only bought the product of the company with the largest market share? It doesn't make any sense; you have no argument, no leg to stand on.