Dva najvea, istovremeno i jedina proizvoaa x86 mikroprocesora,
koji se ugrauju raunare koje svi koristimo, jesu Intel i AMD
Dva najvea, istovremeno i jedina proizvoaa x86 mikroprocesora,
koji se ugrauju raunare koje svi koristimo, jesu Intel i AMD.
Filozofije koje slede ove dve kompanije se umnogome razlikuju.
Stoga nije od zgoreg znati kakvi su koncepti kojima se Intel i AMD
vode, kako biste pravilnije mogli da procenite "kome se carstvu
prikloniti"...Intel i AMD svetovi
Intel i AMD su dva najvea, a zapravo i jedina proizvoaa x86
mikroprocesora, odnosno ipova koje konvencionalno nazivamo
procesorima u naim PC raunarima. Iako u poslednje vreme sve vie
ureaja, naroito mobilnih, unosi raznolikost kroz korienje procesora
koji ne spadaju u x86 arhitekturu, i dalje su x86 procesori
najbitniji inilac iskustva koje poistoveujemo sa raunarima.
Nemaju obe kompanije isti pristup tritu procesora. Naprotiv,
njihove filozofije su poprilino razliite. Intel i AMD su potpuno
odvojeni svetovi, sa drugaijim kategorizacijama, ciljevima,
cenovnim grupama, i uopte filozofijom, koja se reflektuje i na PC
raunare koji su bazirani na njihovom hardveru. Ovde emo se ukratko
osvrnuti ba na te najbitnije razlike u filozofiji, bez
detaljisanja, testiranja ili eksplicitnih dokazivanja.
Bez elje da duimo, izneemo odreene tvrdnje za koje vas molimo da
ih prihvatite kao aksiome. Danas su procesori odreeni brojnim
parametrima, meu kojima se radni takt i dalje uvaava kao
najbitniji, ali tu su jo i broj jezgara, FPU/ALU jedinice, ke
memorija, memorijski i ostali kontroleri integrisani u procesore,
integrisana grafika i tako dalje. Posebno se jednaina promenila sa
implementacijom integrisanih grafikih jezgara, to je trci na polju
procesora donelo posebnu meru.
ta su najvanije stavke? Ukoliko su vam bitne performanse
procesorskih jezgara, Intel je bolji izbor. Ukoliko traite odnos
cene i performansi, AMD je bolji izbor, a isto vai i za situaciju u
kojoj su vam bitne performanse integrisane grafike. Grafike
integrisane u AMD procesorima u principu rade bolje nego one
integrisane u Intel procesorima. Najzad, AMD generalno bolje stoji
kada su cene u pitanju, ali mu je najvii prag relativno nizak to
znai da se AMD praktino i ne takmii u gornjem segmentu. Ukoliko vas
svojim performansama ne zadovoljavaju procesori cene ispod 200-ak
evra, vi se verovatno neete dvoumiti, obzirom da AMD jednostavno ne
nudi skuplji procesor, i da je to trite kojim Intel potpuno
suvereno vlada.
Postoji jo nekoliko aspekata o kojima treba voditi rauna.
Softver je u poslednje vreme uglavnom kaskao za hardverom, to u
praksi znai da za obinog kupca sve manje postaje bitno kojim se
procesorom raspolae. ak je u industriji jasno uoljiv trend nuenja
kupcima to jeftinije platforme, prevashodno za neku posebnu namenu,
ije su performanse na nivou hardvera od pre nekoliko godina, ali u
nekoj novoj, obino manjoj i visokointegrisanoj formi.
Slino se moe rei i za igre, mada ne sasvim. Iako dosta zavisi od
anra do anra, od igre do igre, od razvojnog tima do razvojnog tima
i od optimizacije, moe se rei da je i tu prisutan trend sve manje
zavisnosti od centralnog procesora. Izuzmemo li igre gde je
potrebno da AI kontrolie ogroman broj jedinica na ekranu (obino
neka strategija u realnom vremenu), performanse u igrama mnogo vie
zavise od grafike i koliine RAM memorije nego od procesora.
Proitajte obavezno i na kratak lanak o APU-ima (ili detaljne
testove APU maina), kako biste dobili informaciju o tome kako se
pristupano igrati.
Nemaju obe kompanije isti pristup tritu procesora. Naprotiv,
njihove filozofije su poprilino razliiteStoga, da sumiramo. U
najniim kategorijama, gde je cena apsolutno najbitniji faktor, AMD
nudi veoma dobre ponude, naroito sa svojom APU platformom. Ukoliko
su vam bitne performanse integrisane grafike, AMD zaista nudi dosta
u tom domenu, premda treba rei da i svi Intel procesori dolaze sa
integrisanim grafikama. Kako cena raste, i prelazi se u niu srednju
klasu, Intel Core procesori postepeno preuzimaju primat zahvaljujui
performansama svojih jezgara iako i dalje AMD reenja i ovde nude
dosta za uloeni novac ali sve manje kako cena raste. Najzad, kada
odete u domen visoke klase, konkurencije i nema, obzirom da
najskuplji AMD procesori idu tik iznad 200-ak evra, tako da u ovoj
kategoriji Intel ostaje kao jedini izbor.
,
, CPU- 1, , 2.
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 .
AMD Athlon X2 6400+ .
( ), . [1] CPU , , , .[2] ( CMP), .
. (Dual-core) (. AMD Phenom II X2, Intel Core Duo), quad-core (.
AMD Phenom II X4, Intel- quad-core , i5 i7 Intel Core), 6- core (.
AMD Phenom II X6, Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 980X), 8-core (.
Intel Xeon E7-2820, AMD FX-8350), 10-core (. Intel Xeon E7-2850),
12-core . . . , , . , , - crossbar. , . - , ,VLIW, , SIMD .
, ,, , (DSP) .
. , ; Amdahl- . , , , . , , .[1] .
[] 1 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 4 4.1 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 6 7 8[]
1single-core
2dual-core
3tri-coretriple-core
4quad-core
5penta-core
6hexa-core
7hepta-core
8octa-core,octo-core
9nona-core
10deca-core
11hendeca-core
12dodeca-core
13trideca-core
14tetradeca-core
15pentadeca-core
16hexadeca-core
17heptadeca-core
18octadeca-core
19enneadeca-core
20icosa-core
(CPU), (DSP) -- (SoC). ; , - . CPU , .
, multi-CPU ( ).
many-core massively multi-core ( ).[2] FPGA. "semiconductor
intellectual property core" ( ) CPU .
[] , , . . CPU . instruction-level parallelism (ILP) ( )
pipeline , --. (TLP), CPU . ( ) TLP .
[] . , , IC. , , , , CISC . 20. , 1980. 2000- .
, . CPU , CPU . Intel 48 ; 86 .[3]Intel Linux .[4] [] (SMP) ,
.
:
.
, . :
# ; . . .
#ILP wall; - .
#power wall; . . wer wall , ILP wall.
, IntelandAMD , . , . .
[] CPU . snoop (: snooping) . , , . , .
, , (PCB) SMP . , , . , , L2 (front side bus - FSB). , CPU . ,
.
. . , . . .[5][] () . , . : Valve Corporation's Source engine
,,[6]
HYPERLINK
"http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr/%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%98%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%80"
\l "cite_note-7" [7] Crytek CryEngine 2 , Crysis. Emergent Game
Technologies' Gamebryo engine Floodgate ,[8] . ,Apple Inc.'sOS X,
Mac OS X Snow Leopard, iOS iOS 4, Grand Central Dispatch.
. Intel , , . , , , . , . . , - 30% 70% ; , 90%; , Amdahl- .[9]
, 100%- .
[][] -, -, -, -, . , , -- , , . -- - (. ).
[] . (), , .
CPU Rick Merritt, EE Times 2008,[10] :
Chuck Moore [...] , .
[...] Atsushi Hasegawa, Renesas, . .
[...] Anant Agarwal, Tilera, . .
[] , GUI (. ). , . -- (thread-safety). , , . . , . , .
, , . , .
datapath , datapath . MPUs [11] - -.
. Cilk Plus, OpenMP, OpenHMPP, FastFlow, Skandium, MPI Erlang .
Intel C++ TBB. Codeplay Sieve System, Cray's Chapel, Sun's Fortress
IBM's X10.
. . CFortran, C#. Intel- MKL AMD's ACML . , . , ( / ). . .[12] .
:
. , .
, , . . . .
, . . , , , , , . / .
, . .
, , . .
[], - . CPU CPU, .
Microsoft .[13]Oracle AMD X2 Intel dual-core CPU , . IBM HP - .
- , CPU- - .
[][] Adapteva Epiphany, 4096
Aeroflex Gaisler LEON3, SPARC
Ageia PhysX,
Ambric Am2045, 336- Massively Parallel Processor Array
(MPPA)
AMD A-Series, , , Accelerated Processor Units (APU).
Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX Athlon 64 X2 ,
Athlon II, -, -, .
FX-Series, quad-, hex-, 8-
Opteron, -, -, -, 8-, 12-, 16- / .
Phenom, -, -, .
Phenom II, -, -, -, .
Sempron X2,
Turion 64 X2,
Radeon FireStream GPU/GPGPU (10 , 16 5-
Analog Devices Blackfin BF561,
ARMMPCore ARM11 MPCore and ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore ,
ASOCS ModemX, 128 ,
Azul Systems
Vega 1, a 24- , 2005.
Vega 2, a 48- , 2006.
Vega 3, a 54- , 2008.
Broadcom SiByte SB1250, SB1255 and SB1455.
ClearSpeed
CSX700, 192- , 2008 (32/64-bit ; ALU)
Cradle Technologies CT3400 CT3600, DSPs.
Cavium Networks Octeon, a 16- MIPSMPU.
Freescale Semiconductor QorIQ , 8 , Power Architecture MPU.
Hewlett-PackardPA-8800 PA-8900, PA-RISC .
IBM POWER4, - , 2001.
POWER5, , 2004.
POWER6, , 2007.
POWER7, 4,6,8- , 2010.
PowerPC 970MP, , Apple Power Mac G5.
Xenon, , SMT-capable,PowerPC MicrosoftXbox 360 .
Kalray
MPPA-256, 256- , 2012 (256 usable VLIW cores, Network-on-Chip
(NoC), 32/64-bit IEEE 754 compliant FPU)
Sony/IBM/Toshiba's Cell , PowerPC SPUs (Synergystic Processing
Unit) Sony PlayStation 3 Infineon Danube, , MIPS-based, home
gateway processor.
Intel Atom, netbook .
CeleronDual-Core, /
Core Duo, .
Core 2 Duo, .
Core 2 Quad, 2 .
Core i3, Core i5, Core i7 and Octa Core , Core 2 Duo the Core 2
Quad.
Itanium 2, .
Pentium D, 2
Pentium Extreme Edition, 2 .
Pentium Dual-Core, .
Teraflops Research Chip (Polaris), a 3.16 GHz, 80- , 2011.[14]
Xeon -, -, -, -, 10- .
IntellaSys
SEAforth 40C18, a 40- [15] SEAforth24, a 24- Charles H.
Moore
NetLogic Microsystems
XLP, a 32-, -MIPS64
XLR, an - , -MIPS64
XLS, an - , - MIPS64
Nvidia GeForce 9 GPU (8 , 16 )
GeForce 200 GPU (10 , 24 )
Tesla GPGPU (10 , 24 )
Parallax Propeller P8X32, .
picoChip PC200 series 200300 DSP & wireless
Plurality HAL series 16-256 , L1 , .
Rapport Kilocore KC256, a 257- PowerPC 256 8-bit " .
SiCortex "SiCortex node" MIPS64 .
Sun Microsystems MAJC 5200, two-core VLIW processor
UltraSPARC IV and UltraSPARC IV+, .
UltraSPARC T1, , 32- .
UltraSPARC T2, , 64--
UltraSPARC T3, , 128- - .
SPARC T4, , 64- -
SPARC T5, , 128- -
Texas Instruments TMS320C80 MVP,
TMS320TMS320C66, 2,4,8 dsp.
Tilera
TILE64, a 64- 32-bit
TILE-Gx, a 100- 64-bit
hese are interesting times for CPU makers. Gone are the days
where a few hours laptop battery life was considered efficient and
where the only computers people had in their homes were noisy, hot
desktops. Now, the pre-builtdesktop PCis all but a dead man
walking: in 2013 the market collapsed with desktop sales falling
9.8 percent globally. In emerging markets the story was even worse:
a fall of 11.3 percent as users sought smaller, cheaper, less-power
hungry devices.
The result has been upheaval for the silicone industrys main
players. Less than a decade ago, Intel and AMD had the world at
their feet. Intels distinctive audio logo rang out wherever laptops
were sold and AMDs future was considerably bright thanks to its
2006 acquisition of graphics powerhouse ATI. These chip giants
haven't quite kept up with the times, though. The tech landscape is
fast changing and Intel and AMD's apparent slowness to switch focus
to mobile computing has allowed other chip manufacturers most
notably ARM but also the likes of VIA and Qualcomm to dominate this
huge new market.
Intel vs AMD: Why it matters
If youre buying a traditionallaptopor PC, AMD and Intel are your
only choices for processors, but dont make the mistake of thinking
the PCs slump in popularity means either company is sliding towards
irrelevance. Both have ground to make up but in May 2014 Intels
revenue was $52.7bn (around 37bn) and it was sitting on a cash pile
of $5.67bn (around 3.7bn). Intel doesn't make all its money from PC
and laptop processors, of course. It also produces graphics
processors, wired and wireless network adaptors, server and
workstation processors and components, plus set-top box parts.
While you won't find an Intel processor in many smartphones or
tablets, the firm does produce many SoCs for mobile devices.
AMD is the smaller of the two companies by some margin. For one
thing, while Intel builds its own chips in over a dozen fabrication
(fab) plants in the USA, Ireland, Israel and China, AMD sold off
its last fab in 2009. Today, just like ARM, VIA, MediaTek and
others, AMD designs its own chips but outsources the manufacturing.
Producing microprocessors is formidably expensive and AMDs revenue
pales in comparison to Intels: merely $6.57bn (4.29bn).
Intel vs AMD: History and breakthroughs
Both companies have a history of innovation. When Intel produced
the 8080 processor in 1974, it lay the groundwork for the x86
processors which provided the foundations for desktop PCs for
nearly 30 years. Its an astute marketeer, too: its mid-2000s
Centrino platform, consisting of a low-power processor, a wireless
chip and a mobile chipset, took the market by storm with its
reputation for desktop-class computing power and long battery life.
Its shift from the x86 brand to Pentium (copyrighting a series of
numbers proved impossible) was a similar stroke of PR genius.
The ability of Intels marketing department to outspend and
out-think others continues. The success of Intels Ultrabook
trademark might be perilously tied to Microsofts stumbling efforts
with Windows 8, but the companys understanding that consumers need
short, snappy brands rather than clock frequencies and other jargon
endures.
AMDs position as underdog is a consistent one. Marketing
consultant Mercury Research reported AMD hit a record 22 percent
share of the market in 2006; now the company hovers around the 17
percent mark, thanks in part to its dominance of the console
market: both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 have custom 8-core AMD
'Jaguar' processors at their hearts.
Arguably, AMDs largest recent innovation was its acquisition of
Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) manufacturer ATI in 2006. The $5.6bn
transaction (about 3bn) saw AMD join Intel in being able to deliver
integrated graphics chips - that is, GPUs that live on the same
chip as the CPU. The result is less graphical horsepower, but
vastly reduced power draw and heat output. Forget fire-breathing,
discrete graphics cards (last year'sRadeon R9 280Xdrew around 250W
at its peak and needed two cooling fans) AMD understood that the
future of silicone lay in reducing power consumption and size as
much as in increasing computational power. These days, people don't
need more power: they want better battery life from portable
devices.
AMD vs Intel: Challenges
On the face of it, both AMD and Intel were well-placed to answer
the needs of users as the sales of mobile devices exploded. The
desktop PC market was in steady decline, laptop sales were on the
rise, and the mobile phone was begging for reinvention. Intel
already had an incredibly strong reputation with its laptop
Centrino platform, and while AMDs Turion competitor was a distant
second, the race was on to win a market that knew mobility was the
future of computing.
Intel started strongly. Remember the netbook? Before the
netbook, spending less than 500 on a laptop would net you something
slow and bulky with limited battery life. The first netbooks the
likes of the Asus Eee PC 701, released in the UK in 2007 cost under
200, weighed under a kilo and, while unlikely to be seen at many
LAN gaming parties, offered enough processing power to run basic
work applications and critically applications that ran in web
browsers. The processor at its heart? An ultra-low voltage version
of the humble Celeron.
The netbook was a critical and commercial success, and Intel
capitalised with its Atom processors. This was Intel silicone at
its cheapest: bought in batches of a thousand the earliest Atom
CPUs were reputed to cost manufacturers under $30, and for a few
years the netbook ruled. Consumers wanted small, cheap computers
and Intel, with its wealth of experience in mobile processors, was
perfectly placed to answer the call.
The problem arrived in tablet form.We don't know how to make a
$500 computer that's not a piece of junk, said Steve Jobs in 2008.
Netbooks arent better than anything, he added at the 2010 launch of
the first generation iPad. Apples chief operating officer Tim Cook
agreed, describing netbooks as not a good consumer experience, and
thus the iPad came to be.
The issue for Intel and AMD was not that they failed to
anticipate consumers preference for mobile devices. The problem was
the form factor: the iPad sold 300,000 units on the first day of
its availability in 2010. In picking traditional form factor
laptops and netbooks, with traditional desktop operating systems
built around traditional x86 hardware, Intel and AMD had backed the
wrong horse. In fact, Intel, Microsoft and HP had tried to make
tablets a success years before the iPad, but the combination of
Windows (an OS designed for the keyboard and mouse), short battery
life and chunky, heavy hardware meant no-one wanted to use
them.
The problem for Intel and AMD wasnt that the iPad and following
tablets from the likes of Sony, Samsung and others didnt need
processors. It was that they needed a new type. And the kingdom of
the SoC (system on a chip) in which a computers entire functions
are embedded on a single chip was already ruled by British
processor giant ARM.
ARMs processors are a completely different architecture than the
traditional chips favoured by Intel and AMD. ARMs Reduced
Instruction Set Computing (RISC) processors are physically simpler
than x86 processors, which means they cost less and draw less
power. As the iPad and the stampede of tablets which followed took
off, it seemed AMD and Intel had missed a significant boat. Fast
forward to 2015 and the netbook is dead, slain by high-quality
tablets that perform well, offer long battery life, and cost much
less than a standard laptop.
Intel vs AMD: New form factors
Even Microsoft, long-time ally of x86 hardware, piled on the
misery for Intel and AMD. Windows RT, released in late 2012, was
the first version of Windows that would run on ARM-powered devices,
theoretically giving Microsoft access to low-cost tablets and
potentially freezing Intel out even more. However, the Windows RT
platform flopped: in 2013 Microsoft had to take a $900 million
write-down on its unsold Windows RT devices, and the companys chief
financial officer Amy Hood understated things spectacularly when
she said we know we have to do better, particularly on mobile
devices.
While we were impressed with the Surface Pro 3, it's the best of
a relatively bad bunch of so-called "two-in-one" devices which
supposedly offer the best of both worlds: one minute a full Windows
laptop, the next a tablet. The problem is that Windows 8's touch
interface just isn't that good, and few developers have made apps
for it. Instead, Microsoft's immediate future hangs on the success
of Windows 10 which will run on everything from 4in smartphones to
the largest-screened PCs and even the Xbox.
Intel isnt hanging its hopes on Microsoft, though. At CES 2015,
it unveiled the Curie module, a button-sized module for wearable
devices. This uses the Quark SE SoC which can be powered by a coin
battery. For its relatively slow start in the world of tablet,
wearable and ultra-portable computing, Intel still has plenty left
in the tank. Thats before you look at its latest round of
processors: Intels Core M chips will all be based on 14nm
processes, meaning more computational welly for lower power draw
than ever before.
Change focus to gaming worth around 1.72bn to the British
economy according to the Association for UK Interactive
Entertainment and theres an entirely different story to be told.
Intel does deal with graphics processing, of course, but its
expertise lies in integrated graphics. Integrated graphics are
ideal for small laptops: an integrated graphics processor doesnt
add much to the price of a laptop, doesnt draw too much power and
contrary to popular opinion does offer enough 3D processing oomph
for the odd game.
For anyone looking to play the latest releases at detail
settings that put the latest consoles to shame, though, discrete
graphics cards have always been the answer, and its here that AMD
has a significant edge. AMDs current crop of graphics card run the
gamut from low-profile, passively-cooled cards up to its latest R9
290X cards, which retail around 400 for the card alone. Discrete
graphics arent the only gaming arena AMDs strong in, either. As
well as having its chips in both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, it
also supplies the GPU in Nintendos Wii U. It might not have much to
shout about in developing platforms such as tablets or hybrids, but
gamers have plenty to thank it for.
Intel vs AMD: Which should you buy?
If youre building a desktop PC, the choice between AMD and Intel
is as real as ever. The choice is as complicated as ever, too:
visit any well-known online retailer and youll be faced with a
choice of over 600 CPUs. If youre driven by budget, AMD has a
strong command of the lower price-points, but if you opt for AMD it
doesnt mean you exclude yourself from high-end computing: the
companys top-end Athlon processors put up a tough challenge to
Intels flagship Core i7 CPUs.
Intels is dominant, though, and across mid-range and high-end
processors theres an enormous amount of choice. For powerful,
everyday computing the Core i5 continues to serve well: you can
pick one up for around 150 and up. True power users those editing
video, rendering 3D animations, or those who simply want to get to
the top of the SETI@home leaderboard, can opt for Intels Core i7
chips.
Intel Vs. AMD Processor Comparison 2013It's early 2014, and the
time is soon approaching where processor giants AMD and Intel will
go up against each other and release their newest line of
processors, making the 2013 versions older. Of course, AMD might
have jumped the gun, and taken the lead, by releasing their Kaveri
line of processors, but Intel cannot just be ruled out of the race
as yet. Before the 2014 cycle begins, let's take look at the last
year's processors and see who gained the upper
hand.Advertisement
Ever since computation came into existence, the war of being the
best processor has existed. And there have been only two contenders
for the title: Intel and AMD. The fight for being the best has
always brought out the best technology from these two manufacturing
giants.
In this competition of Intel vs. AMD processors, many a time,
Intel had the upper hand with their progressive thinking and
amazing technology upgradation. However, it will be unfair on the
part of AMD to rule them out, as gamers will prefer AMD.
2013 saw amazing chips being launched by these masters of the
trade. Before we go on to the latest from 2014, let's see who
scores the best rating and who stands at the second best (I will
refrain from saying worst) position by comparing Intel and AMD
processors.
The Flashback
Before we proceed to this year's launches, let us go down the
memory lane. Intel has had many launches ever since its launch. Be
it the old Celeron or the Pentium processors, they have always
managed to gather better customer satisfaction with their launches.
AMD, on the other hand, is not too far behind with Sempron to the
latest FX series launches. The cutthroat competition that these two
have can be observed from the fact that every time either of them
launched a variant, the other launched its competing variant. In
2012, the launch of Bulldozer processors was a huge hit for AMD,
while Intel maintained the competition with Ivy Bridge processors.
The latter also saw the core size reducing to almost 22nm in Ivy
Bridge (massive size reduction from Sandy Bridge processors) while
AMD maintained the minimum feature size of 32nm.
Intel Vs. AMD 2013
Both the companies decided to go a step further by creating some
amazing processor variants. First, let us have a look at Intel's
2013 launches.
Sandy Bridge-E
Intel came up with the Sandy Bridge-E processor, i7-3970X in
Q4:2012. Sandy Bridge-E is the name for the eight-core processor
that is based on the earlier-launched Sandy Bridge
microarchitecture. However, out of these eight cores, some cores
may be disabled. With this launch, the die size remained 32nm while
the maximum TDP was 150W. The i7-39xx series had only DMI as their
I/O bus with about 5 GT/s. This launch saw the end of the 2012's
launches and made way for the 2013 launches. The main specs of the
processor i7-3970X are:
Feature ValueNumber of Cores 6Number of Threads 12Clock Speed
3.5 GHzCore Size 32nmTDP 150 WMemory Bandwidth 51.2 GB/s
Haswell
The latest from the Intel factory is the Haswell
microarchitecture-based processors. This was launched in June 2013
and was formerly known as Rockwell. This processor has reduced the
die size to 22nm from the previous 32nm. With this launch, Intel
has targeted the hybrid or convertible market by making a low-power
processor. The processors with this microarchitecture are expected
to be launched in three segments - Desktop version (Haswell-DT),
Mobile/Laptop version (Haswell-MB), and BGA version (Haswell-H,
Haswell-ULT, Haswell-ULX). The processors based on Haswell are
i7-47xx, i5-4670K, i3-43xx, i3-4130, and Xeon E3- 12xx. The specs
for i7-4770K are:
Feature ValueNumber of Cores 4Number of Threads 8Clock Speed 3.5
GHzCore Size 22nmTDP 84 WMemory Bandwidth 25.6 GB/s
To compete with these processors of Intel, AMD came up with
Piledriver in the second quarter of 2012, Richland in first half of
2013, and Steamroller in the second half of 2013. Let us take a
look at their functionalities.
Piledriver
The successor to the Bulldozer processors are the
Piledriver-based ones. The core size remained the same as the
previous one, i.e., 32nm. The architecture hasn't changed from the
previous one; it has only incremented in its features. The clock
rates were increased and so were the instructions per clock cycle.
The power consumption has also reduced due to the switch over to
hard-edge flip-flops. The AMD APU, AMD FX, and Opteron are the
processors that are based on this microarchitecture. The
specifications for the AMD FX-8350 are:
Feature ValueNumber of Cores 8Number of Threads 8Clock Speed 4.0
GHzCore Size 32nmTDP 125 WMemory Bandwidth 19 GB/s
Richland
AMD's answer to the Haswell processors is Richland. Though we
cannot say AMD has exceeded Intel's processing power, this AMD
processor surely has an edge over Haswell's graphics core and is
also cheaper. The die size has not changed and remains at 32nm. The
new APUs are backward-compatible with the older motherboards as the
sockets haven't changed. The processor range has four quad-core and
one dual-core part. A10 series is based on this microarchitecture.
The specs for A10-6800K are:
Feature ValueNumber of Cores 4Number of Threads 4Clock Speed 4.1
GHzCore Size 32nmTDP 100 WMemory Bandwidth --
Steamroller
This latest offering from AMD has a reduced core size of 28nm
which is close to the Haswell's die size of 22nm. There are some
major changes in the architectural aspect of the processor lines.
There is an independent instruction decoder for each of the core
equipped with better instruction schedulers. Along with improved
memory controllers and larger caches, AMD aims to increase the
instructions per cycle to 30%. The main aim of building Steamroller
was to achieve greater parallelism with pipelined floating-point
(FP) units and two integer units. Kaveri A-series APU and Berlin
APU series are the new line of AMD processors. The specs are yet to
be released.
AMD Inches Closer to Intel
Wondering what influenced me to make such a comment? Well, this
list of 2013 launches would be incomplete without a special mention
to AMD's FX-9590 processor. AMD nailed it by launching a 5GHz
processor, FX-9590. This is the first 5GHz processor, and it was
launched in Los Angeles in June 2013. It is the most powerful
processor to be launched till date. It is a 8-core processor with
Piledriver microarchitecture. The TDP is 220W but AMD seems to not
get enough of the die size, which remains the same as 32nm. The L3
cache is 8MB while there are four 2MB L2 caches. We will have to
wait till Intel launches a competitor processor. Till then, AMD
surely has an upper hand this year.Gaming
AMD Richland and Intel Haswell are the new processor lines from
two of the major processor-making companies in the world. In this
section we compare their on-board graphics, and their gaming
capabilities. It goes without saying that to play the latest games,
you will need a dedicated graphics card, and no matter how good
integrated graphics get, they are never going to be enough to run
the latest games. However, these two companies have improved their
graphic cores tremendously, to a point where a low-end graphics
card becomes unnecessary. Of course, people who opt for discrete
graphics rarely go for low-end versions, making this a moot point.
But, more powerful and capable integrated graphics is a boon for
the development of the mobile market, where discrete graphics is
simply not an option.
When it comes to comparing the integrated graphics from both
these manufacturers, there is very little to choose between them.
Of course, both have made improvements over their predecessors;
Intel's Haswell is far better than its Ivy League, while AMD's
Richland is also better than its Trinity.
The higher end processors from the Richland line seem to be
better than the processors from the Haswell line, at least in terms
of Integrated Graphics; Intel's HD Graphics 4600 compares only with
entry-level AMD APUs. In gaming, it would be wiser to choose AMD
over Intel, as AMD's Socket FM2 products are better for entry-level
tasks. It should be kept in mind, however, that even though the
performance of the integrated graphics have improved, today's games
have become even more demanding. Do not expect smooth game play in
full HD resolution on integrated graphics. Neither Richland nor
Haswell can achieve that. For multimedia, it would be wiser to
choose Haswell, as Richland struggles to cope with 4K content, and
suffers in video transcoding tasks.
Price-wise, once again AMD scores over Intel, with processors
from their Richland line being cheaper than Intel's Haswell. The
downside here is that these processors take a lot of power, so you
might not be saving in the long run. Also, they are known to heat
up more than Intel's processors, so this is something you must keep
in mind as well.
More to Come
As we know, these manufacturers announce their future models
well in advance. So, here's a list of Intel processors that we will
see in the near future.
Broadwell - This is the tick version of the Intel processor
series. The MCP (Multi-chip Package) will be used in this version
with a 14nm shrink in the die size.
Skylake - This Intel's processor version is expected to be
released in 2015 and will retain the 14nm die size.
Skymont - Intel decides to go the extra mile by further
shrinking the die size to 10nm by launching this processor.
With so many new processors being launched every year, the
nail-biting competition between the two processor giants is in no
way coming to an end. But for now, AMD has nailed it with the 5GHz
processor launch and is surely leading the competition. We will
have to wait till Intel's next launch to see if the tables turn.
For now, we'd say opt for Richland if online gaming, and games with
low system requirement is what you will be playing, or opt for
Haswell if multimedia is more important than gaming.Read more at
Buzzle:http://www.buzzle.com/articles/intel-vs-amd-processor-comparison2010.html