|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Lexusan
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:47 am Post subject: Intel Or AMD? |
 |
|
Which processor is better? Im currently using a intel celeron (i know )
But am looking to the new 4's with hyper-threading.
Ive seen this amds that are quite good but i heard the semperons are
bad.
I vote Intel!
--
Lexusan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Kramer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:34 am Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
Go with the Ford because Chevy sucks.....
"Lexusan" <Lexusan.2j2y94@hardwarebanter.com> wrote in message
news:Lexusan.2j2y94@hardwarebanter.com...
| Quote: |
Which processor is better? Im currently using a intel celeron (i know )
But am looking to the new 4's with hyper-threading.
Ive seen this amds that are quite good but i heard the semperons are
bad.
I vote Intel!
--
Lexusan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:01 am Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
Lexusan <Lexusan.2j2y94@hardwarebanter.com> wrote:
: Which processor is better? Im currently using a intel celeron
: (i know ) But am looking to the new 4's with hyper-threading.
:
: Ive seen this amds that are quite good but i heard the
: semperons are bad.
:
: I vote Intel!
What a lame-*** attempt to troll....PLONK! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Hill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:01 am Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:47:40 +0000, Lexusan
<Lexusan.2j2y94@hardwarebanter.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Which processor is better?
|
Can you make that a bit more of an open-ended question?! </sarcasm>
Seriosuly, both AMD and Intel make quite a range of processors at
various performance levels and price points.
| Quote: | Im currently using a intel celeron (i know )
But am looking to the new 4's with hyper-threading.
|
The Pentium 4, of any stripe, is a VERY poor choice these days. Their
performance is pretty weak as compared to either AMD's Athlon64 line
or Intel's own Core 2 Duo line. P4 chips also consume a LOT of power.
As for Hyperthreading, at best it's a poor-mans excuse for dual-core
that offers slight improvements in multithreaded performance. At
worst it makes the system slower, which is why it's often disabled.
Given that true dual-core processors start at under $100 these days,
it's something that can very safely be ignored.
| Quote: | Ive seen this amds that are quite good but i heard the semperons are
bad.
|
Sempron chips are quite reasonable for their price. They compete
against Intel's Celeron chips and offer very competitive performance
for the price. For example, a Sempron 3000+ will set you back $43
(prices according to www.newegg.com) and will give you similar to
slightly better performance as compared to a Celeron 336 that costs
$48.
Of course, both of these are low-end solutions. Spending a small
amount more will get you a MUCH faster processor. At $93 you could
get a dual-core Intel Pentium D 805. That will perform about the same
as the Celeron or Sempron mentioned above in single-threaded
applications, but it has a whole other processor available allowing
for MUCH faster performance in multi-threaded applications and/or much
better multitasking performance. This is probably the absolute
cheapest chip that I would recommend unless you absolutely need a
computer now and can't afford the extra $50 or so.
The next step up from that would be AMD's Athlon64 X2 3800+ at $131.
Again this is a dual-core chip, but it's much faster than anything
from Intel with the "Pentium" name on it. It will be faster than any
of the chips mentioned above in either single-threaded or
multi-threaded applications and have much better performance in
multitasking. The Athlon64 X2 4200+ ($165) also isn't bad, though
going beyond that the price/performance ratio starts to drop off on
these chips.
Going up to the high-end of things, Intel currently holds the crown
with their Core 2 Duo line. The Core 2 Duo 6300 sells for $181 and
from that point on up the only question is what speed grade you want.
So, recommendations? Well that depends on what you want to spend:
High-end: Intel Core 2 Duo 6600
Mid-range: Intel Core 2 Duo 6300 or 6400
Low-end: AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+ or 4200+
"I can just BARELY afford a computer": Intel Pentium D 805
"I really CAN'T afford a computer": AMD Sempron 3000+
--
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pepwin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:03 pm Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
Go with AMD period. Intel is surviving off of the hype from the '90s.
They still have a good product, but not my choice for a quality
processor since 2000. AMD is going to blow Intel out the water soon.
Lexusan wrote:
| Quote: | Which processor is better? Im currently using a intel celeron (i know )
But am looking to the new 4's with hyper-threading.
Ive seen this amds that are quite good but i heard the semperons are
bad.
I vote Intel!
--
Lexusan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Spoon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
Tony Hill wrote:
| Quote: | As for Hyperthreading, at best it's a poor-mans excuse for dual-core
that offers slight improvements in multithreaded performance. At
worst it makes the system slower, which is why it's often disabled.
|
Moreover, it's a security risk.
http://www.daemonology.net/hyperthreading-considered-harmful/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chrisv
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
Pepwin wrote:
| Quote: | Go with AMD period. Intel is surviving off of the hype from the '90s.
They still have a good product, but not my choice for a quality
processor since 2000. AMD is going to blow Intel out the water soon.
|
Top posting idiot. Buy a clue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Hill
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:50 am Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:52:01 +0100, Spoon <devnull@localhost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Hill wrote:
As for Hyperthreading, at best it's a poor-mans excuse for dual-core
that offers slight improvements in multithreaded performance. At
worst it makes the system slower, which is why it's often disabled.
Moreover, it's a security risk.
http://www.daemonology.net/hyperthreading-considered-harmful/
|
I remember reading about that security risk back when it first came
out and thinking that the author was just being a jackass. Exploiting
this security hole is ridiculously difficult, to the point that it
would probably be easier to brute-force crack the RSA keys he claims
to be able to get from it. You need a VERY specifically crafted
situation for this to be remotely possible at all, ie the attacker
would pretty much need 'root' access on the system to execute this
exploit, by which point you're security is already shot all to hell.
What's more, the same "risk" almost certainly exists in any case where
the cache is shared (Core Duo and Core 2 Duo chips) and possibly even
any case where cache is snooped (basically all multiprocessor systems.
Long story short, this one should be way *WAY* down on your list of
security concerns. Maybe if you're running a super-top-secret
military system it might be an issue, but then again, you probably
wouldn't be using anything at all resembling standard hardware.
--
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Daly
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
Tony Hill wrote:
| Quote: | I remember reading about that security risk back when it first came
out and thinking that the author was just being a jackass. Exploiting
this security hole is ridiculously difficult, to the point that it
would probably be easier to brute-force crack the RSA keys he claims
to be able to get from it.
|
I was wondering about this - how, in general, does process A on one CPU know
what's running on the other CPU and know where in the cache the data is? (I
didn't bother to read the 12 page stuff at the link). There's a big difference
between possible and probable.
| Quote: | What's more, the same "risk" almost certainly exists in any case where
the cache is shared (Core Duo and Core 2 Duo chips) and possibly even
any case where cache is snooped (basically all multiprocessor systems.
|
I was going to ask about this - unless shared cache has protected memory areas,
either processor can read the other's data. Even if a virus manages to hog one
CPU and scan everything in the cache all the time, it would still need intimate
details of the memory content organization to make sense of the data. That
implies a much more serious security breach than just reading cache - it implies
that all your source code has been compromised. Wouldn't it also need to know
how chunks of memory get swapped in and out of cache at any point in time as
well? I only have an "overview" notion of how these processor caches work, so I
have an expectation that the placement of a bit of data in the cache at any
point in time to be more or less random.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spoon
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
Tony Hill wrote:
| Quote: | Spoon wrote:
Tony Hill wrote:
As for Hyperthreading, at best it's a poor-mans excuse for dual-core
that offers slight improvements in multithreaded performance. At
worst it makes the system slower, which is why it's often disabled.
Moreover, it's a security risk.
http://www.daemonology.net/hyperthreading-considered-harmful/
I remember reading about that security risk back when it first came
out and thinking that the author was just being a jackass.
|
Perhaps you should tell all the people working on side-channel attacks
(such as Adi Shamir (the S in RSA), and Daniel Bernstein (timing attack
against AES)) that you consider their work to be worthless? ;-þ
It is an active field of research.
cf. the References in http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/351
| Quote: | Exploiting
this security hole is ridiculously difficult, to the point that it
would probably be easier to brute-force crack the RSA keys he claims
to be able to get from it. You need a VERY specifically crafted
situation for this to be remotely possible at all, ie the attacker
would pretty much need 'root' access on the system to execute this
exploit, by which point you're security is already shot all to hell.
|
The 'spy' process is run as a normal user. No root access required.
| Quote: | What's more, the same "risk" almost certainly exists in any case where
the cache is shared (Core Duo and Core 2 Duo chips) and possibly even
any case where cache is snooped (basically all multiprocessor systems.
Long story short, this one should be way *WAY* down on your list of
security concerns. Maybe if you're running a super-top-secret
military system it might be an issue, but then again, you probably
wouldn't be using anything at all resembling standard hardware. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Robert Redelmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:29 am Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Spoon <root@localhost> wrote in part:
| Quote: | Perhaps you should tell all the people working on side-channel
attacks (such as Adi Shamir (the S in RSA), and Daniel Bernstein
(timing attack against AES)) that you consider their work to be
worthless? ;-þ
|
Of course not! But it's easy to add keystroke combining to a client
like `ssh` to drastically reduce the amount of information available
from timing analysis as well as reduce the number of packets sent.
There is a small cost in latency which can be rendered less
noticable by careful design.
-- Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Hill
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:35 am Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:23:18 +0100, Spoon <root@localhost> wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Hill wrote:
Spoon wrote:
Tony Hill wrote:
As for Hyperthreading, at best it's a poor-mans excuse for dual-core
that offers slight improvements in multithreaded performance. At
worst it makes the system slower, which is why it's often disabled.
Moreover, it's a security risk.
http://www.daemonology.net/hyperthreading-considered-harmful/
I remember reading about that security risk back when it first came
out and thinking that the author was just being a jackass.
Perhaps you should tell all the people working on side-channel attacks
(such as Adi Shamir (the S in RSA), and Daniel Bernstein (timing attack
against AES)) that you consider their work to be worthless? ;-þ
It is an active field of research.
cf. the References in http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/351
|
Worthless? Not quite, but more academic than practical. The timing
requirements of this sort of attack are so extreme that they are
virtually impossible to control. Unless I'm reading this wrong, the
attack you're quoting involves trying to determine the processing
behaviour of one process by monitoring the branch mispredictions of
another. This requires that you know exactly when the encryption key
is going to be generated, you need to know when and how your thread's
branches are going to get mispredicted according to things happening
in another thread, and to top it off, you need to have NOTHING else
running on the system at the same time since that throws all your
calculations out the window.
It's not that these attacks are not possible, they're just so
incredibly inprobable that it's not worth worrying about. Almost any
normal system will be hacked a thousand times over before anyone ever
manages to successfully hack it using this method. It's worthwhile
keeping an eye on for people that do the actual writting of SSL
encryption software and the like, but hardly something that 99.999%+
of the population need get concerned about.
| Quote: | Exploiting
this security hole is ridiculously difficult, to the point that it
would probably be easier to brute-force crack the RSA keys he claims
to be able to get from it. You need a VERY specifically crafted
situation for this to be remotely possible at all, ie the attacker
would pretty much need 'root' access on the system to execute this
exploit, by which point you're security is already shot all to hell.
The 'spy' process is run as a normal user. No root access required.
|
It's not the 'spy' process that they need root access for, it's the
process providing the RSA keys in the first place! Trying to do this
with any sort of normal system behaviour is excrutiatingly difficult,
hence my comment that it would probably be easier to brute-force hack
the keys (perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not by much).
--
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pnic
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:47 am Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
"Pepwin" <Lawrence.Gwynn@gmail.com> skrev noget retning af:
| Quote: | Go with AMD period. Intel is surviving off of the hype from the '90s.
They still have a good product, but not my choice for a quality
processor since 2000. AMD is going to blow Intel out the water soon.
Intel core2duo are the way to go at the moment! |
C2D outclasses everything AMD curently have on the
market.
/Pnic
--
8620 Kjellerup/Jutland/Denmark/Europe/Earth/Sol/Milkyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don't look
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:03 am Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
You're reading old news.
"Lexusan" <Lexusan.2j2y94@hardwarebanter.com> wrote in message
news:Lexusan.2j2y94@hardwarebanter.com...
| Quote: |
Which processor is better? Im currently using a intel celeron (i know )
But am looking to the new 4's with hyper-threading.
Ive seen this amds that are quite good but i heard the semperons are
bad.
I vote Intel!
--
Lexusan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lyon_wonder
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: Intel Or AMD? |
|
|
| Quote: |
Which processor is better? Im currently using a intel celeron (i know )
But am looking to the new 4's with hyper-threading.
Ive seen this amds that are quite good but i heard the semperons are
bad.
I vote Intel!
|
He must have been living in a cave for the past 3 years:) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Index
-> CPU |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups