Looking at the continuing CPU battles

After making the decision that we need more CPU power in our computer, we find
ourselves down at the computer parts store where some kid is asking us "AMD
or Intel?" and we are thinking 'I don't really care...I just want it to
go faster.', and for the most part this is true, we don't really care. We do,
however, want the computer to work well, last a long time and go faster.

So what is the difference between an AMD CPU and an Intel CPU? Is there any
difference? Should we care?

Intel has clearly been the market leader with CPU chips for the personal computers
since before 1982. In fact they were the only company making the 8088 chips.
It was in 1982 that IBM wanted to use those chips, but they had this internal
policy of always requiring two sources. So Intel signed a contract with AMD
to manufacturer the 8088 and 8086 processors. Nice eh?

Business was good, until 1986 when Intel cancelled the agreement and refused
to hand over the details of the i386 processor. Remember that one? It was the
one that let Microsoft windows actually run on the computer.

After arbitration and a few lawsuits AMD received over $1 Billion in compensation
for violation of the contract, but it was unclear whether or not AMD had the
rights to the microcode of the i386. Because of this uncertainty, AMD was forced
to develop "clean room" versions of the Intel code. What this means
is, that one engineering team described the function of the code, and the second
team, without access or being able to see the original source code, had to write
functions which did the same thing.

After this, AMD released the Am386, the clone of the 80386 processor. In less
than a year they sold a million units. Since that time AMD has continued to
create CPU's and keep a good portion of the market share, especially with the
independent clone manufactures building in-house PC's. Once the K series (K5,
K6, K7... etc) hit the market in 1995 (the K by the way stands for Kryptonite),
AMD became a contender for even more market share. Currently, AMD accounts for
21.4 percent of all desktop, notebook and sever processors using the x86 instruction
set that were shipped during the fourth quarter of 2005, jumping up from 17.5
percent in the third quarter.

While most of that is good on the business end of the world, which for some
reason is always the farthest point from the real end of the world, there are
some major differences cited between the two chip makers. A few years back AMD
had some problems with the CPU being compatible with some function calls from
the Microsoft Windows operating system, and these problems got a great deal
of press (a great deal more than the actual problems warrented). There are also
some cites out there which complain that the AMD isn't as fast as the Intel,
which is correct for clock speed, but not correct in actual workload and processing
times. For a good and in-depth look at this comparison you can see the
article on Geek.com which will walk you through.

In January of 2005, as expected AMD rolled out its first dual-core processors,
this includes AMD Opteron and AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processors. The dual-core
AMD Opteron 800 for four to eight way servers will be available immediately
and the 200 Series for two-way servers and workstations will ship in late May.
The company claims that these processors deliver up to 90 percent performance
improvement over single-core AMD Opteron processors.

For desktop users the company unveiled the new AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor,
this processor will become available in June.

Intel will be ready in the second half of this year with its own dual core
processors, and while Intel has created test chips made on the 45-nanometer
process and will likely begin shipping processors, flash, and other chips based
on that process in the second half of 2007, and AMD is making leaps and bounds
in speed and functionality as well, we still got this kid in front of us, asking
what we want.

At this stage of the game (a game where changes happen dramatically over a
few quarters a year), I would go with the AMD citing more bang for the buck.
Newer, faster, cheaper chips will always be "coming" in next month.
At some point we have to buy the best we can, and get back to the real world,
and World of Warcraft.

NYSE :: AMD