Iguana wrote:Awsome
I can't wait to get an AMD 64bit laptop with an Nvidea Cuda graphics card in it
Hey wait!! Whats an EM64T platform??
EM64T is Intel's name for AMD64. It would probably be bad for Intel to label one of their products with an AMD trademark, right?
There's more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64AMD later introduced AMD64 as the architecture's marketing name; Intel used the names IA-32e and EM64T before finally settling on the name Intel 64 for their implementation. x86-64 is still used by many in the industry as a vendor-neutral term, as is x64.
Now for your second question:
Iguana wrote:I'd like to note that there aren't many pc's with that combo (AMD CPU and NVidia Cuda GPU) and even if there are combos like that, then the AMD cpu is weak compared to the intel cpu's.. The intel cpu's have the i7 technology now (which is the best) and I don't know much about AMD cpu's.. Can you guys enlighten me on the advantages then an AMD cpu has over an intel cpu?
So - you don't have to get an AMD processor - you just need an x64 compatible processor. The CPUs from Intel will work just fine.
As for which one is better, traditionally AMD had been cheaper than the comparable Intel part, but with slightly less performance. This held true until the leap to 64 bits, when Intel tried to introduce a mostly non-compatible processor called the Itanium - read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium .
Because it was pure 64 bits, the Itanium was a mighty processor, but the first models couldn't run existing x86 code directly - they could only emulate it (slowly). That put it in more of a server market and not for mass consumption. AMD - sensing a window of opportunity - introduced the Athlon 64 line of processors. These were standard x86 processors with 64 bit extensions. In addition, with the Athlon 64, AMD bypassed the infamous "front side bus" by moving the memory decoding logic onto the processor. This was their "HyperTransport" bus. (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTransport )
So - this meant that, for the first time, AMD enjoyed a serious performance advantage over Intel and actually dictated the future of the technology drive to 64 bits.
Intel, stuck with a rapidly dead-ending Pentium 4 architecture and loss of market share with the Itanium, took a little while to recover. Eventually - a mobile division in Israel kind of "saved" Intel with the Core line of processors. These Core processors didn't burn MHz like the NetBurst P4 architecture - instead - they were more efficient per clock cycle. Intel also adopted AMD's 64 bit extensions, and with the Core i series - i.e. the i3, i5, i7 - moved their memory control onto the chip like the HyperTransport bus.
This means that, once again, Intel chips are probably back on top of the performance ratings. However - you do get a lot of performance for your money with AMD.
As to why you don't see laptops with AMD and nVidia, that's because AMD bought ATi. Just before they were purchased, ATi was starting to get into laptop chipsets to go along with their video chips - sort of an "all-in-one" solution. Most folks that use AMD processors for laptops now get the corresponding ATi (AMD) chipset with onboard video.
Since CUDA is proprietary to nVidia, ATi graphics won't support it. Instead, they use a competing version - OpenCL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCLAnd of course - things being the way they are, there is a Windows alternative to both of these - DirectCompute. (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectCompute )
The advantage to DirectCompute would be that it would run similarly on ATi or nVidia graphics cards. The disadvantage would be that it's not Linux compatible.
Cheers,
Paul
P.S. I know a lot about the Athlon 64 & laptop ATi chipsets, because I have one of the first laptops with this combo. It's a Compaq Presario R4000 which uses the Radeon Xpress 200M:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xpress_200 ... press_200M
Posted: 03 Feb 2010, 14:06
