Ramblings, opinions, and general meanderings from the Deep South
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
What is an APU?
Auxiliary Power Unit? Not. That's a device that is used in aircraft redundancy systems. It also has several other meanings. In the world of computerspeak it means Accelerated Processing Unit. This is a term that is closely aligned to CPU or Central Pocessing Unit. You know that doo-dee-watt thangy that resides under the big heatsink whatcha-mah-jig under a spinning propeller usually in the center of motherboarding razzle dazzle thangy. Not enough technotalk? Here's an explanation from AMD (which means Advanced Micro Devices) that is easy on the brain:
While Intel still leads in market shares, AMD has come into their own, since they sped up and cooled down their CPU/APU line. Many gamers prefer AMD. Many prefer Intel. Okay, I am not afraid of a can of worms. Which do you prefer, Intel or AMD? And why? "Acronym = Noun - A word formed from the initial letters of other words (e.g., LASER, IMHO, CPU, APU, SNAFU, TARFU, FUBAR)." ~Beach House Dictionary
12 comments:
Ashby Rhett Cullpepper III Jr. Esq.
said...
Nuthin terribly wrong with AMD accept that you notice that it claims to be Intel compatible...........Reckon why that is? And, how many crashes have been due to a tiny bit of "incompatibility". Now at one time AMD was both FASTER and CHEAPER than Intel. And, it is still Cheaper......
I like AMD, I don't have a problem with Intel. I have owned computers with both and they both work well in my humble and untrained opinion. but since you can get speed and reliability and save money too, it's a no brainer for me AMD wins hands down!!!
I've used both. Like em both. AMD's definitely got Intel beat on cost-effectiveness. I haven't done any benchmarking on the two in a long time, but once benchmarked a 700MHz AMD Duron against a 1.3 GHz Intel Pentium 3...the Duron smoked it on every level. Long time ago, though. For MY PERSONAL gaming machines, I go AMD.
Well, lets just say that AMD really has got Intel beat on the cooler and cost effective processor. I am running a 6 core processor that would have cost about 10 times the money if I had bought the same type of processor from Intel. I have used both and like both processors. Most Businesses are gonna run Intel and most gamers that build their own rigs will run what they prefer and can afford. My Gaming rig is smoking fast and ICY, ICY cool!
Admitted that 6 cores of 2-3 generations of systems beyond what I built will be faster but my lumbering old core2 quad (which I think is really just 2 physical cores that are hyper threaded) and a raided cluster of drives of 1TByte STILL plays Crysis Aion GW and LoTRo at max res with wonderful and fluid frame rates. And, If I remember the statements properly business prefer things being done "rightly" rather than just quickly so if you can do it right (and I am lucky that at the time I was able to) why and save yourself some of those mysterious headaches. Am I saying that an Intel system is without fault? Absolutely not. But it eliminates one of the questions you gotta be askin yourself if you are being honest. Like a guy told me that had convinced an Apple os to run on a system that was not shouting it's approval to the software like apple approved hardware does, "I am one Mouse click away from a crash." Let me also say I have run AMD before and it is not bad just feel that I got more bang for my buck with my old alienware and this system if looked at in system life and viability than if I had stayed with AMD. IMHO
Definitely an absolute first to see someone say that AMD runs cooler than Intel. Scanned about 25-30 articles, reviews, forums (there's an in depth article at Tom's Hardware) and it's 100% agreement that Intel definitely runs cooler. Of course, many things come into play - case, fans, how well it is heatsinked, etc.
I might also add that although Intel's chips admittedly run cooler, AMD's chips are made to run stable at higher temps BY DESIGN. And overclocking? Forget about it. AMD. Period.
12 comments:
Nuthin terribly wrong with AMD accept that you notice that it claims to be Intel compatible...........Reckon why that is? And, how many crashes have been due to a tiny bit of "incompatibility". Now at one time AMD was both FASTER and CHEAPER than Intel. And, it is still Cheaper......
I like AMD, I don't have a problem with Intel. I have owned computers with both and they both work well in my humble and untrained opinion. but since you can get speed and reliability and save money too, it's a no brainer for me AMD wins hands down!!!
I've used both. Like em both. AMD's definitely got Intel beat on cost-effectiveness. I haven't done any benchmarking on the two in a long time, but once benchmarked a 700MHz AMD Duron against a 1.3 GHz Intel Pentium 3...the Duron smoked it on every level. Long time ago, though. For MY PERSONAL gaming machines, I go AMD.
Well, lets just say that AMD really has got Intel beat on the cooler and cost effective processor. I am running a 6 core processor that would have cost about 10 times the money if I had bought the same type of processor from Intel. I have used both and like both processors. Most Businesses are gonna run Intel and most gamers that build their own rigs will run what they prefer and can afford. My Gaming rig is smoking fast and ICY, ICY cool!
Admitted that 6 cores of 2-3 generations of systems beyond what I built will be faster but my lumbering old core2 quad (which I think is really just 2 physical cores that are hyper threaded) and a raided cluster of drives of 1TByte STILL plays Crysis Aion GW and LoTRo at max res with wonderful and fluid frame rates.
And, If I remember the statements properly business prefer things being done "rightly" rather than just quickly so if you can do it right (and I am lucky that at the time I was able to) why and save yourself some of those mysterious headaches. Am I saying that an Intel system is without fault? Absolutely not. But it eliminates one of the questions you gotta be askin yourself if you are being honest. Like a guy told me that had convinced an Apple os to run on a system that was not shouting it's approval to the software like apple approved hardware does, "I am one Mouse click away from a crash."
Let me also say I have run AMD before and it is not bad just feel that I got more bang for my buck with my old alienware and this system if looked at in system life and viability than if I had stayed with AMD. IMHO
Oh yeah and the remnants of the old Alienware are running the Dragons TS server...........................
Forgot to include that while playing GW my 4 cores run from 96 to 104 degrees, and that is F not C
Operative phrase - can of worms. I have opinions, but won't reveal for a while.. keep commenting!
CPU? You talkin' about that big box on my table with all of the blinky lights and the button that turns it on?
Good post...interesting comments.
Definitely an absolute first to see someone say that AMD runs cooler than Intel. Scanned about 25-30 articles, reviews, forums (there's an in depth article at Tom's Hardware) and it's 100% agreement that Intel definitely runs cooler. Of course, many things come into play - case, fans, how well it is heatsinked, etc.
My cpu is an Intel q6600 with stepping of 0 and runs at 65 watts stead of 95 plus I have taken cooling about as far as I can without wattercooling.
I might also add that although Intel's chips admittedly run cooler, AMD's chips are made to run stable at higher temps BY DESIGN. And overclocking? Forget about it. AMD. Period.
Post a Comment