Intel vs. AMD Update: Skulltrail vs. Spider/3870 X2
January 30th, 2008 | by Rob Enderle
I just got two systems in from Intel and AMD and they are pretty sweet. The AMD is the new Spider/Phenom platform which was followed last week by the ATI 3870 X2 card which currently is the fastest single graphics card on the market. The Intel is a full quad core system named Skulltrail that will take 4 graphics cards as long as they aren’t double wide cards; it is an engineering master piece. Last year I looked at earlier versions of these boxes and both are strong improvements.
Both of these systems are nicely turned out. But they also showcase the advantages and disadvantages of both companies.
Intel: Processor Powerhouse but Dependent on NVIDIA
It comes as no surprise that Intel’s strength is in the motherboard and processor. This is one of the few systems that will take 4 graphics cards and it has 8 cores using 2 production quality high performance CPUs. Its strength is shear processing power; its weakness is the dependency on NVIDIA to finish the solution with their high-end graphics cards. In this case two very nice 8800 GTXs which represent the highest performing “shipping” twin card graphics solution.
This new V8 should be a powerhouse when it comes to processing but I’m still having difficulty finding applications that will use 4 cores let alone 8 and, when I ask, developers continue to tell me there simply aren’t enough 4 core systems to develop for let alone 8 core systems.
Still, unlike last year’s V8 which was more of a science experiment, this is a day-to-day work horse and the only thing I’m finding annoying about it is an overly noisy power-supply fan. It has Zallman fans on the processor and 7 case Fans which are all very quiet but the darned fan in the Turbo Cool 1KW SLI power supply is way too noisy. Intel doesn’t build the power supply, but it points to the need to not just buy on spec but look into how the system builder configures the system before you buy.
AMD: The ATI Merger is Key
I effectively got in two AMD systems. Initially they had just sent a motherboard and processor and eventually they sent a complete system. The one I built was the first system I tried Windows Vista SP1 on because I had issues getting Windows Vista Gold to install on it. I also swapped out the single 3870 card with the new HD 3870 X2 card which is currently knocking out the NVIDIA 8800 for the top performance space. This is basically two ATI cards filling one slot with on-board Crossfire. The impressive thing about this system isn’t the processor, (we are still waiting for the higher speed versions of Phenom to ship) but this new one card Crossfire solution and the end result feels like a more cohesive effort with the same vendor on both the graphics and the processor.
Once you can use two of these cards (expected release in March) you will get the equivalent of 4 cards in what is a tighter configuration than the Intel box, but that solution isn’t shipping yet and future dates are often unreliable.
Still you begin to get a sense from this as to what will be coming from AMD once they get both groups to work even more closely together.
Comparing the Two Solutions
Both companies went though a lot of trouble preparing these machines, the AMD box was hampered by a loud processor fan which were easily replaced, the Intel by a noisy power supply fan which won’t be that easy (given a really nice wiring job) to replace. If you buy one of these things yourself I’d actually see if I could hear one first as I’ll bet different system builders will be all over the map and, trust me, a quiet system is worth taking some extra trouble to find. Both systems are blazing fast, but obviously it's overkill at this point, and nothing more than a technology showdown.
Looking Forward
NVIDIA is the wild card for Intel and getting the merger to the point where it is more of an advantage than a disadvantage is AMD’s challenge. To win decisively Intel needs NVIDIA to step up sharply and address this new competitive threat because right now graphics performance, to most high performance desktop buyers, is more important than processor performance. On the other hand, twin 8800s should be able to outperform a single 3870 X2 because they will outperform twin 3870s. This means getting two 3970 X2ss to work together before NVIDIA can bring out and enable SLI on their own as yet unannounced twin core card is incredibly important if AMD wants to hang on to the top spot.
Intel’s reliance on NVIDIA has resulted in solid benefits though most of 2007, but a lot of the gaming problems with Vista were with NVIDIA cards. But both NVIDIA and Intel have been having some issues with Microsoft while AMD seems to be much closer right now. As we move from Vista SP1 to Windows 7 this could become an increasing competitive differentiator between the two efforts.
Which to Buy, and Wrapping Up
These are really very different systems, the new Intel V8 is well ahead of the curve in terms of processor performance and you’d likely find a much better value with a single Quad core solution using either Intel or AMD right now. However, if you need 8 cores and want something that is consumer friendly with the most powerful consumer processors and the possibility of 4 graphics cards Skulltrail is for you. That’s a lot of “ifs” though.
The AMD Spider platform is far more practical and holds up well against similarly configured and priced Intel boxes. Their Cool and Quiet capability actually seems to work reasonably well if you, or the system builder, don’t use excessively noisy fans. Performance until the full speed Phenom processors start shipping in a few weeks will fall behind Intel on the processing side, but for a single card solution nothing can touch the 3870 X2 right now.
Personally I’d hold off until Vista SP2 actually starts to ship (expected mid February), yes SP1 is actually that much better on new hardware, and then I’d evaluate on a system level unless I was building one of these myself. This is because memory speed, hard drive performance, and system noise will likely make a big difference between system builders. One of the big system speed boosts in the next few months should come from the availability of more reasonably priced solid state drives and putting your applications and OS on one of them could make a huge difference in how fast a system feels and how noisy it is.
If I was building a system I’d start with the graphics card right now and back into the processor given gaming is where I’d personally see the bigger advantage. If you favor ATI I go AMD, if NVIDIA I’d go Intel and which I’d favor might have a lot to do with what games I like to play.
In the end, the competition between Intel and AMD, at least on the desktop (Intel remains preeminent currently on laptops) is increasingly dependent on graphics and that, once again, probably goes a long way towards explaining just why AMD felt they had to buy ATI. With the 3870 X2 you get a hint that it just might pay off.
Post Your Comment...Comments
Rob Enderle on Jan 30th, 2008 at 3:35 PM:
Photo and video editing software, as well as some transcoding products, and a couple of games will use multi-core right now. I expect this will change by the end of the year.
Right now one of the benefits is that if a background process (anti-virus for instance) kicks off it may have less impact on what you are doing on one of these systems.
Both Intel and AMD are focusing on power conservation and future systems will power down their cores more aggressivly. The X2 card is actually rather impressive in this regard and appears to drop into a low power state when you aren't pushing it.
Generally the focus on these high end boxes has been more focused on raw performance, but, like you I'd like to see this change because I'd like to stop being the major funding source for my power company.
Over the next few weeks I'll be seeing what products actually make use of this performance and will write up what I find.
Ryan Mahood on Jan 30th, 2008 at 8:21 PM:
Perhaps you are overlooking the very Reality of the GPU(Graphics Processing Market); compatibility. Crossfire (the use of multiple ATI cards) is possible on NOT ONLY ATI/AMD chipsets, but also on Intel Chipsets. As a result Motherboards with Intel Chipsets can, and have been running Crossfire for well over two years now. Intel isn't going to be left behind on the graphics front either. Larrabee is Intel's upcoming graphics solution, and albeit very hush-hush we know that it will compete directly against nVidia and AMD.
Donald A. Tevault on Jan 31st, 2008 at 5:44 AM:
Rob,
You tech writers keep missing part of the point of having multi-core processors. There are several ways in which a consumer can take advantage of either four or eight cores, even without multi-threaded software.
1. Power users, like me, like to have many applications open at once. The more cores, the merrier, in these situations.
2. A server for home or small business could take advantage of multiple cores, since a lot of processes would be going on at once.
3. For virtualization, again, the more cores, the merrier.
4. Science geeks could run more instances of distributed computing apps at once. (e.g., Einstein@Home or SETI@Home.)
So, really, there's no need to wait for specialized, multi-threaded software in order to benefit from multi-core processors.
Ari on Jan 31st, 2008 at 8:46 AM:
Donald,
Did you read Robs comment?
"Photo and video editing software, as well as some transcoding products, and a couple of games will use multi-core right now. I expect this will change by the end of the year.
Right now one of the benefits is that if a background process (anti-virus for instance) kicks off it may have less impact on what you are doing on one of these systems. "
He said basically what you just said, so he didn't miss anything.
For the general consumer though, 4-8 cores is a waste of money and nothing but marketing hype.
General consumers
1) Probably will not have a home media server (this is changing slowly though)
2) Do not even know what virtualization is
4) Do not know what SETI at home is
Jason Howard on Jan 31st, 2008 at 10:10 AM:
General consumers right now don't have a need for more than 2 cores. Plus, the fact that the majority of software out there might not utilize multiple cores make it a useless as well.
Powerusers are not the norm. Most people do not run servers at home. And spending extra money just so you can run SETI@home seems like a waste as well.
Kristopher Gomez on Feb 13th, 2008 at 8:26 AM:
I am running a full Spider system right now, having a K9A2 Platinum (AMD 790FX Chipset), a Phenom 9500 processor and a Sapphire 3850 Ultimate GPU. Although it's not the most powerful of gaming rigs or of the Spider platforms in general, I'm loving it.
I run Vista Premium x64, and everything runs so very smoothly. I -am- on of the "Science Geeks" that runs SETI/Einstien/QMC/TANPAKU @Home on a constant basis; and sometimes, even when I'm playing games.
At a given time, all 4 of these projects are running at the same time.
Kristopher Gomez on Feb 13th, 2008 at 9:06 AM:
I am running a full Spider system right now, having a K9A2 Platinum (AMD 790FX Chipset), a Phenom 9500 processor and a Sapphire 3850 Ultimate GPU. Although it's not the most powerful of gaming rigs or of the Spider platforms in general, I'm loving it.
I run Vista Premium x64, and everything runs so very smoothly. I -am- on of the "Science Geeks" that runs SETI/Einstien/QMC/TANPAKU @Home on a constant basis; and sometimes, even when I'm playing games.
At a given time, all 4 of these projects are running at the same time, and often, each "project" is running multiple computations. This is all ignoring the "basic" background tasks - Outlook 2007, Google Desktop, etc.
Typically, there's no noticable decline in performance when all of these processes are running. By the way, I have 4GB of memory; just for referance.
When there are slow-downs, it usually is caused by the one bottleneck of 90% of computers: the hard drive(s).
It would appear that Crysis uses all 4 processors, because each only peak at 23% usage when playing. Usually, I set the Crysis process for affinity of only 2 cores. The system (maybe AMD drivers, maybe Vista) seems to distribute the rest of the workload pretty well.
And the coup-de-gras: My ATI card has an DVI-HDMI adapter, and the sound is routed through that as well.
I could not be more impressed with the performance of my Spider. With Tabbed Browsing running all sorts of web content (such as YouTube, etc.), I can absolutely see how Quad-Core CPUs can benefit the "average user". Keep in mind, also, Windows Vista - at least Ultimate - has MANY no-cert-needed home server applications. WinAmp is pushing their new Orb-based Web-to-Home music system, and many other "end user" applications are moving in quite the same direction... none of which are geared toward "Power Users".
Don't knock it until you try it. It's really something else. AMD calls this Phenom a "9500+" for a reason - it's 4-2.2GHz processors, each sharing nearly-evenly distributed work.
As far as cost goes... This system costed me about $1500. And that's generous, because I'm estimating the addition of HDD's, Optical Drives, keyboard, mouse, etc. - all of which I already had. The Proc+MoBo+Mem+VGA=$1050.
I built it myself, so I also didn't pay for labor.
- Kris
Comment on this article
Please keep your comments relevant to this article. Email addresses are not displayed, they are only required to verify you are human.
When you submit your comment, an email will be sent to your email address with a confirmation link. Once you have clicked on that confirmation link your comment will be posted.
HTML is not allowed.

Ian Bell on Jan 30th, 2008 at 9:45 AM:
Both of these systems sounds pretty awesome. They are definately overkill though. I do not know of a single game that would take advantage of 4 cores, let alone 8 - so what's the point here from a gaming perspective? Does Photoshop on Vista take advantage of 4 cores?
It seems to me that Intel and AMD should really be focusing on power consumption more than raw-processing. People want a green machine that is powerful, especially quiet (like you point out) and good looking.
When will the software side catch up to using this many processors?