|
Intel P4 vs AMD
|
|
|
dkertesz
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
24. September 2005 @ 09:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
wats better and whats the diff?
Dave kertesz
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
dkertesz
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
24. September 2005 @ 09:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
im lookin on my box, i cant see anything, i look at the top of my chip too (threw the plastic on the front) and it doesnt say anything eather
Dave kertesz
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 09:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
They're both pretty good but the San Diego has some advantages handling dual channel memory.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
dkertesz
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
24. September 2005 @ 09:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
oh aight cool
Dave kertesz
|
Senior Member
|
24. September 2005 @ 11:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Am Intel all the way, I tend to play games for hours at a time and the only thing that lets me down is my gfx card not the CPU or RAM, my encoding times are very good, no problems there. I have never used AMD and i don't plain to soon (due to the cost!!), people keep saying that AMD are cheaper than Intel well i don't know were there looking cause it's a fact Intel cost less now which is not really making a different coz Intel hold something like 80% of the CPU market and have done for a long time that's why AMD is taking them court. Some of you folks maybe thinking am a fan-boy, well with a user name like p4_tt i don't blame you but i can tell you for a fact that i would have no hesitations of using and/or owing an AMD system if it was not for the prices.
Also you cant really compare a 64bit CPU to a 32bit, kinda like comparing night to day. It should be fun when Intel get a true 64 out.
PS
My PCMark05 score
PCMark Score: 2920
CPU Score: 3849
Memory Score: 4000
Graphics Score: 1491
HDD Score: 4287
aye aye man
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 11:49
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 12:17 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Also you cant really compare a 64bit CPU to a 32bit, kinda like comparing night to day. It should be fun when Intel get a true 64 out.
Actually you can compare them, because almost all of us are still using 32 bit operating systems with 32 bit softwares. The 64 bit advantages are not even in play yet, so AMD is in effect lowering its standards to accommodate Intel's 32 bit world, and still beating them at it.:)
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
Senior Member
|
24. September 2005 @ 12:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yes your right my bad.
EDIT: That's kinda the same with HT not a lot of applications yet support Hyper Threading.
aye aye man
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 12:22
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 18:11 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
so AMD is in effect lowering its standards to accommodate Intel's 32 bit world, and still beating them at it.:)
How we use words... LOL I wouldn't call it a lowering of standards. AMD simply came out with a true 64 bit system before Intel. Let them compete with what they have. Very little need for the 64 bit as of now, but maybe in the future. When 64 bit becomes more important, I feel confident both Intel and AMD will have a product and be offering it to the consumers. As noted, AMD already has one available. Intel doesn't seem to be losing much of a market share over it though.
At different times both companies have come up with innovations before the other. For some strange reason, Intel seems to have the lion's share of the market. AMD is crying foul, but I don't see masses of consumers clamoring to jump aboard the AMD wagon.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 18:25 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
AMD will have a product and be offering it to the consumers. As noted, AMD already has one available. Intel doesn't seem to be losing much of a market share over it though.
And when Intel is ahead then I'll buy Intel again. Remember that VHS won the VCR war although it was inferior to the Beta system. The market is not always determined by the best product.:)
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 18:25
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 18:35 |
Link to this message
|
Notice the Current CPU being compared. It is a 2.8GHz P4. Included in the benchmark test is the AMD 2800, which is the comparable AMD processor. I threw in a couple of top line dual core processors from AMD and Intel. The SiSoft Sandra benchmarks are for arithmetic function and floating point computations. As you may note from this, AMD has an ever so slight advantage in arithmetic computations and Intel in turn has the best floating point figures. Also, the differences are so slight that in the real world, it makes little difference. AMD has an architectural advantage, memory on the chip, that helps it with things like extreme gaming. Gamers, be on notice, pay $4500 and get the EXtreme AMD from Alienware. ;) For the rest of us, the choices just boil down to economics and preference.
I'm not against AMD and may someday own one. I'm in neither camp at this point. I'm much more familiar with working on and with the Intel PCs. Couple that with Intel supplying the best bang for the buck and you have why I still own my old mid level Intel. I don't see a lot of difference in comparable Intel and AMD processors on sites like Newegg. But when you go to buy a factory built PC, the prices seem staggeringly high for some of the AMDs compared to Intel. Is that why AMD is crying foul; manufacturers can sell Intel cheaper? Seems AMD needs to stop crying and lower some prices and get better entrenched with the consumers.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 18:36
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:05 |
Link to this message
|
brobear
The Atholon 2800+ XP is using the Barton core. It's quite old and yet if you look at its actual clock speed it's only about two thirds that of the P4. Here's what missing from that tale. The XP 2800 sold for about 50% the price of the P4. It used slower RAM it only had a 400 MHZ front side buss. NOw here's the clincher! My sons machine is using an AMD XP 2500+ Barton core over clocked to an XP 3200+ which cost me at the time about $80 while my 2.8 GHZ P4 set me back $184.00. Trust me the over clocked XP would beat the P4 in floating point as well.
The Venice core which is what I'm using now is only 2.2 GHZ before over clocking. This is the score that I received when my CPU was hitting 2.5 GHZ, it's now at 2.64 and is scoring well over 12,000. You'll notice that the P4 3.8 GHZ is taking a sever beating in all areas.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 19:11
|
Senior Member
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:13 |
Link to this message
|
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Dell-to-Give-AMD-Access-to-Its-Int...
I think there trying to say Intel lower there prices to more companies so that they will go with Intel over AMD, which is stupid as there are more powerful companies out there than Intel (M$ which happens to use Intel for there consoles)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4629963.stm
And that shows they cant take it coz Intel have 82% of the market, i don't think that's to do with foul play as millions of people make there own computer and they have the choice to pick, again the main thing that puts me off AMD is the price and not Intel making me buy it.
aye aye man
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
p4_tt
Microsoft has over 90% of the Market but Windows isn't better than Linux, it just has more software support and it's easier to use. BTW, to get the same performance that I'm getting using an Intel processors I would have to had spent another $700 more than I did spend, and it would still be a bit slower.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
The processor number can be tracked to the stepping and core type on the AMD website.
Donald
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
64026402
Now you pop in and respond to a question that was several posts back. LOL
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
Senior Member
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Am not saying Intel are better than AMD, each have there pros & cons. Maybe if AMD & Intel joined up then we would have a really good processor :)
aye aye man
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 19:31
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:33 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Am not saying Intel are better than AMD, each have there pros & cons. Maybe if AMD & Intel joined up then we would have a really good processor :)
If they joined together we'd all still be using a PIII or T-bred for three times as much as we're currently paying. It's the battle between them lets us be the winners. LOL
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
LOL From the man who said play with what you brung. ;) You're saying it isn't speed that counts and then interject it when it suits you. I'm talking about chip architecture and how it relates to work done. AMD does more computations per cycle and Intel does more cycles. Plus, as relates to the AMD 2800 and the 2.8GHz Intel processor, those are the two that are comparable. It was AMD who was using the number configuration to show which of their processors compare to which Intel product. My 2.8 P4 is just as old as a 2800 AMD, so the comparison is feasible. Costs are so low on the mid level and low end processors, the dollar difference for the single component is negligible. As I pointed out, the prices of similar processors, Intel and AMD, are close. It's the factory costs for AMD equipped PCs that keep them from having more of a market impact. You can build one, but how many consumers build their PC from scratch.
When I bought my PC, it was not overly expensive. Comparable AMDs that are factory built are usually as expensive or more so. Seems we can both find benchmarks to support what we're saying. I doubt I can sway you from your new mission. Just there are a lot of people that won't go along. The popular vote still goes with the Intel. Maybe AMD can do something about their image. If they're smart enough to figure out a better "mouse trap", it looks like they should be able to figure out a way of selling it.
I'm sure you will find something to refute any statement I make; but I'm tiring of your game. I've given the benchmark you asked for and you responded with one using your overclocked AMD. So? How many people are going to build one. I'm looking at the overall architecture as one should. You pointed out on numerous occasions it's not all about speed. My comparison was for processors AMD considered comparable to Intel counterparts (stock), not what the "enthusiast" can build from them.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 19:43
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:38 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
If they joined together we'd all still be using a PIII or T-bred for three times as much as we're currently paying. It's the battle between them lets us be the winners. LOL
LOL The man said a mouth full. I agree wholeheartedly. LOL
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:41 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Now you pop in and respond to a question that was several posts back. LOL
LOL P2 and Windows 95 with a dial-up. LOL
How bout them Sophists. ;)
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Can I piss a bear off or what? LOL
brobear, you're not going to win this debate by siding up with me.LOL
From the beginning I stated that encoding is clock speed related although somewhat less now than it once was. A 3.8 GHZ P4 is still going to encode a bit faster than my Venice is, but only by 2 or 3 minutes and at a cost of an extra $700.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Brobear,
You should know Sophocles better by now. He changed to AMD simply because they had a better processor at the time. Intel didn't have anything that would be substantially faster than his Northwood but AMD did. For less money to boot.
I was wanting to get a dual core Pentium because they were pretty cheap but the tests weren't too positive and the 140 watts was a lot of heat to dissipate. So I went AMD also.
I found that the encode times for rebuilder were as fast as Sophocles was posting.
The real news is there is a budget alternative for those who want to cut their encode times in half. Everyone should be happy, except maybe Intel.
Donald
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 20:12
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
"Now you pop in and respond to a question that was several posts back. LOL"
I just noticed nobody bothered to tell the way to find the core type.
Donald
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
So I went Intel also.
You meant AMD of course.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 19:51
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
I feel I know Sophocles fairly well by now. Also, I think part of what I'm saying is being missed. It's not just the price of a processor. Look to the cost of the entire package. Comparable PCs are more expensive when AMD equipped. That has a significant effect on consumers.
I never doubted the ability to improve encode times. That was never in question. However, I don't have a top end Intel equipped PC to do personal comparisons. Using the SiSoft benchmarks, which many are fond of doing, I find for comparable processors, there isn't that much difference. Comparable in work done, not just the speeds that keep getting put back in the discussion when it's opportune. I also realize that AMD has some edges over Intel, but not for the average consumer. As I asked before, how many people build from scratch and how many have the expertise to overclock properly. Intel doesn't lend itself to overclocking which I stated earlier. Also, I pointed out in certain circumstances that the onboard memory gives AMD some minor advantages. For the "enthusiast" that builds him own machine, AMD definitely looks good. But back to the point I was making, for the average consumer that doesn't build his own PC, Intel has been and continues to be a good choice and is mirrored by the consumers purchase of them.
|
