|
Intel P4 vs AMD
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 19:56 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
So I went Intel also.
I wasn't going to say anything. LOL
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 20:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
I will accept your concession modestly. LOL LMAO LOL
Ok maybe not.
Actually AMD is less expensive in a fast system than Intel is for a few reasons. First a fast P4 system using a prescott must also use DDR2 which is more expensive than DDR1. AMD has faster memory scores than Intel does using cheaper memory. Onnoard memory isn't a modest increase in speed, it's a major one since because it's on the die, it runs at the same speed as the CPU does. Intel memory controllers are on the mainboard and everything gets slowed down with its use, even faster DDR2, which costs more. Because the memory controller is on the die my frontside bus speeds are almost double that of an Intel system 2X 1000.
Intel has just recently announced that their new line of CPU's will include on die memory controllers. Hmm! I wonder why?
" 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 @ 20:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
People buy Dell because they are cheap. Dell uses Intel only because they are in bed together not because Intel procs are good.
AMD systems are sold for the same or better prices in all the major chains.
AMD is increasing market share but they can only increase manufacturing so fast. Intel is to massive to compete with volume wise.
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 20:12 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
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.
As for pissing me off; you didn't get up early enough or work hard enough this time. LOL I'm not about to side up with you. I only acknowledge what is obvious and I have said from the beginning. AMD tends to be more the "enthusiast's" processor than for mainstream consumers with factory built PCs. Your cost estimates still amaze me. So you are able to overclock an AMD with a Venice core. My same old question, how many average consumers are going to do it? Let's talk some average stock configurations and the picture will be different. Hate to rain on your parade, but what you're doing isn't everyday for most people. The discussion is growing old; so far the only thing you've shown me is that you can build a "speedwagon" PC using an overclocked AMD. Benchmarks of top end and comparable stock computers using Intel and AMD don't show that big a difference and the factory built Intel PCs are less expensive. Nice discussion, but so far, that's all I see: "enthusiasts" like AMD and the average consumer prefers Intel. Go figure. LOL ;)
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 20:19 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
As for pissing me off; you didn't get up early enough or work hard enough this time. LOL I'm not about to side up with you.
Does this mean that we're not going to kiss and make up? LOL
You did a wonderful job of trying to defend an indefensible position. If you would have had something actually worth defending then you would have done a wonderful job. But you got stuck with defending the current Intel products and they just aren't good enough to be easily defended.
" 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 @ 20:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
If memory on a chip is so exclusive to AMD, why doesn't AMD have a patent on it? A person or a company is foolish not to use something that works, even if someone else came up with the idea first. I'm just happy AMD and Intel are competing, the consumer wins. If AMD is that great, they need to put some of their profits back into manufacturing facilities and grow. Or, are they already meeting their market forecasts as most consumers are going Intel?
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
24. September 2005 @ 20:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually I don't really qualify as an enthusiast with a 200 dollar Athlon64 proc. My mother boards were 50 bucks each and 60 dollars for memory.
35 dollars for an X300 pcie card. 2 50 dollar sata drives in raid. At 2600mhz there are no P4s that encode CCE as fast.
Donald
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 20:25
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 20:28 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for pissing me off; you didn't get up early enough or work hard enough this time. LOL I'm not about to side up with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this mean that we're not going to kiss and make up? LOL
Kissing a Sophocles, what a repugnant thought. Urrr... LOL I never got upset or harbored any ill will. Just a discussion... We all have our points of view. Sometimes we are biased by our perspective. Take a look in the mirror. LOL
Quote:
You did a wonderful job of trying to defend an indefensible position. If you would have had something actually worth defending then you would have done a wonderful job. But you got stuck with defending the current Intel products and they just aren't good enough to be easily defended.
One could say the same since your predominant examples come from the perspective of an "enthusiast" builder and not a regular consumer.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 20:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear, brobear, brobear, Sigh!!!!
On chip memory controllers aren't patentable, just innovative, and Intel's P5 will have an on board memory controller, it's a fact, they've already announced it. And for a good reason, they're losing market share at a very fast rate.
The biggest and wealthiest companies aren't always the best, but they do often win because of their superior marketing campaigns and the average American isn't smart enough decide for themselves. You're excluded from that group of course, you're just stubborn as mule and willing to take any side of an argument (A true Sophist LOL)even if it's wrong.:)
" 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 @ 20:40 |
Link to this message
|
You win, I'll run out and break the bank and buy this little $5,000 AMD. 
When  LOL
Seriously though, that Alienware AMD is one hot puppy. Notice the liquid cooling. Ouch... ;)
Was that point a bit extreme? ;)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 20:42
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 20:50 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
On chip memory controllers aren't patentable, just innovative, and Intel's P5 will have an on board memory controller, it's a fact, they've already announced it. And for a good reason, they're losing market share at a very fast rate.
I applaud their good judgment. ;) If someone has a better "mousetrap", the easiest way to pull abreast or ahead is to borrow it. ;) No foul; as you said, it's only innovation, not a patented product.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 20:59 |
Link to this message
|
What, a $2000 Alien gamer with a Pentium 830 processor? ;) Can I have 2 for less than a top end $5000 AMD gamer? Why sure little bear. LOL
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 21:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear
Look at the specs fo the PC's that you just posted. They didn't use AMD chps to make them more expensive, they did it because they're better and they bring down the price.
Please note that PC's that advertise SLI do so because they're more expensive motherboards because they have to be able to use 2 video cards as one. There are Intel based systems that also have SLI requirements but they're more expensive and 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/. |
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 21:45 |
Link to this message
|
Interesting as both the PCs I showed use the SLI technology. The Intel is less than half the price of the AMD. Plus to make the super gamer AMD, they had to up the processor performance to the point liquid cooling was necessary.
We can go on all day, but as of yet, you haven't shown any real documentation as to AMD being superior for the average user. Stock benchmarks show little difference. The one edge you noted for AMD, the onboard memory, you also mentioned Intel intends to nullify by adding the same on their new processors.
I'm not in the market right now, but if I were, I think I'd wait until Intel gets the new processors out to see how they stack up. AMD's and Intel's competition has them seesawing back and forth with their products. Until AMD becomes more competitive on the factory built market, I don't see them becoming favorites of the average user.
Quote:
you're just stubborn as mule and willing to take any side of an argument (A true Sophist LOL)even if it's wrong.:)
Interesting move, if you can't win the discussion, attack the person doing the discussing. Hmmm... ;) Sophists?
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 22:00 |
Link to this message
|
" 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
3 product reviews
|
24. September 2005 @ 22:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
My 2 cents: Specifically Dual Core CPU's & AMD versus Intel:
AMD has Dual cores , so does Intel,BOTH are 64 bit. AMD is over double the price. By the way, the Intel Dual Core CPUs are known to be better & faster at encoding video. Compared to single core chips. And, Intel already has on chip memory controllers. AMD was first though, acknowleged. Average user, matter of preference! I built 2 PCs. One is an Intel P4 3.0 GHz. Prescott. The other, AMD Athlon 64 3200+. Winchester core 2 GHz.. BOTH units have the SAME Memory, Kingston PC3200 DDR 400 Mhz, 1 Gig each (2x512), BOTH run the memory at Dual Channel. Application launches, AMD is faster, Video Encoding & Burning, NO DIFFERENCE. Both machines encode & burn the same DVD Video with the same media, same application and it comes out to the second as SAME SPEED on both.
Use The Best Media for The Best Burns! TYs, Verbs,(Made in Taiwan) Sony MIJs (YUDEN000 T02), Sony Made in Taiwan DVD+R 16x, Maxell MIJ, RITEK G05.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 22:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
bunnyrip
At the beginning of this thread it was stated that some form of proof was required. I would be interested in seeing a comparison between your two systems.
AMD is only more expensive with its dual core chips, a historical first since usually Intel costs more for anything. But if measured by performance AMD can justify its costs.
Video encoding has a unique processor requirement, all of it, and one of the few that relies almost solely on clock speed. The other Intel benefit is hyper threading which only has marginal benefits but excellent in an office environment. Useless for CPU intensive operations and it can in fact slow down anything that requires 100% of CPU resources. For most of us AMD passes the test that we write for 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/. |
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 23:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sophocles, I realize there has been a historical difference in price (until recently)and currently a slight difference in the highend processors in favor of the AMD. However, lets not lose sight of the end product. The alienware PCs were actually a good example for one thing, cost. The AMD was more than twice the retail of the Intel based PC. Granted there were some extra bells and whistles on the AMD super gamer. However, there wasn't anything near $3000 dollars worth of extras. For factory built PCs, AMD just hasn't got it yet.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 23:07 |
Link to this message
|
bunnyrip
SiSoft Sandra is something of a standard and you can get a copy for free. You can submit your screen captures of the benchmarks for your PCs along with any of the PCs in the benchmark list that you may think handy for comparison. If you need screen capture software, let me suggest CaptureWizPro trial from http://www.downloads.com . Some of the other members may suggest a freeware alternative that is good. Host the images somewhere like imageshack and link them here using the img tags shown on the message page.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 23:12
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 23:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear
Would you get off the Alienware PC's already? I'm quite familiar with them. One of our members on
www.dvdhounds.com
had an issue with one, that's Intel based, not AMD. They're designer PCs! As you've observed they make use of technology to the benefit of the consumer. They selected AMD because not only does it make them cheaper, but also because they're noticeably faster. They're not catering to the consumer by price but by performance.
" 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 @ 23:16
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 23:30 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
They selected AMD because not only does it make them cheaper, but also because they're noticeably faster. They're not catering to the consumer by price but by performance.
I realize they're designer PCs. But where in the world were you looking when you said AMD had the better price. The dual core Intel was about $2000 and the dual core AMD $5000. I don't see $3000 worth of performance between the two. I'm not likely to buy either unless I win a lottery huge enough that money no longer matters. I was just pointing toward where factory prices can escalate using AMD. There may have been a slight price difference in the past for the processor alone, but when it came to the PC as a package, the AMD units have been historically more expensive than the Intel for a comparable unit.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. September 2005 @ 23:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
You have to include all of the hardware in a system. You're trying make it comparable or different based on the CPU. The Intel machines won't have the same graphics cards. I'm telling you that the CPU is not making the difference in cost except for its potential. No serious gamer would buy an Intel based system and PC builders know that. They save on the CPU and cooling with AMD, but they raise the latter on all the other CPU intensive components. SLI in an Intel system is a waste of time, P4's can't make effective use of them. But an AMD system and two expensive graphics cards that costs about $600 to $800 alone makes for a hot gaming system. Remember that AMD's run fastest with Nvidia chip sets and Nvidia chip sets make SLI possible. Intel has completely lost the gaming populations.
" 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/. |
Member
|
24. September 2005 @ 23:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
I LoVe Speed.. .. . .
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2005 @ 23:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sophocles,
Sure wasn't looking there were you? The Alienware super gamer AMD is overclocked and strained to the point of needing liquid cooling for their spectacular performance gain. Again I ask, $3000 worth? Not for me, I'd take up checkers first. ;) I'm aware you've done a better job than Alien with your AMD, but as I've stated all along, AMD is more for the builder "enthusiast" than the average consumer. You can brag on your custom built AMD PC as much as you like, but that will not make AMD any more palatable to the regular user.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2005 @ 23:58
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
25. September 2005 @ 00:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
I've been looking into a new case and liquid cooling so you're preaching to the choir. Liquid cooling has rendered some fabulous results but my heart is really set on a vapochill. And I repeat and agree that they're more expensive but because they have more expensive stuff in them. They wouldn't have bothered with an Intel chip.
" 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/. |
