|
Intel P4 vs AMD
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
25. September 2005 @ 00:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
Glad you finally agree, you have to throw money at an AMD like a wild man to get those spectacular results over an Intel PC. I'm waiting for those new Intel dual core processors with the onboard memory. Hope they're all Intel chalks them up to be. Bang for the buck, give me Intel until AMD learns the meaning of marketing in concern with the factory builders.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
25. September 2005 @ 00:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually you'll see results with an AMD even in low dollar systems.
They didn't make AMD systems more expensive because of AMD's needs, they did it because an AMD system can go where no Intel has gone before, AMD's can actually challenge high end hardware. They did it because at the high end it makes no sense to use fast hardware if Intel CPUs can't make use of them so only AMDs qualify.
" 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
|
25. September 2005 @ 00:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
You can say that again... .. .. .. .
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
25. September 2005 @ 00:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
You'll also see comparable Intel computers at a lower cost on those low end PCs. What you save for a single component, the processor, is vastly outweighed by the cost of the entire PC. So, unless one is a builder, or PC tech, there is no advantage to AMD. The average user is going to get more bang for the buck from Intel. Only recently has AMD garnered an edge with a newer innovation over Intel with the newer AMD dual core chips. Guess what, they started charging more to make up for development costs. Go figure.
We're starting to get repetitive. Let me know when you come up with something new. As it is, we're just rehashing what we've already said. ;)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. September 2005 @ 01:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
TO add my comments (I'm an AMD fan, but i try to stay objective)
I think where AMD lose out is in their Sempron budget core, which no-one has mentioned so far, amazingly.
In the commonplace market, where MOST PCs are sold, manufacturers and system builders alike go for an Intel Celeron D as opposed to an AMD Sempron because there, cost-effectiveness is what AMD has not got.
The Sempron64 is a better offering, and when 64-bit becomes available, should win AMD a few more points, but until then, Celerons are the main deal.
Despite being an enthusiast PC user, my CPU is relatively low down on the scale - and I haven't overclocked it. OC'ing a 130nm CPU seems to generate too much heat. As I'm typing, despite Silicone paste and a good heatsink i run 58ºC (136ºF). Gaming increases this 3-4ºC further. That's quite hot enough.
I will say for anything other than a budget PC, AMD has the better system. The second you hit the 2800 zone, you can have an Athlon 64, and therefore have a better CPU than a Pentium 4. Below 2800, however, the Sempron just can't do the job.
I think you'll find that at the top end, Intel are JUST AS EXPENSIVE AS AMD!!!
Manufacturers choose AMD in ridiculously high priced systems, because if they chose Intel, the system would not only be slower, for the same excessive price, but need to run watercooling just to run the processor STOCK.
A study carried out (I believe toms hardware did it) on the Intel Dual Core extreme 840 led to the result of an ASUS Star Ice Cooler (a very large, high powered cooler with silicone paste) cooling that CPU to WELL IN EXCESS of 70ºC (158ºF). Now tell me Intel doesn't have a heat problem.
People seem more than capable of overclocking even the Athlon 64 FX series. This tends to suggest that heat is nowhere near as much of an issue.
Where i get some of my components from:
AMD Sempron 2500+: £59
AMD Sempron64 2800+: £52 (Yes, weird)
AMD Sempron64 3400+: £99
AMD Athlon64 3200+: £82
AMD Athlon64 3700+: £176
AMD AthlonX2 3800+: £264
AMD Athlon64 4000+: £270
AMD Athlon64 FX55: £558
AMD AthlonX2 4800+: £634
AMD Athlon64 FX57: £705
Right. That's my AMD lineup. Now I will list Intel processors that I BELIEVE EQUIVALENT to them. I'll SiSoftSandra them to check that later...
Intel Celeron D325: £56 (£3 less and faster)
Intel Celeron D330: £59 (£7 more)
<intel doesnt have anything that rivals the Sempron64 3400>
Intel Pentium 4 540J 3200: £147 (£65 more... oh dear)
Intel Pentium 4 660J 3600: £294 (£118 more...)
Intel Pentium 4 670J 3800: £441 (£171 more...)
<nothing to rival the FX55>
Intel Pentium 4 3.73Ghz Extreme £705 (£71 more...)
<nothing to rival the FX57>
So that would make AMD mostly the winner, barring the Sempron.
I vote AMD. Yourself?
Post edited in 2006: Hypertransport is NOT the same as HyperThreading! LOL what a dumbass!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. August 2006 @ 05:32
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
25. September 2005 @ 01:19 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Now tell me Intel doesn't have a heat problem.
Wouldn't dare, they all have heat problems if pushed far enough.
Quote:
... So that would make AMD mostly the winner, barring the Sempron
Only if you build it yourself. Time and time again we've seen the comparable equipped PCs higher in cost for the factory built AMD PCs. http://www.newegg.com is the link for a popular net sales outlet for AMD and Intel CPUs. The difference in cost for the comparable processors is negligible. If one is going to build the PC themselves, by all means go with an AMD processor if it fills your need. However, for the consumer that buys a ready built stock PC, think Intel for best bang for the buck.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. September 2005 @ 01:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
Depending, of course which supplier it is.
Admittedly many/most factory PC outlets use solely or pedominantly intel processors, but My Athlon XP originated from a store-bought PC, from a manufacturer claiming that AMD offered better performance.
Of course the slight flaw in my argument is that this company has now gone broke, but never mind...
In the field of basic home PCs, Intel definitely, until AMD sorts their Sempron out...
I think the advent of 64-bit software may herald good times for AAMD though, not least because the FX and X2 series can really take off, but because the Sempron 64-bit, being the cheapest processor still for sale, may actually perform rather well, better than most Celerons i reckon. It's clear that Intel are very hesitant about 64-bit, and you can't blame them, given how long it will be before 64-bit really takes off, but They seem to have no intention of giving it to their Celeron processors.
Will that come back and bite them?
Only time will telll...
I do think all high-end CPUs are overpriced though...
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
25. September 2005 @ 03:05 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I do think all high-end CPUs are overpriced though...
And that in itself was a mouth full... I couldn't agree with you more. ;)
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
25. September 2005 @ 05:13 |
Link to this message
|
I like you brobear, stubbon like me.
But you must be corrected.
AMD version 7500 starting at $2279 or $2951 with the fastest dual core 4800+
http://www.alienware.com/Configurator_Pages/aurora_7500_sli.aspx?...
Intel version 7500 starting at $2049 or $2981 with the fastest(cough) dual core 840 extreme edition.
http://www.alienware.com/Configurator_Pages/area-51_7500.aspx?Sys...
Hmmm. 30 dollars more for the Intels fastest Dual core. And it is slower. Easy choice.
You were misrepresenting the truth again.
You were comparing two completely different lines of computers.
The fact that they didn't bother with an ALX Intel design should let you know who the performance champ is.
Donald
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
25. September 2005 @ 05:23 |
Link to this message
|
Donald
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. September 2005 @ 05:38
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
25. September 2005 @ 10:28 |
Link to this message
|
I'm surprised you don't believe in me yet Donald. LOL Since they say a picture is worth a thousand words, here's 2000 for ya. ;)
 
Those are starting configurations for the top AMD and top Intel equipped gamer PCs. I wasn't adding any extra bells and whistles from the configuration choices.
I mentioned the top extreme gamer with Intel and the super gamer with AMD. Nothing misleading except your wanting to say so. Talk about stubborn, I almost admire your tenacity for coming after me... almost. LOL ;)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. September 2005 @ 10:46
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
25. September 2005 @ 10:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks,
That is what I was looking for. The overpriced Intel to go with the overpriced AMD. Kinda blows the AMD is more expensive thing out of the water though.
Donald
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
25. September 2005 @ 10:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
You may have noticed there was very little in the way of P4 desktops in the paper. Just one in bestbuy. It was the most expensive offering.
Plenty of AMD systems going for a song though. Including Sophs 3500+.
Even you could afford the faster machine Brobear.
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
25. September 2005 @ 10:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
BTW, when doing comparisons, use PCs that are comparable with comparable CPUs; keeps from misrepresenting the truth. ;)
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
25. September 2005 @ 10:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree that you should start doing that.
Obviously I choose the Top dual cores and the 3.8 p4 and 3800+.
You just can't get anymore comparable than that. Of course I can't do anything about the Intels slow performance.
Donald
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
25. September 2005 @ 10:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wasn't the one comparing a $5000 AMD to the $2000 Intel instead of the comparable $5000 Intel.
Donald
|
Member
|
25. September 2005 @ 10:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
Before I was supposed to get a PC for my birthday sadly
I didnt but it supposed to be a AMD 3000. I choosed it because it was fast and more reliable.
Intel is kinda like a Audi car with good style and great transsmision
but kinda slow.
No one can give you wiser advise than yourself.
-Cicero
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
25. September 2005 @ 10:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually the AMD ALX is $4657 with the top dual core, $300 less than Intel.
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
25. September 2005 @ 10:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
You did see where I missed something Donald, but it wasn't that extreme. Soph kept me up with this discussion that boils down to a simple matter of preference. I guess I was getting a bit groggy.
I was talking about top end gamers with Alien. I missed the top end Intel the first time I browsed the site and you missed the high end AMD. Neither are the stock configuration of a regular PC. As Sophocles aptly put it, these are true designer PCs. Alien decided to do one better with the Intel gamer that I missed. It's also a speedwagon and the price isn't significantly higher than the one in the post above. It does cost a few hundred more, but what the heck when you're talking about $5000 toys, a Pentium that can kick AMD butt. LOL I'd love to run the benchmarks on those two. Seems I made an error, no more egregious than the one you made. ;) So they both cost a hell of a lot more than I think they're worth.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. September 2005 @ 10:59
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
25. September 2005 @ 11:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
The ALX Intel wasn't easy to find. I had to did to find it even after you told me it was there.
I still plan on getting a dual core Pentium D if for nothing else than historic collecting.
The Dual core Intel also has new DRM built in so if hollywood chooses to use it you proc won't encode copyrighted material.
I haven't dug up enough info on it yet but it is of concern.
Donald
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
25. September 2005 @ 11:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have my dream Alien PC up to $8388. Got a few options.
Actually My dream machine is 4 dual core Optetron on a 4way server.
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
25. September 2005 @ 11:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
LOL Talking about extreme. I'm afraid to play with the configuration tool, I might want one. Naw... ;) Too early in the day for a shot of bourbon to calm the old nerves when I get the sticker shock.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. September 2005 @ 13:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Eight thousand dollars.
<shakes head disapprovingly>
And why exactly do you need that?
Honestly, why i don't understand.
So you can run games at 2048x1536 on maximum detail at a frame rate faster then the eye can distinguish?
Pfft, absurd.
Quite happy with my setup, thanks.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
25. September 2005 @ 13:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
They're just playing around, you'd be lucky to get 6402 to spend $800 let alone $8000. I'll be happy when I get my dual core.
" 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 25. September 2005 @ 14:11
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
25. September 2005 @ 14:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...oww that stings a little.
Donald
|
