|
Intel P4 vs AMD
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
29. September 2005 @ 16:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Comparable speeds for AMDs used to be simple, now both AMD and Intel are moving away from using speeds as designations for the chips. Your 2800 AMD is comparable to an Intel running at 2800 MHz or 2.8GHz. A 3200 is comparable to a 3.2GHz Intel processor. AMD named their processors according to the Intel processor it was comparable to. I have more trouble keeping up with their actual processor clock speeds. I always have to look those up.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
Triock
Account closed as per user's own request
|
29. September 2005 @ 16:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey Guys,I was wondering,I'm on a budget,and im a gamer. The amd chip would be my best chance, but the intel p4 is cheaper and my dad can overclock the cpu... Please give me some ideas on good processors.
Currently I am running a 1.5 athlon xp thunderbird, with a motherboard that can only handle a 1.8 :( ... and a gig of ram, and a 64mg video card, HEEEEELLLLPPPPP....
Triock
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
29. September 2005 @ 17:49 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I'm on a budget,and im a gamer.
Not a good match. Make some money and buy better equipment, and I'm not trying to be flip. The stock AMD 2800 is running at a little over 2.0 Ghz (higher than your current capabilities), which is comparable to a P4 at 2.8GHz. Even overclocked, you're not looking at a good "gamer". Sophocles might give you a less expensive means of upgrading for an AMD. However, for those that don't do their own work and overclock their systems, it's buy a designer PC with AMD or settle for a P4 which runs faster stock, but has less capabilities when it comes to overclocking. Also, a lot of gaming ability depends on the graphics cards one can use. There you have to look at the systems resources to see how that works out as well. Also the chipsets on the MoBo come into play. FSB does have some effect when it comes to gaming. So make a good selection on your new MoBo.
AMD has consistently been the best for gaming, but that is not with stock configurations. You would be best served going to the gaming forums and looking at some of the system configurations and see if there is something you can afford to start with that is expandable as your finances and expertise improve.
Before anyone says anything about my supporting AMD, remember this is for gaming. I still say at low to midlevel usage, in stock form, the Intel equipped PCs are better for the average PC user. Not everyone is an avid gamer or PC enthusiast that works on and overclocks their PCs.
Remember, when cranking up the Intel chips for really good performance over stock, you need to look into a good cooling system, usually improved over stock. If you really push it, liquid cooling is a good idea. What you might save on a cheaper P4 for gaming, you can lose on upgrading the system to accommodate it. Looking at some of the more expensive gamers at Alienware might give you some idea of what's going on, they have both Intel and AMD. With the designer PCs, it takes more to build an Intel than an AMD. Looking doesn't cost and you may come away with some ideas.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. September 2005 @ 18:01
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. September 2005 @ 18:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
Triock
You're going to have to dump the board and get one that at the very least has an agp pro slot. It sounds like a lot but for about $300 you can make some pretty fair gains. Say about $50 for a slightly dated board, another $75 for an XP2700+ that easily overclocks to a 3200+ and $175 for a decent vid card. Your old memory should work ok. That would get you a system that should play most games at about 800 by 600 and quite a few at 1024 by 768 resolution.
" 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
|
29. September 2005 @ 18:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
$300 + dollars and salvaging parts from the current system... Maybe not exactly what Triock wanted to hear, but sound advice nonetheless.
@Triock
Remember as well, that still isn't getting you near a top line gamer. The faster Intels and custom AMDs will still set you on fire with the heads on gaming. If you're just wanting to play some games though, that would get you going.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. September 2005 @ 18:24
|
Junior Member
|
30. September 2005 @ 02:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
yeah, the comp i wanna build, costs around 800 dollars, but for what it is, i think i could do quite a bit of gaming. i'm still debating on whether or not to get the 3500+ 939 chip with hypewr transport. 1ghz fsb hehe.
athlon xp 2800+ 2.21ghz (177x12.5 at 1.8v)
48c idle, 61c full load
Asus A7N8X Deluxe V2
512mb pc3200 ram
Radeon 9200 graphics card
20gb hdd from a gateway performance 1000
120gb seagate hdd
Kingwin 450watt psu
Antec Soho server case with 3 fans (2 exhaust on the back, one intake on the door)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. September 2005 @ 03:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Bearing in mind that costs twice as much as an XP and has an expensive 939 motherboard...
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
30. September 2005 @ 04:28 |
Link to this message
|
Donald
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. September 2005 @ 04:31
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. September 2005 @ 04:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you are a confident, competent gamer then overclocking a cheap processor is far and away the best strategy to get a powerful, cheap computer.
The 90nm CPUs overclock best, but of course they're more expensive...
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
30. September 2005 @ 06:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
As Donald pointed out, you can up the performance of some cheap processors. However, they're not going to be anywhere near as competitive as the newer and faster setups. If you're just doing for something to do, no problem. But, when it comes to the heads on competition that is a popular pastime nowadays, anything below the mid 3s will get you trampled.
The 3500+ mentioned is a good start, then overclock it to the max and add the best graphics card available and make sure it has ample quality memory. Then if you really want to build something, go with the AMD Athlon 64 and overclock it. Sort of make a 3500 look like a toy. But that is only on benchmarks and extreme game tests. For the rest of us mortals, an overclocked AMD 3500 or P4 at 3.6GHz or better would keep us happy for some time.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. September 2005 @ 09:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
To all!
What irks me the most about all these processors is the name game. The fact that all processors for a certain socket type don't necessarily work in those socket types drives me up a wall. As far as I am concerned all socket 478 motherboards should be able to run any socket 478 chip. The bios should be able to be changed to accomodate changes in design. A few months ago I bought a socket 478 MB because I had a spare 2.8/533 I wanted to use. It would not work even though I asked about it when I bought the board.
I presently have:
Asus P4P800 SE motherboard
Intel Prescott 3.0/800/HT chip
1 GB DDR 2700
Maxtor Diamond + 120 Gb/7200 drive
Emprex DVD-ROM 16X
Optorite Dual layer 12X DVD Burner
Nvidia FX5200 PCI video card
Demon 480 watt power supply
With this system there are a few things I don't understand. When all of this was in my Dell 3000, The memory was dual channel and running at 333. Now in this MB it is single channel running at 320! What I don't understand is why! I don't overclock so everything should be equal. I know that the video is slow by todays standards but it's what I have to work with. I do a lot of video and it seems to be a little faster than the Dell. When I can afford a new 8X AGP card I will buy one but for now, this is what I got!
Any info to improve what I'm working with would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely.
theonejrs
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. September 2005 @ 09:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
To be honest, I think most processors work for motherboards of their socket types, might depend on the BIOS thats on the motherboard...
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
30. September 2005 @ 09:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Besides BIOS, anyone ever hear about things like chipsets and FSB? There's more to a MoBo than just a place to plug the processor. The MoBo's resources have to be complement the CPU. So, there is no mystery, older MoBos just don't have the resources to support some of the newer and faster processors, even though they may plug into the socket. Also, the type memory and where it's plugged into the system can affect the dual channel function (matching chips and 1-3 and 2-4 slots ring a bell?).
Manufacturers and retailers supply the pertinent info for matching components. It just takes a little research for matching up RAM type, processors, and motherboards. Also, you have to look at the various options and select what you want performance wise. Taking memory from one board and plugging it into another board won't automatically assure dual channel operation. A system has to be capable of dual channel support and set to use it. Same with a processor, you're not going to change the processors speed, but the processor can be limited by a board that has less resources, such as a slower FSB.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. September 2005 @ 09:58
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. September 2005 @ 12:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
6402
suggestion is about as good as it gets for the amount of money he posted. Both the 3000 and 3500+ are Venice core CPU's which are the latest AMD 64 bit processors. With overclocking the 3000 Venice core should see an increase of at least 500 MHZ depending on the flexibility of the system memory used. The 3500+ could be raised to an easy 450 MHz or more (I know I'm doing just that) and at those speeds it will out bench an FX55/57 which has been considered the best gaming CPU's on the market bar none.
" 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/. |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. September 2005 @ 14:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Just otu fo interest while I'm here, I've currently elected to keep my XP 3000 stock speed cos I don't think I can get much more of any benefit out of it for the amount of extra heat. RUns at around 54ºC idle on a reasonably cool day.
That seems high seeing as I have an arctic cooling heatsink with thermal paste, but if it's worth overclocking, i might...
|
|
Triock
Account closed as per user's own request
|
30. September 2005 @ 14:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey Guy's, I am very thankfull for you all... Um im only 14, but i know a behemoth about computers, My dad is a DBA, And i kinda branched from him... I agree with the 64 bit athlon, but i dont think I need a 120 gig hd.... and yeah my motherboard does suck..
I am trying to do school and this, By the way i have 2 honors and a'ssing all of my classes... But my dad is telling me not to get the water cooling system, one mistake or leak, and bamm no computer..
\
And i am not a big fan of intel either but the prices are lower, and i forgot to add, my cpu is already overclocked.. :( !! Right know i need to get a new case for my computer, im going to get one that can handle the atx mobo...
And compared to yall guys computer my computer is ssllooww.....
But i am a big xb fan.... 70 games and everything
Thanks guys,
Triock
Triock
|
|
Triock
Account closed as per user's own request
|
30. September 2005 @ 14:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey Guy's, I am very thankfull for you all... Um im only 14, but i know a behemoth about computers, My dad is a DBA, And i kinda branched from him... I agree with the 64 bit athlon, but i dont think I need a 120 gig hd.... and yeah my motherboard does suck..
I am trying to do school and this, By the way i have 2 honors and a'ssing all of my classes... But my dad is telling me not to get the water cooling system, one mistake or leak, and bamm no computer..
\
And i am not a big fan of intel either but the prices are lower, and i forgot to add, my cpu is already overclocked.. :( !! Right know i need to get a new case for my computer, im going to get one that can handle the atx mobo...
And compared to yall guys computer my computer is ssllooww.....
But i am a big xb fan.... 70 games and everything
Thanks guys,
Triock
Triock
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. September 2005 @ 14:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
Triock
Intel prices are higher by performance. Example, my 3500+ Venice core costs about $219 but it competes with an Intel P4 extreme edition at 3.7 GHZ which costs a good $700 more. It's all about specification and capability.
BTW, I'm a school teacher so keep up the good grades.
" 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/. |
|
f00dl3
Suspended permanently
|
30. September 2005 @ 15:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you ever follow the stock market figures for AMD and Intel, you'll find AMD trades at a higher value ($28 vs $24) and has a bigger gain (60% vs 40% in the last year). The market reflects the companies integrity and reliaibility
The DMCA - Stripping your rights away, one at a time.
 |
|
Triock
Account closed as per user's own request
|
30. September 2005 @ 16:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks guys, And I will keep up the work cause then my parents will let me get a working lisence. and then i can work at Publix... :-/
Triock
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. September 2005 @ 16:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
fOOdl3
baloney, Intel used to be better and they made huge profits but they've become just like Microsoft, a "status quo." Ever since the introduction of the Athlon AMD has held the price performance lead. With games they've been a solo flight for several years now. Intel hoped to stay out front with people who can count but not understand results so they went with clock speed over functional processing. AMD chips perform 4 times in a clock cycle when Intel does only twice.
But clock speed has benefits too, and that's usually where raw timing speeds do a bit better than truly versatile processors do. Video encoding is just such an Intel advantage but usually only by seconds and rarely into minutes. On the other hand AMD chips do everything else better such as gaming. Now AMD has reduced it's voltage requirements which allows for a sizable increase in clock speeds and the encoding differences in seconds begin to melt away and every previous advantages Intel had decreases proportionally.
Intel is the loser right now in a big way. We can talk about frontside bus and memory controllers and AMD leads. AMD runs DDR1 memory faster than Intel chips run DDR2 memory, which is yet another area where you save money.
Think Again!
" 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 30. September 2005 @ 16:37
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
30. September 2005 @ 19:37 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
baloney, Intel used to be better and they made huge profits but they've become just like Microsoft, a "status quo."
Guess I can go along with part of that. ;) AMD and Intel have been seesawing back and forth with chip advancements. I have no doubt Intel will spring back. They can't afford not to. If one still looks at sales, the Intel equipped factory PCs are doing excellent on the retail market and still have the largest share.
As Sophocles pointed out, the newer Intels are slated to have the integrated memory controls similar to what AMD is using. The name of the game has always been architecture, though people got into the game of "fastest clockspeed". Intel made theirs do more cycles while AMD made theirs to do more computations per cycle. As long as comparable items are doing the same amount of work, I look to end cost for a factory unit. So far Intel has been the winner in that market.
AMD is coming on strong and has done especially well in the notebook categories of late. With the new chips, AMD is currently the pride of the "enthusiast" market. One has to remember though, the majority of users aren't capable of doing the necessary work to overclock their systems. One good mistake and you get to start over, sometimes some expensive errors are involved.
If one doesn't have the technical expertise or a close friend with it, then they're sort of at a loss on designer PCs. Did I mention Intel does the most out of the box; stock that is? Let me qualify that, except for the top end dual cores; there AMD has the advantage. However, as I noted before, I think the top end chips for both AMD and Intel are ridiculous at this point. Unless one is an ultra gamer or just trying to buy bragging rights, that market is best left alone until the prices come down.
Sophocles is right though, for the "enthusiast", the mid level AMDs can be overclocked to outperform the comparable Intels for gaming. For those who aren't into extreme gaming and use their PCs for normal pursuits, the Intel can be a good choice though. A lot of people tend to think so, or at least their wallets are saying so in the marketplace.
I do find it strange that with all the "savings" features of the lower cost AMD components, one can still find comparable Intel equipped PCs from the factory at a very competitive price. Price drives the market and to date Intel is still the market leader. In the end both appear to be reliable in stock form. In a lot of instances it boils down to preference. Currently "enthusiasts", that can overclock, like playing with the AMDs; not so with the average buyer.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. September 2005 @ 19:47
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
3. October 2005 @ 01:09 |
Link to this message
|
Soph and Donald
I did a bit of checking on Intel's high end processors and chipsets and came up with some interesting equipment I hadn't paid attention to. Seems there were some nice toys released earlier this year.
Using the 955 Express Chipset and P4 EE processor delivers over 79% performance increase over the 3.6GHz P4 with Hyper-Threading using the 925X Express Chipset (according to Intel). Talking about an AMD stomper, I think Intel is working on it.
Below are the main components for the set up. The mobo has integrated RAID 0, 1, 5, or 10 abilities, so the raptors I listed are a must to utilize the speedy drive handling capabilities. Of course there needs to be drives, modems and the like added along with the case and power supply. I wasn't trying to list all the parts for a complete system. For comparisons's sake on the processors, here's a listing from NewEgg on the big AMD processor, it's not cheap either: AMD Athlon 64 FX57 San Diego 1GHz FSB Socket 939 Processor Model ADAFX57BNBOX - Retail $1,011.00. So there's not much difference in price on the high end processors. Did I mention before both AMD and Intel are ridiculously high on these processors? New tech though. Pricey, but look at what you have when finished. Plus the system can be overclocked, and as long as one stays within voltage limits, the OCZ memory has a lifetime guarantee. Notice the FSB and RAM are fast enough that they don't limit the processor on this one.
A person could build this super computer for less than $3000 which is far less than comparable factory and designer PCs.
Some of the links I supplied are product analysis and some are more or less product evaluations.
Asus P5DW2 Premium Motherboard With Intel 955X Express Chipset (System Bus 1,066/800MHz), up to 8GB RAM support
($205.00 + , Premium has WiFi and TV)
CPU (Intel) ($1,000.00 +)
LGA775 P4 EE with Hyper-Threading
3.73GHz, (FSB 1,066MHz), L2 Cache 2MB
or 840 EE (dual core) 3.2 GHz
OCZ RAM
2GB DDR2 PC2-8000 (1GHz)
or Corsair
73GB 10,000 rpm Western Digital Raptor SATA 150 (x2)
Benchmarks (Not with fastest P4 EE or fastest memory)
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?sitesize=yes&i=2412&p=5
Asus
http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=3&l2=11&l3=184&model=493&mo...
OCZ RAM (1GHz)
http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/memory/ocz_ddr2_pc2_8000_pl...
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp?article=ar...
Intel P4 EE
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp?article=ar...
Intel 955X Chipset
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp?article=ar...
Hmmm... Dreaming of a P4 Extreme Edition or even better the 840 EE dual core. Yeah, Intel Rocks and AMD blows. LOL
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. October 2005 @ 07:28
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
3. October 2005 @ 03:46 |
Link to this message
|
Donald
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
3. October 2005 @ 03:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear
Sorry but you had better go back and check my specs again, my system benched using Sisoft beats that system in both CPU and memory handling by a sizeble margin. I'll setup the comparison. On the memory bandwidth alone my system wins by almost a 1000B/s.
" 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/. |
