|
|
|
Intel P4 vs AMD
|
|
|
WhatUp
Newbie
|
3. October 2005 @ 15:28 |
Link to this message
|
For myself at equal price I would go AMD not because Intel is not good it is very good but as I am 42 and have a tendecy to remember it was AMD and forced Intel to give us more then their 25 mhz increase a year that they were used too.
I remember IBM made a chip that was in a lab 20 year ago doing stellar result computation per cycle.
So for me if you all buy Intel for custom built you just kill the competition that make the average computer built at Dell using Intel and now very good a might thing of the past. Let me explain further if all the custom builder decided to support Intel you would not see many improvement in the "Retail Market" and no competition what so ever in the Sever side if it wasn't for AMD we will all be stuck with Dell at much higher price and lower speed and result.
For me if I know the result will be the same and price are almost the same the answer are easy I must support AMD because without them we are doom.
How many Hollywood and Intel alike would like to see this web site disapears it is because you have a major impact on the after market the "upgrade market".
How many would know about AMD performance and how many would know about CCE ;) without some rebell like us here and to be honest you had to be rebell at the beginning to buy AMD but it is changing, it just I can't understand why someone would not foster that comptetiton in the after market, look at your place of work what do you see Dell and Intel and Microsoft what do you see everywhere Dell and Intel so to be honest if it wasn't for AMD we would not enjoy the speed and choice we have today including the falling price I did not see on the CD audio side lol I know it is a streth to say that but never the less it is certainly making sens to me at least.
So keep buying Intel and make the competition weeker and let Intel bullies us or take a stand :).
Have a great day
PS this was not spell check and as I am French would not know anyway when I am inverting the subject and verbe ;)
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
3. October 2005 @ 17:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear
You missed the whole point and removed your images. The Venice core and the San Diego core's only differences are their L2 cache but they are otherwise the same. A smart enthusiasts buys the Venice core for around $200 and then pumps it up to perform like the $1000 chip. Why not their cores are identical the FX57's are just binned a bit better.
" 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 3. October 2005 @ 17:48
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
3. October 2005 @ 21:18 |
Link to this message
|
Regrettably Sophocles, it is you who keeps moving the point. My first point still holds true. The mid level (Stock) Intel processors give more bang for the buck in factory built PCs. AMD is making inroads, but currently the market share shows Intel to be in the forefront.
You point out that for overclocking, an enthusiast can take an AMD for less cost and overclock it to get good results. On that I can agree. However, if you look to many of the tests being run on overclocked PCs, both Intel and AMD, the Intel wins the benchmarks for computing and AMD wins for handling extra frames in the game environment. It just comes down to whether a person wants a computer or a game machine. XBox and PS2 would be cheaper. ;)
The listing I showed here at AD (somewhere, this discussion is now on about 3 or 4 threads) is from recent benchmarks done by Computer Power Users. The FX 57 which you compare your Venice core CPU to isn't in the same league as the X2 and the EE dual cores. Look at the results for the FX 57 and the X2 in stock formation. I doubt the FX 57 would come close to the Stock X2 specs even when overclocked, much less the overclocked figures. That is AMD against AMD. The Intel still appears to be king of computing and the AMD has put in some competition to the gaming department. I think I still prefer my PC for computing and doing things like encoding. The comparable Intels have always and still are better at that aspect of computing. My son beats the crap out of me on PS2, so why would I want to waste so much money on a gamer so I could lose. LOL
Note: Here's those bench results from "Computer Power Users". Brought it over from the other thread; just in case you missed it there. I'll be interested to see your results when you get through overclocking your Venice core AMD. Hope you don't end up frying it It'll be something if you can get close to the stock FX 57 specs and you'll have to "buy in" to enjoy the level of those dual cores.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. October 2005 @ 21:41
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
3. October 2005 @ 21:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
Here's a simple question for you Sophocles: Why would the average user want to spend time and money to buy or build (or have built) a PC whose only apparent edge is being able to pick up extra frames in a game environment? For the enthusiast, the answer is often, "because I can". The average consumer is often left still wondering about that "why". ;) I'd suspect most of us here on this forum, and most users for that matter, use their PCs mostly for things other than gaming. I do a lot of encoding, where Intel still wins out. What do you use your PC for most of the time?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. October 2005 @ 21:32
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
3. October 2005 @ 21:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
WhatUp
Appreciate your viewpoint. Guess someone needs to buy those AMDs. I'm glad to see the environment of competition now present. As you pointed out it keeps both sides working and the consumer benefits. Nobody in business is going to spend a fortune on R&D if they don't need to. There's a bunch of bean counters in the back room as well as PC enthusiasts.
As far as the discussion we're having here, similar ones take place on various forums and in different publications. If one looks closely, some of those forums skew things by how they set up tests. Benchmark results also depend on chipsets and RAM in use. Very important to the Intels so the CPU isn't limited. The architecture of the AMD chips with the integrated memory control isn't hampered as much by bus and memory speeds. Enthusiasts know this, but still set up tests with mobos leaving the Intel at a disadvantage (in some cases because the mobo is better for gaming). The more honest ones show AMD (currently) having an advantage with frame renderings in the video area and Intel leading as far as computations being done in the work environment. Suffice to say the discussion will continue as long as we have AMD and Intel being competitive. Sort of like the Hatfields and McCoys, The Federation and the Klingons, UK and TN (basketball), MI and Ohio State (football); as long as there is rivalry. LOL
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. October 2005 @ 22:07
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
4. October 2005 @ 03:32 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The mid level (Stock) Intel processors give more bang for the buck in factory built PCs.
You get more than just a few extra frames in gaming, multi tasking benefits, encoding benefits, in fact just about everything benefits from superior processing.
AMD processor give more bang for the buck than Intel does at every level, the differences in price depends on what the manufacturer uses to house the processor with.
I'd still like that link.
" 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 4. October 2005 @ 03:33
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
4. October 2005 @ 07:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sophocles,
You ask for benchmarks, you got benchmarks. I'm still waiting for your new ones where you say your Venice core can meet the specs of an FX 57. I'll really be surprised if you can get anywhere near the specs of an overclocked FX 57.
What link?
We've bandied about test results, innovations, how "tests" can be skewed, any number of tangents. We've analyzed benchmarks. Those usually render a split decision on current top end CPUs. In boxing when the champ fights to a draw, he keeps the belt.
As I said before, as long as we have competition there will be disagreements over who has the best "mousetrap". You've done well in presenting AMD as a viable option for the enthusiast builder. That wasn't the point, at least not the one I was trying to make. The healthy competition between companies benefits the consumer. For most consumers, Intel supplies a more cost effective package that delivers good results.
As for the high end "who has the best chip" war, they both have a good product and currently they have different things they do well. It's all about what one wants, user choice. We've now covered about 7 pages with this discussion. All we've accomplished so far is to show that we disagree. ...and this discussion is getting a bit old until either AMD or Intel comes out with something new that consumers and enthusiasts can disagree over.
Love that new Corsair DDR2 PC-8000 RAM... Really gives those 840 EE PCUs a boost. LOL
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
4. October 2005 @ 15:26 |
Link to this message
|
I don?t need to redo my bench marks my system is still comparable to an FX57 system. If you look at the specs that you posted you will see that they sacrificed memory speed for processor speed, a choice I?m not willing to make. I can?t beat every over clocked system unless I know what they?ve used to build it with, and since you were reluctant to post the link to the site where that spec was obtained I can?t determine what memory was used or how the system was cooled, or many other factors. If they?re using water cooling or more expensive memory then the comparison isn?t fair since I use stock cooling all around. My memory is PC400 but I could spend more on PC 6300 and really pump the clock.
So let me submit this for your inspection. I compared my system to that of another FX57 at 2.8 GHZ that was among the reference systems included with SiSoft I?ve actually slowed my CPU speed to maintain a higher memory speed. The FX57 CPU speed was 5.2% faster than mine, I can only match it by clock speed and nothing more. I couldn?t find an FX57 memory bench with SiSoft so I?ll use the one you posted and my memory bench is 16% faster than it. I could sacrifice memory performance and gain a higher CPU score, but that would be a waste, but I submit that my system is still all around as fast and using a slower clock speed than the one you posted because of my memory speed gains.
Now for the bite, store bought Intel machines are always cheaper in the beginning, lower performing, no more reliable than AMD machines, and actually cost more for performance than AMD machines do, and they?re more expensive before the first year is out. They come with slower low bandwidth CAS3 memory, cheap graphic cards which most often can?t be upgraded, limited memory capacity, slower motherboards slow chipset response, no freedom to tweak them, and limited upgradeability, or in other words, obsolete the moment you unpack them. Home built AMD PC?s has whatever you put into them. Such as better quality memory, fast motherboards with faster chipsets that allow for all kinds of tweaking, very upgradeable which makes them slow to become obsolete and less likely to need replacing for a few years?
The problem with this debate is that you?ve never built a machine, over clocked a machine, tweaked its memory with different timings, adjusted its front side bus, or in other words you?ve never been under its hood. But you?re asking me to compete with internet results? I?m not going to try and beat every posted spec that you find on a tech site on the web, there are a lot of variables unaccounted for. I can tell you this; the new AMD?s do more than just make games run faster, they do it all (including encoding) faster than or comparable to an equally priced Intel, a claim that Intel can?t make no mater who builds the machine.
My current CPU speed compared to an FX57 that I can show where it came from.
http://www.zentarium.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40
My memory speed compared to your posted AMD57 which was 5769.
http://www.zentarium.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35
" 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
|
4. October 2005 @ 16:50 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
since you were reluctant to post the link to the site where that spec was obtained I can?t determine what memory was used or how the system was cooled, or many other factors
Wasn't reluctant, just didn't know which link you were referring to. No problem, but you already had it. It was in the same site as the evaluations on the Intel CPUs and chipsets. They only give you part of the story though and you can't access the whole site unless you have a subscription. http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/mTOC.asp?guid=97AC22E7...
You might like it though, it's a publication that caters mostly to enthusiasts who like to overclock systems and build designer PCs. BTW, when they overclocked, they stated in the articles where speed no longer helped and processing began to fail. The benches reflected the best processing speeds, not just the max speeds attainable. They use liquid cooling systems in the tests to help keep overheating out of the picture. They used liquid cooling on both the AMDs and the Intels when overclocking.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
4. October 2005 @ 17:13 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I'll really be surprised if you can get anywhere near the specs of an overclocked FX 57.
I'd say I got near wouldn't you? My next project is to get a dual Toledo core (basically an over clocked dual FX57) core to 3.0 GHZ, now that's an Intel killer. Intel always encoded faster in the past because of its clock speed advantage and then only marginally. But as AMD's clock speeds rose so did Intel's advantage. Because of the voltage requirements and heat created by a dual Prescott 3.2 GHZ is all that Intel's dual cores can effectively muster. An AMD at 3 GHZ will utterly slaughter an Intel CPU no matter who or what tech site tries to tweak and over clock 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
|
4. October 2005 @ 18:08 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Now for the bite, store bought Intel machines are always cheaper in the beginning, lower performing, no more reliable than AMD machines, and actually cost more for performance than AMD machines do, and they?re more expensive before the first year is out. They come with slower low bandwidth CAS3 memory, cheap graphic cards which most often can?t be upgraded, limited memory capacity, slower motherboards slow chipset response, no freedom to tweak them, and limited upgradeability, or in other words, obsolete the moment you unpack them. Home built AMD PC?s has whatever you put into them. Such as better quality memory, fast motherboards with faster chipsets that allow for all kinds of tweaking, very upgradeable which makes them slow to become obsolete and less likely to need replacing for a few years?
Seems you need to take some lessons on being a good consumer if you have that many problems. I've not had a bit of trouble with my PC and I've had it for about 3 years. The memory isn't limited. I have 1GB installed and the system can handle up to 4GB if I wanted or needed to install that much. It's currently using 2 512MB Micron Modules. It has 4 slots, so to max it out, I'd have to switch to 1GB modules. Doubt I'd ever need that much. So the most I'd do that's cost efficient would be to add 2 more 512 MB modules to get 2GB total. Ample for anything I'd need to do with this small processor. Besides, as you pointed out and I've stated before, factory boards aren't built for overclocking. They're intended to be stable work platforms. Which mine has proven to be a very good one. The chipset response on my system is good for the processor I have. It has an 800MHz FSB. Most systems now only have that. Only some of the new super PCs like the one I mentioned have a true 1GHz FSB. Currently I only know of 2 companies that make the PC-8000 memory that can exploit those capabilities. But 800MHz FSB on a 3 year old PC isn't bad. I don't think I've suffered any obsolescence there. You wanted bench results, well the one I supplied with my PC compares to a stock 2800 AMD. You can go back and check that. And since we're speaking of factory systems, there are factory AMD machines. They suffer from some of the same build flaws as the Intel systems. They don't lend themselves to the enthusiast either. Glad you mentioned that what you're bragging on is a personally built designer PC.
You keep talking about the new advances made by AMD that make them superior to Intel. Yet, you are using an older CPU with the Venice core. A lot of material you're handing out is coming from publications and the net as well. I'm aware you can overclock a system, but you don't have any of the newer CPUs or motherboards with the latest chipsets. I priced some of the components and to build either the high end Intel or AMD, it would take more than the cost of a decent 3GHz+ factory machine. Just an Asus board with the new 955 chipset goes for over $200. The comparable board for AMD is $1 more at NewEgg. So no cost savings there. The CPUs for high end PCs are similar. No savings there either. By the time one buys a CPU, motherboard, case, power supply, ROM and burner drives, the optional floppy, hard drives, sound card, graphics card, speakers, modem, keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer and software, then budget in for miscellaneous like themal compound, solder and the like. Lets not forget the cables, they're not free either. Heavens forbid if one doesn't already have all the handy tools to work with. A nice little anti-static mat only runs about $40. A high impedance meter comes in handy sometimes. Priced a good one lately? As an enthusiast, you've accumulated a lot you can use for doing a build. For the average person, they would get sticker shock rounding up everything needed to put a complete PC package together. Oops, I forgot, I'm not supposed to know what's under the hood. ;)
Getting back to my PC it has a good sound card and graphics cards and both can be upgraded any time I wish. Pop the side of the easy open case and there's the slots and a couple of screws on the back of the case and one just slides them out and the new in. Forgot, I'm not supposed to know that am I. Just don't know how to get under the hood on one of those things. The current cards are good and the 4.1 stereo sound with the woofer is good enough to produce nice sound. I've never encountered problems with my current graphics so no need to update that either. Don't know where you got it that these things can't be upgraded. The factories just don't like anyone trying to clock up the systems to where they become unstable. That they're not built for. I've yet to need it either.
Quote:
The problem with this debate is that you?ve never built a machine, over clocked a machine, tweaked its memory with different timings, adjusted its front side bus, or in other words you?ve never been under its hood. But you?re asking me to compete with internet results? I?m not going to try and beat every posted spec that you find on a tech site on the web, there are a lot of variables unaccounted for. I can tell you this; the new AMD?s do more than just make games run faster, they do it all (including encoding) faster than or comparable to an equally priced Intel, a claim that Intel can?t make no mater who builds the machine.
Let's just say I know what the BIOS is and how it relates to the CPU and memory. Be rest assured I can flash one for updates and change the settings when I need to.
We've both discussed equipment neither of us have. I'll tell you now, I'm not running out tomorrow to buy any top end chips. Both AMD and Intel make good equipment. Quote:
...they do it all (including encoding) faster than or comparable to an equally priced Intel, a claim that Intel can?t make no mater who builds the machine.
Why not if Intel is comparable?
Like other discussions, you've decided to attack the person instead of the issue. I usually have a decent hold on concepts when I discuss them and believe it or not, I can get under the hood and have. Nowadays I don't get into personal attacks. Since you've decided to use that tactic, The Discussion Is Now Over.
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
4. October 2005 @ 18:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Brobear,
I don't think Sophocles was trying a personal attack. I thought you guys were just having the usual heated debate. Sophocles seems to like the arguements like this with you because your intelligent and determined.
Good information often comes from both of your arguments when pointing out possible errors in each others and my statements.
I don't wish to loose any good information partners.
For reference the FX57s cost a lot more largely because of their status at the top of the enthusiast heap and the upper limit to the multiplier is unlocked for additional OCing flexability.
The mainstream processors can be clocked to similar speeds an can yield close to the same results.
While I have always been an AMD guy, it is largely because I'm cheap.
You can have a lot of fun at low cost if you get into putting your computers together. But time is a problem for some with family life and all.
Because I am cheap I still intend to get a 200 dollar Pentium D 2.8 dual core when I get a chance. Just because.
Donald
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
4. October 2005 @ 18:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear
I don't intend to insult you personally but you argue out of your league on occassion and sometimes way out of your league. Surfing the internet can provide only so much information but if you don't fully understand or know how to use it then your just guessing. I don't need lessons to become a good consummer that's why I choose to build instead of buying. The best costing and high performing computers are always in the hands of those who build their own. To make my computer cost me about $1200 including DVD Roms and all, to purchase a computer equal to mine would cost you over $4000. Where come from that sounds like one hell of a deal.
Before you accuse me of attacking your person, go back and read your posts again and then wash your hands.
Your Dell only handles two gigs of memory not 4. The 2 gig limitation for a desktop is only recent. It might have four memory slots but they can only hold 512 megs each. However realizing that I can be wrong I'll look it up at their site. I used Micron memory back in the 90's but they're not on the list of top suppliers and most of their memory is CAS3. If you want quality you get Crucial, OCZ, Corsair, Mushkin and a few others. None of them actually make their chips, the buy them and then bin them for perfomance and then program them with their instructions. Samsung supplies the best all around chips although windbound is making a comeback. All of those names I just mentioned have their chips made by those two manufacturers. The Samsung tccd chips are the best all around and Corsair just obtained exclusive rights to them.
I'm not talking about things that I know nothing about, I've easily built better than 100 PC's in the last decade and I've repaired, upgraded, or worked on better than 1000 computers. I do make money at this on the side. I also consult to Hillsborough county school board, the school that I'm employed at has 597 computers (almost all Dell, a few compaqs).
Now this argument ends!
" 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 4. October 2005 @ 18:43
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
4. October 2005 @ 18:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
I was wondering about the TCCD on some of the Newegg Corsair memory.
Didn't know what it was.
I can't seem to keep up with you guys. I am reading the posts but I don't seem to be able to type and research as fast.
My new job is killing my body. Not so good on the mind either.
Donald
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
4. October 2005 @ 19:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
64026402
TCCD memory is highly binned and can almost guarantee timings of 2-2-2-5 T1 on any system. I'm not researching anything, everything that I'm posting is from memory or previous research that I did before building my current system. I think that I ruffled the fur on the bear a bit, he'll get over 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/. |
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
4. October 2005 @ 19:21 |
Link to this message
|
The Intel/AMD debate never ends. It just changes as the new hardware comes out.
I would like to get the word out about CCE in particular. The Rebuilder encodes seem to favor the Athlon 64 procs right now and a lot of people like me didn't know.
My dual 1.8ghz and 2.0ghz machines have been stable encoders that run about the same speed on DVD rebuilder as 3.2 ghz single P4s.
2-3 hours for the longer harder movies. Less for the easier ones.
When Sophocles first switched from his hot rod P4 to a mild sounding AMD 3500 I was skeptical. The times at just 2.4 ghz were less than half for the same movies.
I did a AMD3200 budget upgrade to test this and found at stock speed it would cut my times in half. I bumped up to 2.5 ghz and got similar results to sophocles.
Donald
|
|
Triock
Account closed as per user's own request
|
5. October 2005 @ 01:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
hey, my computer fried last night, got any ides,. im using my sisters 728 mgherts, with a 8 mg video, and 128 mg of ram......
HELP ME!!!
Triock
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
5. October 2005 @ 04:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
If your Cheap like me then an OCable Athlon 64 Venice core would be my recomendation. If you don't build your own computers then there is always a small computer shop that would put it together for you cheap.
Retail computers can be cheap but the lower end ones may disappoint in the performance area.
As Brobear said. Mainstream computer sales are geared toward stability for warranty not performance.
Although ultimately a well built custom machine will be much more reliable in the long run. Cooler heat sinks, ball bearing fans in the power supply, better quality motherboards, like Asus, Abit, Msi, ect...
Retail units cut cost where possible to keep the price competitive.
Donald
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. October 2005 @ 04:02
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
5. October 2005 @ 04:08 |
Link to this message
|
Sophocles
The 2 PCs at the top are my P4 and the Sandra benchmark P4, both 2.8GHz. The lower ones are the 2800, 3000, and 3200 AMD Opterons. For crappy memory, in stock configuration, the comparable pentiums did much better. I'm sure you will give some reason why AMD is still better. These are the unbiased Sandra benchmarks you like to quote. In fact the 3200 AMD is supposed to be comparable to a 3.2 GHz P4.
As for the memory capacity of my computer, I can assure you it is 4GB. Obviously in your vast store of knowledge, you've been missing something the past few years. There was no 2GB limit on Dell P4s, not for the past few years anyway. In fact, if you'd paid attention, the info was in the Sandra report I posted at Xentarium when we were talking about PCs over there. I'll post it again for you. Toward the bottom you'll notice that the capacity is 4GB and there are 4 slots.
If that isn't enough proof, you can go to Crucial.com and use their help tool for finding memory upgrades. Just enter the Dimension 8300 and it will give you the options and the system capacity.
There have been a lot of advancements over the past few months. In fact some of the parts are very difficult to buy at this point. The PC-8000 RAM from OCZ and Corsair for instance. Then you have the 955X Intel chipsets (released in late April and just showing up on motherboards). I've not heard anyone mentioning it, but the P4 EE CPU that came out in late February is really setting new records with the new motherboards that use the 955X chipset and the new PC-8000 RAM (it's clockspeed is 3.73 GHz and the FSB is 1066MHz). I can't afford it though.
These things are so new, I haven't even seen the benchmarks on them. There's something to be said for a system with advanced chipsets by Intel that can exploit these faster RAM modules. It's all about architecture and these systems can process as well as run fast. I haven't even added the part about these being tunable for overclocking. I don't think I'd want to though. They already run hot.
Before anyone points it out, the new RAM's latency is still a bit high. The OCZ speeds are 5-5-5-15 and the Corsair is 5-4-4-9. Obviously at this stage, the Corsair is the better choice. New tech and they say the speeds will be reduced. THere's even new cooling technology in the pipelines, thin film and liquid metal are some things being worked on. Still Sci-Fi, but they're working on it and hope to have some marketable items in 06. The faster the Processors and RAM get, the more heat. Air and water aren't going to cut it with the newer systems and the heat they generate. Even those cool running AMDs are starting to get hot as they speed them up.
Forgive me for not being up on overclocking the way you are Sophocles. I'm still not as superior as you are. I can't remember everything like that 2GB RAM limit, and all those latency specs on RAM. Heck, I still have problems remembering all the brands. However, I am a good hand with tools, I know quite a bit about PCs besides what I read. I know the inside of my PC as well as most enthusiasts know theirs. Overclocking is a bit overrated. Most anyone that knows how to flash a Bios and can hit the F2 key on startup can reset the clock speeds on a system that is set up to do so. Designer parts, not factory, I know. I'm not the moron about clocking that you make out. I'm just not as enthusiastic about telling the world how great I am because I know how do it. Mess around and up the voltage and it's awful easy to mess things up. Fry the RAM and they don't give you free replacements, CPUs either. That's why I'm really not into overclocking. I actually prefer the safety of the more stable platform.
I'm willing to spend a few more bucks for a chip that will accomplish the speeds without having to heat things up. Now that prices are down, it would only cost about $200 for me to up my Dell PC to 3.4GHz (less if I can find someone to buy a good used 2.8GHz P4). I already have the fast FSB, which I made a point of getting a few years back. THe PC has ample memory, even if it isn't the best. I planned against it becoming obsolete too soon. You were dead wrong about factory PCs being obsolete out of the box. It depends on what one purchases. If you want to purchase obsolete items up front, speak for yourself.
You make it sound like a person has to have a degree in math, physics, and science to build a PC. All a person has to have is some good electronics skills and be able to work on the parts without destroying them. Just add some decent PC operation skills and it's no big mystery. A little thermal paste goes a long way. I know about that too. Kids are building PCs nowadays. I must admit, they probably do it faster and better than I can. But I'm not going to worry about frying any circuits either. Now that my son is out of school, I'm thinking abot starting a little build project when the weather gets cooler. I don't like to waste the good weather this late in the year. Plus I'm in no big hurry, my tastes for clock speeds show that.
Quote:
Now this argument ends!
You're right, and don't worry about ruffling the bear's fur, it's thick enough. You can have the thread to do as you will. I just couldn't let those derogatory statesments go unanswered. I'm sure you'll have some spiffy reply, but I've said all I need to on the matter. Have a good one and enjoy your designer PCs. I've had about enough of this. As Donald pointed out, as long as there's Intel and AMD, somebody is going to want to argue who has the best. They both have good hardware. Look at what were were using 5 years ago.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. October 2005 @ 04:26
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
5. October 2005 @ 04:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually I believe that everyone should build a PC. I isn't that difficult. It can get technical as you try to do different things but you learn as you go.
Trouble shooting may give you a headache but usaually you just buy matching parts, assemble, and join a forum for support.
Your bench marks are for XPs not optetron or athlon 64s.
XP processors have a low bandwitdh problem.
None of the Hypertransport Athlon series have any such difficulties.
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
5. October 2005 @ 04:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hmm
I think I hit the wrong button. But as for SiSoft, for the Memory and Cache benchmarks, it is very limited as to the number of processors used. Those were the only ones for those speeds. The pentium doesn't have DDR2 RAM or Hyperthreading, so that isn't giving the Intel any advantages. I was using the benchs comparable to what I'm using, no advantage to skew it for either.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. October 2005 @ 04:36
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
5. October 2005 @ 12:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Give me your model number and I'll show you that you have a 2 gig limit. Secondly you've chosen another visual format to prove your point. Use the same one that we've been using. Secondly what you're showing isn't measuring actual speed, just the true clock speed. In other words those are not a benchmarks just system information.
I read my post again and yours showed the first signs of personal challenge. You know that I have far broader range of knowledge regarding PC's than you do yet you choose to challenge without information that you find here and there on the net. In Fantasy Football I have enough sense to admit little to no knowledge of the game and ask for advice.
To quote Lao Tsu " Seeing something once is better than hearing about it a thousand times." To use that quote, building a PC once is better than snippets of information that you've practiced. Once you've built your first PC you'll understand. Store bought PC's limit everything that you see and have access to. Homebuilt PC provides access to dozens of setting not available in the store boughts. I'm pretty sure that the chipset used on your PC is the limiting factor in adding memory to it, it can't cache it. How do I know, you're using a Northwood processor.
Surfing the net on how to fly a jet will render information but it doesn't mean you can fly a jet.
" 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
|
5. October 2005 @ 13:29 |
Link to this message
|
Sophocles
You're really starting to sound like a parrot with your prepared little speeches. I'm starting to wonder where you get your material. I am king of PC builders and overclocker's anonymous, do you guys have a union? ;) Even Donald agrees there isn't that much too it. Overclocking is simple if you have a BIOS that has the options to reset the multipliers and voltage. One is best going by guidelines (specs) already set up by reputable testers and the limits set by the manufacturer. No brain surgery involved.
I realize you need to be right on everything, but you have that 2GB limit all wrong. You need to go back and change and add a few things to your song and dance routine. Here's what Crucial has to say. Notice they say the 8300 uses 4GB of RAM. It's the first step in their Advisor tool. Quote:
To quote Lao Tsu " Seeing something once is better than hearing about it a thousand times."
Listen to your own quote. I'll try this again.
Stop being the parrot. A Dell 8300 can hold 4GB, meaning your supposed 2GB limit is just some fabrication you came up with in your mind. Where did you get that anyway? If I've been led down the path, it's been by SiSoft, Crucial and Dell. Where did you get your info?
Get constructive and stop being so abusive. I could care less who you quote. I also don't care whether you believe I know how to build a PC or reset the clock speed on a PC or not. It's no big deal. To listen to you, it sounds as though you had invented the wheel. What you do is a hobby. Most anyone can do it if they spend a bit of time and have some basic skills. Granted there are little things one needs to know while doing the assembly. But as Donald pointed out, one gets the entire parts list and put it together like an erector set. The parts usually fit together in a predetermined manner. When in doubt, consult the guide or get some help. There's even people who help others without adding the sarcasm and derogatory statements. Go figure.
It doesn't help to try to belittle others. I remember how hostile you become when people question your intelligence or knowledge on a subject. Have a nice day.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. October 2005 @ 13:34
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
5. October 2005 @ 14:08 |
Link to this message
|
I never said that you couldn't plug in 4 gigs, I said your system can't cache it which means your system will actually slow down with 4 gigs because it can't use it(now you can look up cache on the net). The difference between you and I is that this parrot knows from experience what he's talking about and the other one has to constantly surf the net for his answers since he doesn't really know them. There was no slur in that line just the truth. If you have a Dell 8300 with a Prescott then you might be able to use four gigs. Check the link below and it's newer and faster PC than yours.
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/desktops/0,39023849,10004197,...
Quote:
It doesn't help to try to belittle others. I remember how hostile you become when people question your intelligence or knowledge on a subject. Have a nice day.
Then why are you the only one that's doing it. I never called you a parrot or anything else, all that I said is that you don't have enough experience to support your arguments or that you've never been under the hood and that you're out of your league and those are all true statements. You're bent on trying to subjugate me on something to which you are a novice. This is why I backed out on our previous discussions because you don't know when to quit, not because I was taking it personally. I preferred to preserve our friendship rather than win at a pointless argument. You on the otherhand would have never backed down even when you're wrong.
I never said overclocking was all that difficult, and for that matter I never said that building a PC is all that difficult, all that I've said is that you've never done either. Now matching components, boodling them and then tweaking them does have a overall degree of complexity, that's why most people choose to buy.
Look at Doc409's recent diffiulties and he's an experienced builder. The parts that I've chosen are not for the marginally inexperinced.
" 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 5. October 2005 @ 15:08
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
5. October 2005 @ 16:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
There are usually successful benches for most CPUs and mobos. There are voltage limits one goes by when upping the power to stabilize a system. Settings are in the BIOS for adjusting the FSB and the multipliers, if unlocked. The key is that the settings are in the BIOS. Is there a mystery that we should all be let in on? It was mentioned earlier and then reenforced by you just recently that you have to have custom equipment and not factory. It's also a fact that some companies supply more OC friendly BIOSes than others. So it is something to look for when compiling a component list. Now where's the mystery? Tell us what is so difficult about OCing a PC? The only trick I know is to do adjustments in small increments and do benches often and closely monitor the system. It isn't difficult to blow the CPU, memory, or a hard drive if one isn't careful. As for getting into trouble, I've seen people get into trouble with simple loop circuits on computer control systems. Isn't solving problems part of the charm. Or is it proving one is superior?
Of course you're right as always Sophocles. No one can be right except you. If the facts differ from what you say, by all means change the phrasing so it appears you just didn't add all you meant to say. 2GB limit goes to problems with the Cache and then the system will carry it but slow down. Crucial says support as does SiSoft and Dell. I only said there was no 2 GB limit as you stated. Once again your superiority shines through. Thanks for showing my shortcomings and inability. I'll endeavor to become a better computer enthusiast. I'll try to model my skills after yours. ;)
Just out of curiosity, how do you know what I've done or not done? Because I freely admit I'm not an OC guru such as yourself, that doesn't mean I don't know the parts of a PC very well or how to install them. As you agreed, you didn't say it was difficult to adjust a BIOS. I've flashed BIOSes before and made adjustments. No big deal. I vaguely remember your telling me about making an error on your system not to long ago that set you back for a while. Guess even the master isn't perfect.
|
|
