|
Intel P4 vs AMD
|
|
Member
|
22. March 2006 @ 22:24 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Anandtech favored the Intel over the AMD. Read the Anandtech article from the link I supplied in the previous post.
what page was it on?
I know i think, that you will agree with me on this statment.
I belieave that the cpu performance is directly related to:
#1 motherboard selection
#2 memory and of course keeping the temps down.
So everything is subjetive to the hardware. now saying this, I also admit that the hardware helps the CPU to a certain level. So picking out the right combination somtimes is a crap shoot even with all the reviews and benchmarks.
p-4 3.2 prescott HT curently at 3.6/Abit IC7-G (Abit rule!)/2 Gig Mushkin extream 2.5-2-2-6
LG 20.1 FLATRON WIDESCREEN/BFG 6800 ultra@450 mgz/2 wd raptor 150 raid/Ultra 500 watt Direct connet ps
NZXT GUARDIAN CASE(BLUE)
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
22. March 2006 @ 23:04 |
Link to this message
|
I'll go along in part. For optimum performance, the chipset needs to properly support the CPU. With major board makers working on that problem, the consumer merely needs to make an informed decision for his needs. If you know how to build, then you should know how to do the homework. Quality memory goes without saying. Companies like Corsair and OCZ are constantly at work in that arena. (I mentioned those 2, but there are others.) Heat means inefficiency or pushing things toward their limit, as in Prescotts and overclocking. Either way, it needs to be kept down. Good thermal paste and a good FHS go a long way, along with good case ventilation. The goal is to have a system where all the parts complement each other to attain peak performance. The key is parts working together efficiently, but a person does want the best CPU they can afford and the parts to complement it. ;)
Quote:
So picking out the right combination somtimes is a crap shoot even with all the reviews and benchmarks.
There I disagree. If a person pays attention, asks good questions, and does their "homework", then they should be able to make good decisions on purchasing parts for a good custom PC. The biggest thing is watching out for hype and checking to be sure that data is confirmed by more than one reputable source.
Here's the link to that AnandTech article again. http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=4 Naturally Intel was putting their best foot forward, they wouldn't have brought the worst test results they've gotten in the Conroe development, would they? AnandTech gave a bye on the tests they ran, as far as them not being overly biased in favor of a particular platform. The proof will be in a few months when the processors are ready for prime time (when they're available to the public).
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. March 2006 @ 23:18
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. March 2006 @ 04:08 |
Link to this message
|
The Intel Conroe does look promising but rumors have it that they no may not be avalable until 2007. So why take an engineers model and pit against a current version of an AMD chip? It's because Intel is up to their old game of smoke and mirrors. If one were to purchase a PC in the next 6 and even more months AMD will most likely still be the best choice and Intel knows that. So what are they doing? They're confusing the consumer by trying to convince them to wait until Conroe is released.
Here is an honest spin that spells it out like it is and it's really neither for Intel or AMD.
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1830/
" 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
|
23. March 2006 @ 04:39 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I think Intel hired the the top engineers from amd.
Actually AMD started with a bunch of workers who used to work for intel.
If the smoke and mirrors tactic story is true, along with the date, AMD have nothing to fear from the Conroe launch, their CPUs will be way ahead of those benches come the launch. They may even be up to a 3Ghz FX-64.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. March 2006 @ 05:37 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
hey may even be up to a 3Ghz FX-64.
I'm betting that AMD is at the end of the socket939 CPU's. AMD has know that Intel will be seriously damaged if they can come up with somthing to upstage Conroe when it is finally released and I don't think that AMD pushing its current cores will do it. Rumor has it that when Intel finally does release Conroe, some of them are going to be clocked at 3.2 Ghz or higher. But the fact that none are availble now or even in the next couple of months suggests that Intel is experiencing some manufacturing difficulties. Otherwise there would be no point in Intel releasing a new Dual core extreme edition.
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=796&cid=1
It's pretty fast but after testing it Tomshardware.com still recommends AMD for all around performance.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/22/pentium_extreme_edition_965/
" 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
|
23. March 2006 @ 05:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
No, that'll be socket AM2, not 939. The FX-62 will be AM2.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. March 2006 @ 05:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
sammorris
Unfortunately the AM2's aren't really showing any performance gains over socket 939 either, but they do move AMD into DDR2 compliancy.
" 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 23. March 2006 @ 06:54
|
|
oldjoe
Newbie
|
23. March 2006 @ 06:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
Neither are "Best". I prefer Intel but it all comes down to preference.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2006 @ 06:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
No, there isn't much performance gain to be had, but it will harbour new CPUs which will be faster.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. March 2006 @ 07:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
I try not to get trapped into preferences. My Computer build of 3 years ago was an Intel P4 Northwood overclocked to 3.2 Ghz and it did a pretty good job. I also thought that it was generally better than the AMD Barton cores were and since I also built one of those for my wife at the same time my point is well founded. My current PC is based on AMD's Opteron 175 and it's faster than anything that Intel has available and I'm betting that it will match or even beat their latest Dual core release the 965 for better than $500 less than its cost. When it comes time to do a new build then I'll go with the fastest available at the time whether it's Intel or AMD. I owe neither of them my allegiance but I will support the one that is moving forward to the edge of the technology curve. To buy one or the other as a fan is to lose sight of what's important, dollar versus 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/. |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2006 @ 08:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sure, if intel were to come out with something decent in my area, I'd probably switch to intel, but since they haven't yet, I won't yet.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
23. March 2006 @ 09:25 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Neither are "Best". I prefer Intel but it all comes down to preference.
I have to disagree, though I've been an Intel fan in the past and my current "favorite" machine is still an Intel.
I've been working with parts I have with the intent to build a top PC later in the year or next year. Back to the point; over the past couple of years AMD has been outperforming the top Intel processors. Sophocles mentioned the venerable Northwoods. They are among Intels best. My 3.4GHz Northwood OCed to 5% (near 3.6GHz) is the equivalent of an AMD FX 57 and easily outperforms the 3.8 GHz P4s Intel now has on the market. Anyone needs to see the benches, I can produce them. However, things have gone dual core and the single cores just don't compare. AMD had a good headstart, so currently, they are the "Best".
Like many others, I'm wandering what Conroe will be when it hits the market. I have different reasons for not doing a major build now (tech advances along the lines of HD, OS developments that affect hardware, encryption and hardware developments, as well as the CPU and memory developments). I don't want to build a PC to see it seriously out of date in a matter of months. So, till then, I'll be happy with my slightly obsolete P4 system.
Note: The post I mentioned Mort81 made concerned the performance figures from 2004, back when the Northwood reigned and AMD was still planning the demise of Intel. The link to the info and comparisons are in the post. That shows why Sophocles was right in going with a Northwood back then.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2006 @ 09:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wouldn't mind seeing that benchmark brobear! Could you try OCing it further, when you get a replacement PSU?
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
23. March 2006 @ 09:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
OK on the benchmarks, I'll do them again shortly and post. I'll give it a try later on the OC. The 3.4 being the top line Northwood, it may not have much more of a ceiling where OC(ing) is concerned. I'm happy with it as it is and it runs cold at 5% OC in comparison to the Prescotts. We'll see what happens in a few weeks when I get something back on that PSU. It's a week to the west coast and at least another week back, not including processing time. Glad I had the old Dell to rob parts from. ;)
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
23. March 2006 @ 11:45 |
Link to this message
|
Sammorriss
Here's those benches you wanted to see. The FX 55 and 57 have only a slight advantage in the arithmetic figures and the Northwood wins the rest.
______________________________________
______________________________________
--------------------------------------
I threw in the dual core in the Arithmetic benchmark to show how the dual core processors eclipse even the best of single core processors. As a sidenote, the FX 55 and 57 are selling for $811 US at Newegg. StarMicro is selling the 3.4 P4 Northwood for $265.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. March 2006 @ 11:55
|
|
ScubaBud
AfterDawn Addict
|
23. March 2006 @ 12:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Brobear,
I'm waiting to see how far you can take your 3.4 to. My setup doesn't like much more over 3.74GHz/10%. Very stable at that but not when pushed past it.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2006 @ 12:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
So it's a prescott versus Northwood Overclocking test!
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
23. March 2006 @ 12:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
No, not going there. LOL The Prescotts were built to go to 3.8GHz for the high end versions. The Northwoods were at 3.4GHz. So, that's why I mentioned the Northwood may have a lower ceiling. Note though what the Northwood does at 3.57 GHz. It outdoes the stock 3.8 P4s on the bench tests. If Scubabud posted his benches, then we can look at them and compare. If he posted them, maybe he'll disclose the location as this thread is getting a bit large, or maybe repost them here.
LOL Sophocles, no need to do yours again. I included a dual core in the arithmetic bench. We all know dual cores beat single cores. ;)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. March 2006 @ 12:21
|
|
ScubaBud
AfterDawn Addict
|
23. March 2006 @ 12:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. March 2006 @ 12:25
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
23. March 2006 @ 12:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Where's the Multi Media benchmark?
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
23. March 2006 @ 12:39 |
Link to this message
|
Sammorriss
As you can note, it's not a Northwood vs Prescott shootout. That's a Northwood he has.
|
|
ScubaBud
AfterDawn Addict
|
23. March 2006 @ 12:52 |
Link to this message
|
And it's the Northwood I've always had! <G>
I believe sammorris was referring to the selected Prescott comparison results in your Sandra test, not my PC.
OK, here is a fresh Multi-Media test:
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. March 2006 @ 13:04
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2006 @ 13:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
I actually posted a reply that apologised for that insulting remark, so sorry about that again, but afterdawn decided not to post it for whatever reason. Glad it's not a long post.
Oh and brobear had it right, I messed up.
SORRY!
On a side note, what happened to our friend Donald?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. March 2006 @ 13:28
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
23. March 2006 @ 16:39 |
Link to this message
|
Brobear,
My 20% OC'd 3.0 Prescott is right up there with your mild OC. It beats the FX-55 and 3.8 P4 as well. Here's the Sandra results:
Should be interesting to see what your 3.4 will do with enough power. As I said before, the P4P-800 series are extremely good motherboards and are very friendly when it comes to stock performance as well as overclocking. Enjoy!
Happy Computering,
theonejrs
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. March 2006 @ 18:13
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. March 2006 @ 17:02 |
Link to this message
|
theonjrs
I don't know how you beat the FX57
My Venice core hit over 12,000 MIPS on CPU and that's almost 2000 MIPS higher than your bench.
My Memory hit over 6800 MB/s and that's over 2300 MB/s faster than your bench and I still lost to the FX57.
The screen capture above is the only surviving capture of my Venice 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/. |
