|
Intel P4 vs AMD
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. March 2006 @ 12:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wish afterdawn would actually record my posts!!!!!!
:@:@
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
tocool4u
Suspended permanently
|
29. March 2006 @ 12:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
I've been hearing that the AMD beats intel by a longshot.....
But i was wondering Are there any advantages for an intel compared to AMD
I have:Intel P4 640 3.20gGHz HT 2M 800FSB Socket 775
SO could anybody maybe tell me so i don't think my intel is totally worthless
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. March 2006 @ 12:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's not worthless, it's just slower than AMD in every camp. Not by a great margin though.
|
|
tocool4u
Suspended permanently
|
29. March 2006 @ 13:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok, but so you mean there are absolutley no advantages to getting one?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. March 2006 @ 13:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
Not at the moment no.
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
29. March 2006 @ 16:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
P4s are dated technology at the moment. Intel has better in the works.
The P4 still does the job. It just isn't the latest gizmo.
If your going to build a computer today then AMD has the best choices available.
But the low end Pentium D is a good budget dual core.
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
29. March 2006 @ 17:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
tocool4u
The Donald made a valid point, currently the high performance dual cores from AMD are the best. However, when you start looking at the mid level PCs, there is no distinct winner that I see. AMD holds an edge when it comes to OC(ing); but how many PC owners actually OC their systems? Most off the shelf systems aren't capable.
If the socket 478 Northwoods had better boards with updated chipsets, they would still be competitive with the other single cores today. Other than squeezing a few more hundred MHz out of the Prescotts, I have no idea why Intel went the way they did. The newer Intels run hotter and are not as efficient. Other than the hype for speed, I haven't a clue why Intel took the direction they did. Anyone know?
As Donald pointed out, the P4s (as well as a bunch of the AMD single cores) are becoming old tech and no longer on the cutting edge. Both AMD and Intel are forging ahead, with AMD having enjoyed the lead the past couple of years. Now it appears Intel is trying to be "king of the hill" once again. The competition is fierce. I don't think either AMD or Intel are bad. AMD just had the lead for a while at top end. Even the hotter running Intels didn't smoke any systems unless there was another problem. AMDs aren't immune to the occasional failure either. So, for the average user, go with what makes you happy. For the performance oriented that likes tinkering under the hood, go with AMD on the new tech. Hopefully the new Intels will pan out and not be the hardware equivalent of vaporware.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. March 2006 @ 22:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Absolutely, as we've been saying we'll wait to see if Conroe does become widely available, but come it's launch in July 06 (supposedly), the AM2 socket FX-62 will be out, along with all its counterparts. If a CPU with a branding 3800+ in the sempron range is going to appear, it's going to say things about how AMD are progressing. The initial conroe benchmarks, which if you remember gave ALL the favour to the Conroe, and it came out just a wee bit on top. Given the fact that the FX-62 platform will be around 10-15% faster than the current FX-60, and the fact that its launch will bring about major price cuts (there are already some planned for April), I can see the Conroe not quite cutting the mustard for an AMD refute. However, that all depends whether or not there will be faster Conroes at launch than that benchmarked system, and I'm pretty confident that the AM2 platform isn't going to be vapourware, AMD seem to have managed that not to be the case before, especially with the FX-60 and X2s. We'll have to see whether Intel's latest effort is smoke and mirrors, or a genuine assault on AMD's castle.
|
|
aabbccdd
Suspended permanently
|
29. March 2006 @ 22:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
whats that FX-62 going too run price wise
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. March 2006 @ 23:16
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. March 2006 @ 22:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think it'd seem logical for the FX-62 to debut at about the same price as the FX-60 did, so around $1000.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
30. March 2006 @ 03:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
If it's any indication, the FX-57 has been selling for $815 US at Newegg.
Sammorriss
Rumor already has it that Conroe will also appear in an Extreme version. Intel doesn't appear to be setting on its duff waiting to release just the CPU they had at the show. If nothing else, this will force some new goodies from the cupboard of AMD. ;) I noted the results of the tests you quoted. AMD didn't lose in all phases. The Conroe was merely the overall winner of that test. As we all realize, the jury is still out till the Conroes hit the real world market.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. March 2006 @ 07:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
If AMD didn't lose some tests, they'll almost certainly still be the winners of at least those tests. An extreme edition conroe may up performance slightly, but bear in mind we have to call the FX-62 back into question, which may match the performance increase noted by the EE (which I've noticed hasn't been a great deal for past P4s...)
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
30. March 2006 @ 08:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Only recently has Intel been marketing the "Extreme" as a market ploy. It's been there in the past with very good results. I'd love to have one of the 2MB L2 Cache versions of the CPU I have. It's a bit pricey for an old tech item though. But the older Northwood S478 CPUs can easily compete with AMDs single core performance processors. The newer processors have the advantage of more up to date boards and chipsets, so I wouldn't advise going with the old tech if one is into extreme gaming or anything needing PCIe and dual GPUs. I don't mean to keep bringing up because I have one, but at the time the Northwoods were the new toy, they were the best available and are still superior to the single core CPUs they were replaced with. A mild 5% OC of a 3.4GHz NW will bring it up the level of a FX-57. Surely Intel could have upped the performance and speed of the Northwoods as opposed to going with the Prescotts. Seems they just make a wrong direction. I'm looking forward to what the following months bring. I notice that both the AMD and Intel camps are speculating. I'm just going to wait and see. I suspect we'll see better from both Intel and AMD.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. March 2006 @ 08:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
What's good for one will mean more work for the other, and ultimately faster processors, or more to the point cheaper processors!
|
|
aabbccdd
Suspended permanently
|
30. March 2006 @ 09:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
yeah it would be nice if the highend CPUs would get down to around 500 bucks maybe in time that will happen
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. March 2006 @ 09:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Problem is, by then they'll no longer be high end!
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
30. March 2006 @ 14:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
Some things don't come down in price very quickly, even when old tech. Priced a 2MB L2 Cache 3.4GHz P4 Northwood lately? They're still over $700 most of the time. In fact unless one finds a bargain, the 512K version is rather expensive. One gets lucky and finds sales and used items. Even the FX-55 is still selling for $800 or more.
|
|
ScubaBud
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. March 2006 @ 14:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Remember when a loaded Pentium Pro Machine with SCSI drives cost $4,800 from Gateway and a Baracude SCSI 9 gig HDD cost over $2,000 back then.
Today's prices are a bargain! <G>
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
30. March 2006 @ 16:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
LOL Scubabud... you've let everyone know how old you are. ;)
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
30. March 2006 @ 16:54 |
Link to this message
|
Sophcles had an old Northwood at 3.2 ghz. His Venice single core cut his CCE encode times in half. Not exactly what I call keeping up for the P4.
Donald
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
30. March 2006 @ 16:58 |
Link to this message
|
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
30. March 2006 @ 17:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Since the operating frequency is 2.66GHz for that CPU, that's one heck of an OC to get it up to 3.5GHz. Is that with nitrogen? It is cheap though.
|
|
tocool4u
Suspended permanently
|
30. March 2006 @ 17:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
What do you think would be a good Frequency to OC a 3.2 ghz P4?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. March 2006 @ 17:39 |
Link to this message
|
aabbccdd,
There are some high-end processors available for that price now!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103584
How about a 175 Opteron with the Denmark core for $506. $461 for the OEM version. Check Sophocles benchmarks and see what it can do. It's a lot better than some so called "High-End" CPUs!
Or how about an Athlon 64x2 4400+ with the Toledo core for $463!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103546
I certainly wouldn't call either of these "Old Tech"!
Even the lowley??? Pentium D Smithfield 3.0 Dual-Core for socket 775 is on sale for $267 at Newegg!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116212
Makes me wish that I had bought a socket 775 MB instead of the 478. But then again, look at all the fun and the learning experience that went with it I would have missed. I'm very pleased with what my 3.0 Prescott will do. I can't wait to get into a Dual-Core AMD and apply some of that knowlege to tweaking it!
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 30. March 2006 @ 17:49
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
30. March 2006 @ 17:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
tocool4u
Normally 10% is a good level with a good air cooling system. So, about 3.6GHz should be a stable level for the system, if you have a system that supports the OC.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. March 2006 @ 17:43
|
