|
Intel P4 vs AMD
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
8. April 2006 @ 05:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Let's say the grave has been dug and the P4 is on a banana peel. P4s are still kicking and not quite in the grave yet. I lot of people haven't caught on to the new dual core technology yet and are still buying P4s. As far as office environments, the Celerons and P4s are still adequate for workstations. I'm not forgetting, AMD makes good single cores for the same environment. Lower cost mass merchandising places Intel products in the lead for that market though.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
8. April 2006 @ 05:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
64026402
How long did it take you to backup Narnia and/or King Kong? How many passes and the time for just the encode segment.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. April 2006 @ 05:50
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. April 2006 @ 06:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
So smithfields aren't P4s then? Are they pentium Ds?
I noticed the Pentium 4 logo has been changed to a "Pentium" logo, so maybe so. A bit confusing since there are celeron Ds which are a completely different thing.
How do 64-bit celerons compare to sempron 64s? I ask since despite our systems, the vast majority of users would seem to use the basic systems without fancy processors and graphics, and consequently it's the area where improvements are most important in the AMD vs intel case.
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
8. April 2006 @ 06:07 |
Link to this message
|
I don't deny the P4 segment still functions well but you keep on saying that it keeps up with the single core AMDs. If that was the case then why did Sophcles buy a Venice core. Why did his times go from 150-180 minutes per encode to 70-80 minutes per encode going from a 3.2 Northwood to the single core Venice.
We have done enough testing to verify this some time ago and this was also the start of the arguement which got this thread going.
DVDshrink is favored toward the P4 but CCE is clearly AMD oriented, at least for the newer cores. This was my sole reason for going single Venice instead of a dual core Pentium D. In other areas the advantage wasn't that much.
I do not have those movies in my collection.
Do you have Bad Girls or White Noise? Those are to that were tested with the single cores.
Donald
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
8. April 2006 @ 06:30 |
Link to this message
|
You might think it is bragging or fanboy stuff but it isn't. I have nine Dual Athlon MP systems that made up my main computing for quite a while. They would encode CCE as fast as a single fast P4. it was good enough for me. Me and most of the P4 owners were at the top of the encoding heap speed wise. Old Athlons coudn't compete. Only dual Xeons would have been faster.
I wasn't going to upgrade to the Athlon 64 series. I couldn't imagine them being much faster if any. Then Sophocles had his hardware failure and did some research. He got his first Venice core.
His times were embarrassing all my machines and the other P4s badly.
I admitted defeat and started looking for alternatives. I could have had a 2.8 Pent D for the same price but by all accounts it still wouldn't have beat Sophocles times.
I broke down and got a Venice core. It made things fast enough that I could play with editing more with the extra time.
Then I got the dual core 3800+.
Now my expensive Dual MP systems are all but inactive. Minor server duty only. Old useless collectors items. Sitting next to my old dual P3s and Dual 500 celerons. To much junk.
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
8. April 2006 @ 06:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Neither of those movies.
As for Sophocles, he is good at OCing his systems. Also, if you notice, Sophocles moved up to the AMD from a 2.8GHz Northwood. Granted the 2.8 can be OC(ed) by a higher percentage than a higher end CPU of the same model, but it has fewer transistors and doesn't beat them at top end. In fact I've noticed when one starts pushing the Northwoods too far, the benches may pick up a bit on Arithmetic, but the memory utilization suffers. That kills some of the advantages of the extra speed. As far as saying the processor I'm using compares to the faster AMDs, that's because the benches show it. Granted I'm running at a slight OC (3.4GHz @ 3.6GHz), but the results are comparable to the stock FX55 and 57. Surprisingly, the Multi Media is where the Northwood outperforms the AMDs. Granted, the AMDs can still be OC(ed). I got a noticeable boost in performance using CCE with the slight OC of the P4. An encoding pass takes about 40 to 50 minutes. Most RB/CCE backups are done between 1 1/2 and 2 hours. Not a lot of AMDs beating those times by much, especially those priced less than $265. Then of course there are those that are OC(ed). For those who like to tweak, the AMDs do hold that advantage.
Don't worry, my next build will be dual core AMD, unless the Conroe makes a good showing. I'll go with whatever has the best bang for the buck.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. April 2006 @ 06:43
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
8. April 2006 @ 06:49 |
Link to this message
|
The 3.4GHz Northwood running at 3.66GHz.
---------------------------
---------------------------
---------------------------
I threw those benches in due to the thread rules of "showing it if you state it".
Note the Whetstone SSE2 figures, the Northwood walked away with those as well while holding close on the Arithmetic scores. Note how poor in comparison the 3.8GHz P4 shows. Goes to show, not all P4s were created equal.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. April 2006 @ 06:57
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
8. April 2006 @ 07:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hmm! Let me see where to begin.
My Northwood has never been clocked below 3.2 ghz and those are the specs that I run with when I compared it to my Venice core since I also compare its over clocked values. The truth is that my Venice core when clocked to 2.7 Ghz is faster than even a Galitin over clocked to 3.7 Ghz.
Next: The Galitin and the 2.8 Ghz Northwood have exactly the same number of transistors, they only differ by binning and onboard cache. It's the Prescott cores that have a different transistor count.
I wouldn't even pay $340 for a Galatin today because P4's of any core are history and besides one can get a boxed Opteron 165 for $325. and they're overclocking to 2.45-2.50 Ghz which would make it nearly twice as fast as an overclocked Galatin.
The point is, that until Intel releases Conroe they're out of the game. We all know that in a recent test the Conroe beat an FX60 by about 20%. It would have done worse if they had used a better board and chipset or if it was tested against an AM2. Rumors now have it that Conroe may not be released until 2007. Intel had better hurry it up a bit because other rumors have it that AMD has been successfully manufacturering .65nm core in Germany. Smaller cores mean shorter pipes, lower voltage requirements, faster speeds, and faster clock speeds. I have a feeling that AM2 chips are going to be short lived and that when Conroe hits the market it's going to miss the coronation.
Brobear
Add another 29000 1t/s to that multi media score and then you'll catch mine.:)
" 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
|
8. April 2006 @ 07:40 |
Link to this message
|
Sophocles
I already gave you credit for OCing. I also gave the dual cores credit for speed and both the AMD single cores and dual cores the advantage for being friendliest to custom settings. I own both a 3.4 and 2.8 Northwood and there are different physical attributes one can see externally. What is the significance of those little blocks on the pin side of processor?
I noticed something that kivory 666 was stating about the Gallatin. There's the Gallatin (XeonMP) and then there is the Northwood with the 2MB L3 Cache introduced in 2003. Intel specifically introduced it as a Northwood. http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_p4ee/ I don't know if they changed that later. However, there was both a Northwood and Gallatin with the 2MB L3 Cache. In fact they were so similar, the biggest difference was the name. 55 million transistors for the regular version and 178 mil for the 2MB cache version. As for what difference Intel made between the 2.8 and 3.4 I'm sort of in the dark. I'm still curious about the physical differences I noted.
By the way, don't worry. The next PC I build will definitely be a dual core and it should be intersting. ;)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. April 2006 @ 07:41
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. April 2006 @ 07:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hmmm. The way I see it, there's been a 6-month ish period in each major tech advancement with processors, roughly. Hence there will have been at least one more after AM2's launch before 2007 and the touted Conroe launch. AMD may not be first to true 65nm, but I doubt they'll be far behind.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
8. April 2006 @ 07:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sophocles
I forgot to mention, both the Donald and I agreed that P4s are pretty much history. I don't need to be reminded. The P4 I have is good enough to hold me over till the better dual cores come out and some of the prices drop.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. April 2006 @ 07:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
Trouble is, the more that's available, the higher we want to go!
A stretch to a 4400 once the AM2 platform is out will be tempting but I have to resist!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
8. April 2006 @ 08:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear
Of course you need to be reminded, how else am I going to yank your chain. LOL
The transistor count of the Northwood Xeons, Galatin cores, and Northwood cores at all speeds are exactly the same. How Intel and AMD determine the speeds during early production is by stress testing every single chip to see how fast they will run. If they pass all the tests perfectly then they rise to the top of the line but if they demonstrate some difficulty then they fill the lower niches based on individual performance. This is called "Binning."
After a time the manufacturing process usually becomes stable and all CPU's start to pass all tests but in order to maintain the lower price points, chip manufacturers still lower the clock multipliers so that they can still sell low end CPUs. This is where the saavy oveclocking enthusiasts reap the rewards. If you strip away the Cache on the Galatin and replace it with that of the standard Northwood, that's what you it will become just a standard Northwood.
" 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
|
8. April 2006 @ 08:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
Which of course means that the first to buy a new processor will find overclocking difficult.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
8. April 2006 @ 08:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
That depends on the processor. Sometimes they get it right before using customers as test subjects.
Sophocles
On the transistor count for the EE and regualar version of the Northwood, I was going by the Intel count. I understand binning. Now who was that masked man who suggested I should get a board with adjustments to tweak my P4? I think his name begins and ends with S (S-o-p-h-o-c-l-e-s). What are those little blocks on the pin side of the P4 CPU?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. April 2006 @ 08:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
aabbccdd,
I missed a post of yours a couple of days ago when you asked what AMD I would go with. The "smart" money would be an Opteron 175 or an Athlon64x2 4400+. The money difference between these two is less than $40. With the Athlons, the 4600+ costs more for a minimal gain in performance and has a smaller cache. The 4800+ while having twice the cache, costs even more and doesn't have as much "user friendly" headroom for overclocking. It's a great chip but like most chip makers top chips it's pretty well topped out stock. There just isn't enough advantage unless you have to have that absolute little bit more performance. It's just not worth the price difference. At least not to me! Also there's the Opteron 180, but at $200 or so more I don't think it's worth the money just to be "KIng of the Hill".
I will probably wind up with something similar to what Sophocles has! A 175 Denmark in an Asus A8N-SLI motherboard. Why SLI? You never know what's around the bend, video wise. You can't use it if you don't have it. Besides, it works just fine with one video card and if someone comes out with a radical new video card that blows away everything before it, I'm ready! Sophocles benchmarks are awsome with his setup and his "real-world" performance is outstanding. I've got 1 GB of Corsair XMS cas2 memory and I'll add another GB for 2 GB total.
One of the advantages of being old (I'm 61) is you learn patience! Like I have said in previous posts, "this time I've done my homework",so I'll do it right this time. It should be "Bad"!!! and it will definatly rock!
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
 |
|
The_OGS
Senior Member
|
8. April 2006 @ 09:05 |
Link to this message
|
Hi guys,
Hey I thought Sophocles has dual-core Opteron (Denmark)?
Quote:
I agreed that P4s are pretty much history. I don't need to be reminded.
LoL :^) Touchy!
They are still powerful and fine (just not looking into 2007...)
New!
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2736
Anand Lal Shimpi has tested the new D-805 against other entry-level CPUs, single and dual (A64 x2, Opteron 144 and 165, D-820 and D-920).
Results very interesting!
I love (and use) the Opteron 144. But the damn cheap little D-805 is better with dual-threaded stuff like Quake4... even on the old 533FSB.
Note: the Opteron uses less watts @ full load than the D-805 at idle :^) LoL
So save yer $$ on the cheap Intel dual CPU (but don't forget the 600w powersupply).
Regards
ABit AB9 Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 @ 2.4GHz
2GB OCZ PC2-6400 Platinum XTC R2
ATI Radeon X1900XT 512MB
Enermax Liberty 620W
320GB/16MB WD, 150GB/16MB Raptor
Plextor PX-755SA DVD (SATA)
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. April 2006 @ 10:31 |
Link to this message
|
The_OGS,
Quote:
Hey I thought Sophocles has dual-core Opteron (Denmark)?
He does. did I mislead someone with my post? I was under the impression that the 175 Opteron was a dual core CPU. Did I miss something important? Aren't all 175s dual core?
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
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. April 2006 @ 10:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yep indeedy!
|
|
The_OGS
Senior Member
|
8. April 2006 @ 10:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Never mind - it was 64026402 talking about Sophocles and his Venice core (and then Sophocles himself) so evidently his entry-level A64 was a Venice single...
L8R
ABit AB9 Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 @ 2.4GHz
2GB OCZ PC2-6400 Platinum XTC R2
ATI Radeon X1900XT 512MB
Enermax Liberty 620W
320GB/16MB WD, 150GB/16MB Raptor
Plextor PX-755SA DVD (SATA)
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. April 2006 @ 11:15 |
Link to this message
|
By the By,
Here's the screenshot from Spy Kids 3 2D I was talking about.
Sweet!
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
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. April 2006 @ 11:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Lol that's about as clear as you get!
|
|
aabbccdd
Suspended permanently
|
8. April 2006 @ 11:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
theonejrs, good info i was leaning towards the AMD 4200+ also seems to be the most bang for the buck but if prices drop in june as sammorris posted i may go with the AMD 4800+ we well wait and see ,iam in no big hurry either being patience is def. worth it. the top end CPU (FX-60) are for bragging rights only as said and i cant justify spending 1000 dollars plus.
brobear which AMD Dual-core are you leaning towards?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. April 2006 @ 12:20 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
the top end CPU (FX-60) are for bragging rights only as said and i cant justify spending 1000 dollars plus.
And of course you can overclock pretty much any of the X2 series to get to the 2600mhz clock speed to make an FX-60. Admittedly less cache with the 3800, 4200 and 4600, but nothing a few more mhz wouldn't put right eh?
From what I hear, a 4200 can easily be overclocked to 2500mhz (essentially a 4800+) so might as well go low, with good memory. I don't see that as wasting the extra saved by a lower CPU because good RAM is a must for stability anyway.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. April 2006 @ 17:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
aabbccdd,
The 4400+ is the far better choice because of it's broader overhead. If I remember rightly, Sophocles said the the multiplier is better so it's much more user friendly when it comes to over-clocking. Me, I will more than likely get the Opteron 175 Denmark which appears to be the same core design family. For $40 difference it's worth it to get the Opteron. Either the 4400+ or the 175 Denmark give you the most bang for the buck, and then some. I've heard the both of them can be clocked higher than the 4800+ or the Opteron 180. The 4800+ is $170 more than the 4400+ and the 180 Opteron is about $200 or so higher than the 175. Since their headroom is much smaller, I'm inclined to believe that these are ramped up 4400+ Toledos and 175 Denmarks that just run at a higher clock speed. The Opteron family has better silicone and are been binned but the price/performance ratio is just not good enough to justify the $200 price difference for the 180! I'm not cheap but I have learned to be smarter when I buy. I'm less impulsive now and pay attention to the people who know about these things in this forum. Ask Sophocles and see what he has to say. His benchmarks are staggering!!!
By the way, Opterons were designed for servers so they are designed to run 24/7 which is another thing to think about. Athlon64x2 4400+ Toledo $468, Opteron 175 Denmark $506. To me it's a no-brainer. I'll pay the extra $38! Just my opinion and 2 cents worth, of course.
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 8. April 2006 @ 17:32
|
