|
Intel P4 vs AMD
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
26. April 2006 @ 11:40 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
the new "conroe" core not only currently beats a AMD FX-60 but would beat it if overclocked to 2.8ghz.
Only in an extremely biased first test. In any case, Conroe will be out after the FX-62, which will use DDR2 and have a faster speed, it's a sure bet to flatten the Conroe.
Quote:
and i am getting a ATI 1800.. over the 7900gt.. got any good sites for a really good price?
Whereabouts are you, US?
If so, newegg. And wise choice going X1800XT, I'd recommend the 512MB version.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
26. April 2006 @ 12:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
I've got a believe it when I see it attitude. When I hear of projected release dates and projected performance levels, I think they should have had the product ready for market when the boasts were being made. We'll see when it shows.
We've been seeing benches and as we know, the AMDs have been shining on bench races, especially the OC(ed) units. Though when you do percentages, the over all differences aren't as significant all the time. What I'd like to see more of is real world time trials. How long does it take to do an encode with AMD vs Intel? How long does it take to run a particular program on an AMD and Intel system? I'd like to see some real time tests instead of just benches. I'd also like to see stock figures as well as the OC(ed) times we get. Most people don't use OC(ed) PCs.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. April 2006 @ 12:53
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
26. April 2006 @ 14:20 |
Link to this message
|
Say, for example, set up an X2 4800+ and maybe a 965 converting a three hour film at top quality, then compress the file in WinRAR. That'd be good, but of course it can't be official since intel won't compete... Wonder why lol.
FX-62 and Conroe'd be a good bout though!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
26. April 2006 @ 15:17 |
Link to this message
|
" 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
|
26. April 2006 @ 18:14 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The FX-62 is just a stop along the way. Rumors have it that AMD intends to release the AM3 in the first quarter of 2007 using DDR3 memory. Then add to the fact that the HyperTransport consortium has just released hypertransport version 3.0 which is much faster than 2.0 which is in the current AMD chips and things are going to get really interesting.
I'll believe it when I see it. Rumors have it. Sounds like a lot of rumors have it, both Intel and AMD.
Quote:
That'd be good, but of course it can't be official since intel won't compete... Wonder why lol.
LOL Can't be done because the owners are biased. LOL Otherwise we could have Intel users do Intel times and AMD owners do AMD times for comparison. Intels may lose right now, but by how much? Intel might not do it because anything that looks like competition sells more PCs for the so called winner. I'd like to see some unbiased testing in the real world.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
26. April 2006 @ 19:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Baltekmi,
I've sat back and watched the posts. I think this forum gets a little silly from time to time, myself included. I'm 61 and the day all the child in me disappears, get a shovel! That's what I always blame "The Child in Me"! Most of the guys (meaning just that, Gals included) here know when someone is kidding. I know I've issued an appology or two myself because someone mis-understood my meaning. Everyone here has!
Most of your "perceived" problems are your own fault. You are a terrific Intel "Fan-Boy"!!! You want them to succeed so bad at times that it clouds your judgement. It's not bad to support something, but it's not good to support it through rumors or "Known" poor sources like the Inquirer. I mean lets face it, things like the Conroe are no more than vaporware. Yes, we have seen (???) one Conroe chip! You can't buy it so it doesn't exist. I would also like to ask you: How much does a test prove when you have the future competing against the here and now? And the "here and now" is stomping Intel right now!
All of this can mean only one thing. Better processors from both Intel and AMD for all of us. No one wants to see Intel fail completely as that would be bad for all of us. Prices of "Premium" CPUs would go up, way up! Intel will come back! I don't think that they will ever hold the same market share that they once did but they will be back. This is good for all of us!
A word about this forum and it's members. We are all characters as we all hide behind a screen name as our "psuedo" self. I could never do enough to repay all of the thoughtfullness, consideration and time taken by most of the members to help me. Yes a few of them got testy with me! They had good reason, like when I couldn't figure out how to do quotes. Brobear in particular bout hit me over the head with a hammer before I saw the light. I deserved it! My Stupid!!! Care to guess who the first member was that congradulated me when I succeeded the first time? What I've learned here in this forum you can't buy in a book, for we learn here from other members experiences. We share our thoughts on the current world of AMD vs Intel. We do speculate a lot on the future, but we do it in an informed way. Most of us read a fair amount of articles on the latest tech. Some of the members even have reasonable sources to back up what they are saying and often post links.
As you already know I own an Intel 3.0/800 Prescott. Without the members of this forum I would never attempted to OC my computer 20%! A number of people have told me that it couldn't be done given my hardware! Well lets see! 960MHz FSB, 320MHz Memory speed in dual-channel. It's almost as fast as Brobears mildly OC'd 3.4 Northwood. It's rock solid and stable as hell. I actually had it running for about a week at 3.70 but ran into problems when encoding DVDs. I put it back to 3.60 and that's where it's been ever since. It's no AMD Dual-Core, but it isn't supposed to be! What it is, is a good deal faster than a stock 3.0, both in numbers and the real world. I say this with great admiration, My present computer would not exist if it wasn't for the time, patience and knowlege of the people in this Forum. I'm proud to be considered a part of it!
Sincerely,
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
 |
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
26. April 2006 @ 19:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well put. I enjoy speculation and the well put "rumor has it". The only thing that bothers me is using rumor to speculate on who's going to be best in the future. Either side can afford to pay the best minds available, so I still see the future as up for grabs.
It's a big deal that AMD is able to compete with Intel and has been winning customers away. Don't like Intel, I'll buy anything else; I'm opposed to Intel politically, so I'll buy AMD; I like this brand, wouldn't matter if it's Intel or AMD; I'm an AMD fanboy; all reasons for not buying Intel and favoring the competitor with nothing to do with performance. Add to that the performance advantage of high end AMD processors the past couple of years and you have the old single vendor system eroding away. Intel was king of the PC processors till just the past couple of years. Most of the time there was little or no competition.
If AMD hadn't seen a chance to make big bucks in the PC market, we'd still have to deal with stagnant development. What we have is 2 companies in heavy competition to get our money using the "better mousetrap". The consumer wins for a change. AMD is reaping rewards by just being in a competitive market environment, besides having the current tech lead. For the AMD fanboys, note it's only been a modest lead for the past couple of years. For the Intel Fanboys, there was the past, but Intel has a job to get back on top. Fans of both should realize a lot of what is discussed in custom threads means little to the average consumer. For most users, the performance difference is almost negligible. If there is one, they don't push their systems enough to enjoy it.
As for me, I'm a fan of both AMD and Intel. For a desktop, I'd build with AMD for now. Intel would have to deliver the Conroe. I can't build a "vapor". I like the work Intel has done with their mobile processors. I like the duo core Centrino platform. So, if I was buying a laptop, I'd go with Intel. Horrible me, I helped out those horrible coporate terrorists again. One of my friends is thinking about buying a duo core Centrino laptop because I was speaking favorably on the technology. Both Intel and AMD have good chips and I hope we continue to benefit from the competition.
|
Member
|
26. April 2006 @ 19:58 |
Link to this message
|
theonejrs
Quote:
but it's not good to support it through rumors or "Known" poor sources like the Inquirer.
You hit the nail on the head. I get berated for the so called rumors and or reports from the inquirer but 2 post before yours to me is the same thing. Brobear commented on it also in a different light. lol so what am i supposed to do. I mean no disrespect or harm to anyone. So I say lets get over it I owe no apoligies to anyone on the one.
Go intel Go intel Go intel YEA!! lol
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)
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
26. April 2006 @ 20:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
LOL ;) :) Laughs, winks, and smiles so you know I'm not going for the jugular. The Inquirer? But, rumors are rumors... Some can hold more credence due to the source, but still rumor (which can prove nothing).
|
Member
|
26. April 2006 @ 20:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think I will start each reply with lol:)...lol ok go intel!lol-lol-lol
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)
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
26. April 2006 @ 20:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
People would then think you meant Intel is a joke. Sometimes you can't win for losing. LOL
|
Member
|
26. April 2006 @ 23:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear...props!
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)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. April 2006 @ 03:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
Rumours have lots of things at the moment, but It would be fantastic if the FX-62 can be delivered using the next HyperTransport technology before Conroe gets on its feet, especially if DDR3 will be involved. Sounds a bit further off than that, but with Coroe vapourware as it is, AMD have plenty of time!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
27. April 2006 @ 03:49 |
Link to this message
|
I believe that's why one uses the word "rumors" to discuss what might be. Rumors are usually a mixture of truth and untruth which doesn't substantiate anything. But before a rumor to be even given consideration it should be repeated by more than one source.
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Mar/bch20060329035542.htm
" 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
|
27. April 2006 @ 03:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
At least Intel is a funny joke:)
Brobear,
You seem to think AMD gets a lot of sales because of not being Intel.
Intel has the advantage in that area. They have unlimited advertizing which is the only way they could sell the P4 considering how badly it perfromed compared to the P3.
I thought the P4 had its own TV show for a while.
When enough software started to support SSE2 then the P4 could finally hold its own but it has always had to compensate for poor performance by running high clocks. Now even that doesn't help.
You didn't mention how many sales Intel make just from their market presence. Many people blindly follow the Intel path just because so many others have before.
AMD has always had inovation but Intel has always out marketed them.
AMD was the first to 1 ghz but no one even noticed. The Athlon outclassed the P3 badly but Intel got the nod because of loyalty.
Only now that AMD has been flat killing Intel performance wise for a while are people just starting to see the light.
David has had a hard fight with this giant.
A few people who saw the light early might buy AMD because of loyalty but most who buy AMD do so because of a superior product and value.
The early AMDs kicked the Pentiums ass. The K6 beat the P2 in most areas of merit. The K6+2 was thye first to have 3d gaming instructions.
AMD didn't copy. They created new processors to try to better the computing world.
Donald
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. April 2006 @ 09:33 |
Link to this message
|
I kind of saw the light early as I went AMD in January 2004, more than the hailed seven quarters ago.
Quote:
at least Intel is a funny joke:)
Lol and lol again!
I heard the Thunderbird Processor had a few compatibility issues, but when the Athlon XP came about, alongside the P4 Willamette, there was no comparison. Nowadays, a 3800mhz Pentium struggles to beat a 2200mhz AMD, highlighting the inefficiency of the architecture. The Northwood CPU was pretty good, but either side, things went a bit awry in the P4 camp.
|
|
novicebb
Member
|
27. April 2006 @ 11:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am right there with you brobear but I still feel that some people are so entrenched with AMD because it's past year performance and domination of Intel, that I feel people are to quick to accept that AMD will continue this trend. I guess I am just not one of those that stick with one brand and one brand only. Yes I have recently purchased a AMD Athlon "San Diego COre" chip and absolutely loves it but if Intel comes out with something significantly better and is reasonably price and I can afford it, I definitely will consider purchasing an Intel.
|
|
FIHSNERD
Suspended permanently
|
27. April 2006 @ 12:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. April 2006 @ 12:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wouldn't buy refurbished cards, despite the fact they're re-checked, they're still far more likely to give you problems, and at that price range, you can't afford to compromise. I'd stretch the extra $72 for the proper version.
The X1900XT has quite a marked improvement over the X1800.
And yes, welcome back Triock. Try and hold on to your account this time!
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
27. April 2006 @ 12:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sammorriss
You've already written your stand on the wall. You're a dyed in the wool "AMD fanboy". If AMD doesn't make it, you don't want it. Intel should be bulldozed into oblivion. At least that's the impression one gets.
The Donald
I mentioned why people bought AMDs besides performance, I said nothing about Intel advertising or why people bought Intels. Intel was advertising (possibly not as much) before 2 years ago, which was when AMD really started cutting a swath in the market with their "better mousetrap". The point was that AMD was making inroads for reasons other than performance. Sammorriss is my prime example. LOL If I didn't think you'd buy an Intel when/if they improve over AMD, I'd suspect your being anti-Intel and an "AMD fanboy".
Sophocles
I can trust your stance, (you're our "professional girl") you cheer for whoever is ahead and try to have the current equipment. You're the indifferent shopper. You're either Mr Jones or his neighbor. You went from a Northwood P4 Intel to an AMD. You'd be the best to tell The Donald that the Northwoods and Gallatins, though using the older manufaturing techniques, were superior to their Prescott replacement and was smoking what AMD had to offer at the time. Intel shot themself in the corporate foot with the change and the quest for speed. Those processors were lower powered and run cooler. The Northwoods and Gallatins were superior to anything AMD had at the time and are competitive with current single core offerings. Those 2 are also why P4 was better than P3. I'd put the top P4 Gallatin against the best P3 any day. You can mention it offhand sometimes when you're having a private chat. You might want to mention the excellent work Intel is doing with their mobile processors and the Centrino platform. Most of us here like "racin" those big desktops though.
It's interesting times we live in. Intel will never be able to live down the fact that AMD has thus far delivered the revolutionary tech breakthroughs in memory usage and multi core processors that has brought PCs to the current developmental pinnacle. But there's the future. As I mentioned before, that's still up for grabs. I suspect AMD to be making an even bigger splash in the PC market, but I doubt Intel is going to go quietly into the dark. Personally, I'm going to try to stay away from the Ford-Chevrolet mentality (Lincoln-Cadillac for the high rollers LOL). I'd buy from either vendor, depending on the need and the comparative current performance of the item I wanted.
This post was a bit tongue in cheek, so any names mentioned, look to the lighter side. I was spoofing a bunch of the politics of PCs. Those Nascar rednecks (which I'm proud to be amongst) have nothing on the computer geeks who like racing their processors. "I'm a goin to get under yur AMD with my Intel and put er into the wall." "Oh yeah, you'll never see the tailpipes of my AMD with that little Intel under yur hood." I can see it now, the good ole boy crew chief walks over to his buddy and says, "you know, those new Fords have superior processing power, we may be able to get excellent benches this season and outperform the competition." Nuff said. LOL
I forgot. Baltekmi, yer a dyed in the wool "Intel fanboy". LOL
You guys take this stuff too seriously at times.
As an addition, novicebb, you can proudly move into the section with Sophocles. LOL
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. April 2006 @ 13:01
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. April 2006 @ 12:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Then I've obviously given the wrong impression. If Intel made something well and truly better than AMD on most counts, then I'd be for it, despite my views on the company. However, at the moment I'm just a bit of an AMD well-wisher, since they're kind of the underdogs.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
27. April 2006 @ 12:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
LOL That's what I meant, you hedge all your bets in favor of AMD. Currently AMD is only the underdog on the entire market share. Being the tech leader and cutting into the over all market as well as improving in the growing market share, I don't see AMD hurting too much.
If you promise to play nice, you can join novicebb and Sophocles. ;)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. April 2006 @ 13:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
And what counts as playing nice? Seriously I would consider an Intel if they were better - I've only had two PCs the first an Intel and the second an AMD, and I had the P3 longer before I bought this than how long I've had this XP so far. What kind of surprises me is that you can still get CPUs slower than it, after over 2 years, that's not bad.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
27. April 2006 @ 13:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
True. The Donald called it right when he pointed out the P4 was rushed and didn't do a great job of replacing the P3 early on. That happens. Within the P4 family Intel made the similar error of having a Prescott that couldn't perform better than its predecessor. Only this time before they could improve the performance AMD came along and made the single cores obsolete as the basis for a performance system. Now the P4 as the performance Intel is gone as the developmental priority, or should be (think Conroe vapors). The P4 is still excellent for a lot of work and I don't see them disappearing in the immediate future. I don't think Intel needs to keep the Celerons now, unless they can put them in little game boxes for younger children. It's going to be interesting to see what happens the next couple of years.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. April 2006 @ 13:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hmm, I just had an advert for a Celeron D from overclockers, one of my UK suppliers for £28.49+VAT working out at $59.78 in US money - that's the cheapest I've seen a processor since the time of the Duron after the Athlon64 3500+ had come out.
|
