|
Intel P4 vs AMD
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
13. January 2006 @ 19:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
KoOkOo67
We all want to get at the new stuff but Vista will be so filled with censorship software that it'll no longer be interactive. When it comes, I going to keep WinXp for windows software that's unique but otherwise I'm going with Linux and Solaris. I'm building two computers for my private office and I'll have one of each running.
" 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/. |
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
13. January 2006 @ 19:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
When the cell runs windows we'll see what the benches say.
It's a niche market that doesn't look like much right now.
Intel has been pushing Mhz over power for a while but the tide seems to be turning. The fastest procs from Intel in the future will likely trade speed for power again.
I'm not going to hold my breath for a 7 gig proc from Intel any time soon.
Donald
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. January 2006 @ 02:40
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
13. January 2006 @ 20:16 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
P5 will probably hit this year
And what will Intel do if I call mine a A6?
" 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
|
14. January 2006 @ 01:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Intel has lost a cheerleader here. Any time a company builds supposedly newer tech CPUs that can't beat their slower predecessors, something is wrong. Intel appears to keep taking steps backwards. Unless Intel keeps taking lessons from their Israel team, they're going to start losing a larger percentage of their market share. The writing is on the wall, "more efficient processors, not just faster ones".
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. January 2006 @ 01:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you want to know what'll really happen in 2006, I'd suggest you look at roadmaps. Mike's hardware (a pun?) is a good place to start.
Esssentially what we COULD expect from 2006 is:
Intel Dual core and Single core Yonah (reduced clock CPUs from 1.66Ghz to 2.16Ghz and two low power ones)
Intel calistoga chipset
GeForce Go7800, Go7600, Go7400
Mobility radeon X1400, X1300
iMac intel
AMD FX-60
Radeon X1900XT, X1900XT CE, X1900XTX
Internet explorer 7
GeForce 7800GS
ATi Crossfire Express 3200 chipset
That's January and February.
Other than that, other Geforces (7600, 7200, 7900 Ultra), The Xeon 5000 Dempsey and the first runs of Vista in Q1, the AMD Socket AM2 chips in Q2 (X2 4200, 4600, 4800, 5000, Athlon64 3500, 3800, 4000, FX-62, Sempron64 3000, 3200, 3400, 3500, 3600)
Intel will have yet more CPUs and chipsets, presler, Merom, Crestine, Tulsa, blackford, conroe, Woodcrest, Shavano, broadwater, Allendale, the Itania, plus of course the PS3 and Ageia PhysX.
Finally at the end of the year, we'll see Vista (we hope), The successor to the X1900 (X1950? X2800?), the Opteron 872 & 874, a 65nm Athlon64 FX!
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. January 2006 @ 02:45 |
Link to this message
|
Sammorris
I was wondering where KoOkOo67 was getting all that about higher speed processors when all the trades are talking about Intel going with the slower more efficient processors. The only thing about doing a build at present is missing out on what may be presented later this year. However, that will continue to be an issue. The manufacturers are always trying to come up with something newer and better. For now, my suggestion is to do the research and be sure a system is Vista ready if the user is going to upgrade. When/if Blu-ray and/or high definition DVD come along it will have to have Vista and there are going to be limitations to hardware for that technology.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. January 2006 @ 04:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
The best you can do if you need a new system soonish is to get 64-bit dualcore and the most advanced graphics card you can lay your hands on. As for monitors I'll just have to get something to circumvent the copy protection as I'm not waiting until HDCP is invented before i buy my next monitor, unless of course it's invented very soon, and monitors are built to handle it in the next few months. There will be room for a BD-RE drive in my PC, but in reality I'll just get myself a PS3 and hook that up to my monitor. An AViVO X1800XT (possibly a 1900 depending) should be able to handle anything I throw at it for the next few years, and let's face it, encoding video at 6x the speed of an X2 4800+ is something that will take a while to become outdated! let's see your intel extreme graphics do that!
I'm going for a PC with "no need to add to it for a while" in mind, to just run it as it is without glitches for ALAP, but with room in mind for expansion. 4GB of RAM will be a necessity after Vista's introduction, I've managed a 1700MB page file so far in XP, so in 64-bit mode that'd be 3400MB, way in excess of the 2GB I'm buying. So I'll need a fast hard disk array (hence RAID). It just goes on...
To be fair if you got two of those new 150GB raptors (I seem to recall discussing the improbability of such a drive being released earlier in a thread like this) in RAID then you're sorted for paging, it'll be so quick. Of course, not as fast as RAM, but you'd be looking at a 150MB/s sustained transfer rate. Then of course you can overclock an X2 processor up to c. 5000+ speeds and likely the same process for the GPU. It'll blow my room away for a few months then start to stegosaurusise like any rig.
The only technology I don't believe in?
Dual GPUs. At present It just isn't worth it. I'm not even buying a Crossfire motherboard, because I know I won't need one for years. Come the need for two GPUs, the old one will be ousted as well, as will the CPU, and then we come to the next stage of the cycle.
Computers are a financial black hole.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. January 2006 @ 04:24 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I'll just get myself a PS3 and hook that up to my monitor.
Vista is slated to have built in protection so a system won't use just any monitor to play the high definition DVD content. No idea how that would work with a PS3. If you're taking the PC out of the loop, why even hook it to the monitor, just go to a TV. I've heard Dell and some other builders are starting to build Vista ready machines.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. January 2006 @ 04:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'll be starting university this autumn, so I won't have a TV of HD capability, a 24" 480i widescreen flat CRT is more than good enough. A PC monitor will be the only screen capable of HD playback so I'll be using that for HD movies.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. January 2006 @ 04:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Some real world results are starting to show up with my "clunker" upgrade. I did an encode of the movie "Skeleton Key". The original ripped file is 7.81GB. I did a 3 pass encode with RB/CCE. I selected the full backup with only English audio and subtitles, and to create the ISO and delete files. With the 2.8GHz Northwood CPU it took 212 minutes. With the 3.4 Northwood, it took only 188 minutes. The 212 minute encode was done with nothing running but the RB/CCE. The 188 minutes encode with the 3.4 was done while a bit of surfing was being done. A few more minutes might have been shaved off had I left it alone. But 24 minutes off the encode time is a noticable improvement.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
14. January 2006 @ 04:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
24 minutes is a gain and some movies you'll see even more than that because it varies. But if you were doing a batch encode of three that would be more than an hour of time saved.
" 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
|
14. January 2006 @ 06:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
188 minutes out of 212, that's 11.3% quicker, not bad at all. Especially since you were browsing, so you've upped the performance by at least 12%.
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. January 2006 @ 08:15 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I was wondering where KoOkOo67 was getting all that about higher speed processors when all the trades are talking about Intel going with the slower more efficient processors
Well, the website is probably wrong, since it is dated.(I posted it on my last post) But yea you are probably right and Intel would stick with the "slower more efficient processors."
But i would think that a pentium 5 will hit soon. Maybe it should have another name to. I'm just wondering what AMD is up to.
I found a website about the G71 and G8 line from NVIDIA.
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,2583.html
It's pretty fast and has lots of brute power.
750mhz
90nm manufacturing
32 pipe lines.
If you google in Nvidia G71 line, you will get lots of websites about the g71 & 8 line.
Hopefully they will all hit this year, and the 7800 will lower in price by alote. So i can buy it. Lol
But wont the XDR ram be a good reason to wait before building a new pc again?
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/peripherals/storage/toshiba-first-...
The first ones out run at 4.8ghz and they are 512mb.
Thats fast.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/23/samsungs-in-the-90nm-512mb-xdr...
I'm not sure if XDR ram will be compatable with all pc mother boards though..
>_<
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. January 2006 @ 08:34
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. January 2006 @ 11:26 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The 512M-bit XDR chips will not be needed for mainstream desktop computers, but the chips' ability to process large volumes of data quickly means they will be useful in very high-end workstations, network systems, and for graphics and video applications.
Adoption of XDR as a main memory in high-end computing will start during 2007. The technology will find a home in one potentially popular product: Sony is planning to use four 256MB XDR chips in the upcoming PlayStation 3 games console. -Techworld-
Seems the article answered the questions besides explaining a bit about the new tech. The wait will be into 07 and then available for high end computing. That doesn't sound like it's intended for typical PC usage. As things usually show up on the custom market, I wonder when/if the custom board builders will set up for this type RAM and when/if the vendors will have it for sale and at what prices.
Also in the near future is FB-DIMM memory. Here's a link where you can find a good article on the technology. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/266
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. January 2006 @ 11:31
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. January 2006 @ 12:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Im just thikning about windows vista ...
What will be its system requierments?
By the time it hits(this or next year)
I would probably have arround 1gb+ of ddr sdram and a 3200+amd PC
And If lucky a geforce 6600, 6800 or 7800 if prices go down.(most likely because of the new g71&g8 line)
I also got a 17"lcd
Do you think that windows vista will run ok on my PC?
Or would i need all the new high tech stuff?
>_<
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. January 2006 @ 12:48 |
Link to this message
|
If you're going to be getting into the high definition media and drives, then Vista is a requirement. Here is an article on some things you should consider.
___________________________
___________________________
If you're not getting into the newer technology, just hang with XP.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. January 2006 @ 12:50
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. January 2006 @ 13:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
As for Vista's actual requirements, it's still a wait and see proposition. I've read of the minimum requirements being as low as 512MB. Some of us have learned that 1GB is nice to have with the requirements of XP and the programs some of us tend to run. With AV ware and other programs running in the background there is often an initial draw on the ram of about 200-250MB. Out of 512MB that would leave little spare working RAM, so you can see why 1GB is handy, especially if we're going to run something like an encoding program. Just to let you in on what I just learned, 2GB of RAM is better. I'd suspect with the additional requirements of Vista, a user should look at 1GB of RAM as a real world minimum, even if they say it will run on less. To hedge the bets, 2GB or more wouldn't be beyond reason for a performance scenario since XP is already needing 2GB or more for top performance.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. January 2006 @ 13:12
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. January 2006 @ 13:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Alright, then I'm goign to plan to have 1536mb of ddr sdram.
I dont think it will be such a problem, I know that my old P2(not sure ut i remember it has 512 of SDRAM) handled windows XP pretty well. But after a while i downgraded to windows 2000. It worked much much faster.
Turns out that ill probably get a new monitor aswell.
Maybe i should just buy a new PC when all PC's have vista installed?
Would that be the better choice?
Does anyone know of a new Linux OS comming soon? I dont know much about the OS. Maybe it would be for the best.
>_<
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. January 2006 @ 13:36
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. January 2006 @ 14:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
This thread is starting to get highjacked. It's about Intel and AMD. Feel free to start a thread on operating systems in the appropriate section or join one in progress.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. January 2006 @ 15:21 |
Link to this message
|
The "clunker" is/was a Dell Dimension 8300. It has an OEM mainboard, Dell OM2035, with the Intel 875 chipset. The processor was a 2.8GHz Northwood P4 with HyperThreading, dual channel memory, and 512KB L2 On-board cache. It was upgraded to a 3.4GHz Northwood with the same features. The original memory was 2x512MB Micron PC3200. The memory upgrade is 2x1GB PC3200C2 XMS Corsair, performance matched pair. It has a Creative Audigy sound card [CF00], and a 128 DDR ATI Radeon 9800 video card. Note that some of the systems used for comparison have 1 MB Cache and the AMD CPUs have on-die memory with some having the 1MB L2 Cache. The "clunker's" results were a bit surprising for an antiquated setup with an older OEM board with an older chipset. Note the AMD FX57 used in the comparison is a $1,000 top end item being compared to an obsolete $270 processor. ;)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103558
http://www.starmicro.net/detail.aspx?ID=543
---------------------------------
  
  
  
 
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. January 2006 @ 15:39
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
15. January 2006 @ 01:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wow, that's comprehensive. And the article about HDCP and all that is right as far as I'm aware, so I'll need to (like many others) get a component to circumvent the copy protection, however underhand that may be.
As for vista, I see 2GB as a 'recommended' level and 4GB as a high performance level. 1GB with Vista is like running XP with 384MB RAM now I would say. 512MB is like XP with 192MB, the bare minimum, anything less and you're in trouble. Don't forget - 64bit kernel means TWICE the RAM for the SAME applications.
Given Vista itself will use more RAM itself, let's see.
This laptop has 256MB RAM but integrated graphics (so 192 really). It's using 341MB of RAM, well over the storage limit, and thus paging back and forth, slow with a Celeron 1400. Let's say with Vista there's a 150MB overhead on XP. So with Vista, merely runing Two AV programs, Messenger, and 4 internet explorer windows, the same system running VIsta would be using 830MB of RAM. This kind of explains why you'd be better off with at least 1GB in Vista. And if, by some incredible moment of madness you have a 256MB Turbocache graphics card, then in gaming if you had 1GB, you'd be down to 800MB of RAM, again below what Vista would use just for these basic applications!!!!!
Back to the topic of CPUs, the P4/5 would have new names as I mentioned, Blackwood, dempsey (although I think that's a Xeon, there are too many to remember accurately) and so forth. And come 6 years time, Intel aim to be down to 22nm. Could this be the beginning of the end for huge heatsinks, or just the end of the beginning? After all, despite a mere 30-40% increase in clock speeds in 3 years for intel, we've gone from discreet aluminium blocks with 60mm fans on them to gigantic alien-shaped turbines with water coolers, vapour compressors and heatpipes attached making some hideous neon-illuminated monstrosity just to keep a core of a similar clock speed in check. Then again, this is mostly due to the prescott core isn't it? So when the Prescott is done away with, and it's high-efficiency 90 and 65nm replacements are brought in, we might see some less ridiculous heatsinks needed for performance, and they will return to their primary role - style.
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
15. January 2006 @ 02:15 |
Link to this message
|
Those are some good scores Brobear.
You may notice you get an extra 30% on the arithmetic and media benchmarks for having HT. Your actual mileage may vary.
Heres me:
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
15. January 2006 @ 07:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
Donald
I intentionally left dual core CPUs out of the comparison, because they are so obviously superior to the single core systems. OCed dual cores are in a class of their own. LOL With those I need to have you and Sophocles supplying benches. However I did include the top end single core FX processors from AMD in the comparison. Price wasn't the factor as the FX 55 sells for near $800 and the FX 57 about $1,000. What the comparisons show me is that Intel had a good processor going a few years back and for some reason started manufacturing a less effecient one. I see the Prescotts with the same features as the Northwood, hyperthreading and dual channel memory support, and the addition of more cache memory and the addition of SSE3 multimedia instructions, along with slightly higher clockspeeds at stock configurations. I don't remember seeing a Northwood at 3.8GHz. With P4s running at the same clockspeeds (with stock configurations), the Northwoods still outperform the Prescotts. Also, the single core AMDs don't have much, if anything, on the older Northwoods as fare as benchmark performance goes; especially those that are supposed to be comparable performance and pricewise.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. January 2006 @ 07:33
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
15. January 2006 @ 07:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
No, but an overclocked Venice 3500+ would bust up any prescott you could throw at it, I expect.
Edit: but don't go and open a dual core application with an 840 extreme edition to prove me wrong.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. January 2006 @ 07:58
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. January 2006 @ 08:07 |
Link to this message
|
Brobear,
Here's my 3.0 prescott running at 3.40. As you can see, it's not quite as good as your new CPU at the same settings.
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 15. January 2006 @ 08:14
|
