Reasons to go Intel over AMD

[diabloII]

my last 3 comps have been AMDs (duron 1ghz, xp 2000+, 64 3200+), the last intel comp i've owned was a PII 200mhz 32mb one

can anyone give me reasons to go intel over AMD (btw, i won't be buying another comp for about 1 1/2 years, but i was just wondering)

[afireinside]

I've been on AMD all my computer building life. I'm switching because I'm bored senseless with AMD.

Intel is faster in encoding and stuff and they have hyperthreading... I guess thats a reason?

[diabloII]

I've been on AMD all my computer building life. I'm switching because I'm bored senseless with AMD.

Intel is faster in encoding and stuff and they have hyperthreading... I guess thats a reason?

meh i don't encode stuff :)

yea, that's y i'm thinking about switching too, i'm also bored with AMD

[vtx_]

you are going to be pissed when you compare the ammount of money you spent on an intel to how much you would have spent on an amd that performs the same as your intel

[Gסּסּn]

well for doing things other than gaming like surfing the web HT really helps. But the FX-55 gets 10 more fps than any other processor in games :/ I am switching to AMD I think when I go SLI and DDR2 in about a year

[k0nsl]

I am so happy with my Prescott 3.0 E0, hasn't failed me once. :D

-k0nsl

[freecableguy]

Hyperthreading
GOOD chipset support
Large caches

[Kunaak]

Intels performance is definatly disappointing by todays standards.
I have a 4.3 ghz machine here, and I can barely pull 11,800 mips, andmy friends winchest 3000 is beating me in everything, and it's only at 2.5 ghz.

only reason I got this PC here, is cause it was dirt cheap, and thats only cause I had somre credit at newegg from a RMA.

[Techmasta]

well for doing things other than gaming like surfing the web HT really helps.

Honestly I don't think surfing the web is going to tax ANY modern CPU. HT really didn't make a big difference for me going from a Barton > P4 > A64.

[freecableguy]

Kunaak: 4.4Ghz on a 3.4EE gives me 13.5K MIPS. Is that a Prescott by chance?

[Kunaak]

yep, prescott.

[uclajd]

Intels performance is definatly disappointing by todays standards.Depends what you are doing. Crush a 4.7GB DVD or other MPEG file down 30% and get back to me. You won't notice 10 FPS out of 150 in a video game, but you will notice the minutes spent encoding video.

Pentiums are meant to be a jack of all trades, actually do work, not just video games. If all you do is play games or bench an old version of SuperPi that ignores modern processor features, get an AMD. But I do a lot more on my PC. :D

Again, if I could afford two high-end machines, I'd have an AMD gaming rig and do everything else on an Intel. Actually, I'd like three: tricked-out AMD for games, tricked-out Intel for multimedia, and a nice and quiet SFF Pentium M for office work. And a reeeeeally big desk.

[Stewie007]

You make it like AMDs can only do one thing. Not everyone spends their time encoding porn.

[Kunaak]

so let me get this straight...

if say it takes you 20 minutes to render something.
your just gonna sit there staring at your computer waiting for it to get done??

I dont know about you, but every time I do anything video or sound related, and need the time to let it do whatever it needs to do, I just get up and go watch tv or something, so I honestly don't care if I can save 30 seconds with a Intel, verus a faster machine for games, cause when it comes to games, I am right here, doing it.
when it comes to editing and such, I do it, get up and leave while it does whatever it does.

P4's are fine.
but they are still rather disappointing for what you actually get.

and the same "outdated benchmarks, that ignore modern proccessor features", also ignores AMD's modern processor features too... so whats your point?

[Mikesta]

I am going to try and be as unbiased as possible here.

Right at the moment now and probably for the rest of the year there is almost NO reason to go Intel over AMD.

Hyperthreading is basically a feature to better utitilise a very inefficent architecture. HT would not benefit an A64 or indeed a Pentium M very much or even at all.

To negate the HT point even further in about 4 months time AMD and Intel will have Dual Core processors available. Two physical cores will multitask quite effectively. Intel will NOT have HT enabled in it's dual core processors except for the EE line, otherwise known as extremely expensive etc etc. So an Intel Dual core is like two Prescotts without HT. Everyone here agree's that a Prescott without HT is a real POS and would probably perform worse then an equivilantly rated A64 in Multitasking.

Also continiung on the Dual Core theme, AMD is scaling in a far more superior manner. The first Intel DC (dual core from now on) will rate at 3.2 Ghz per core. The first AMD DC will come in @ 2.4 Ghz which is like having 2 Fx-53 or 4000+. No way that Intel can match that. AMD will scale these 1st generation DC's to 2.8 Ghz....can anyone even see an Intel equivelent at 3.8-4.2 ghz per core +?

Also the point of Extra Cache a) Intels cache has higher latency

and b) with DC both Intel and AMD will have 1 MB per core. The same...except AMD has lower latencies coupled with its memory controller.

This brings me to my next point. Heat and power consumption. Prescotts are monsters. DC Intel's especially when scaling above 3.2 are like Godzilla on Super engineered Growth hormones and steroids.

Just as a quick and dirty comparision an Italian site had an engineering sample of an 2.4 AMD DC. Take a look here

http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/1193/2.html

The AMD nearly matched up with 2 Xeons @ 3.6. These Xeons have alot more cache and there own dedicated FSB and memory. Not to mention HT. Rendering is supposed to be one of Intel's last Bastions. No more....

I REALLY can't see Intel making a DC that runs as well as dual Xeons for quite sometime. By then AMD will have moved on to 2.8Ghz per core or more.

Another point I might add is that AMD makes use of a HyperTransport bus. With peoples computers used for more and more things and people plugging in more add ins Hypertransport has the power to handle the extra load on the system effeicently. The impression I have gotten from my wonderings is that Intel based architecture doesn't handle things on this front are well.

anyway that all i have for now

[Foxie3a]

From what I've seen, Intel was lagging behind AMD farther than it is now. I don't think it's fair to assume that AMD will continue to prosper the way it has been doing. I think that they'll continue to switch off in being the best performing.

The most I've ever used AMD is in my laptop, and I'm pretty happy. It's an older laptop, had a Duron 900 in it, now has an AXP-M 1500. It's only running at 1ghz though, but is capable of over 3600 MIPS. And that's on a mobo with the KT133 chipset!

Kunaak, your MIPS seem low. My northwood can do 11,668 MIPS at 3.75ghz. I have a 3.4E in the mail now, I hope that it doesn't perform too poorly.

I'll agree that the P4 is expensive, but I feel that I get what I paid for. I never have any hardware issues.

Mikesta, what do you mean about AMD hyper transport? What kind of things can it handle that Intel platforms can't?

[grimREEFER]

sse3
hyperthreading(might come in handy when more things become multithreaded)
overclocking
kunnak,no offence, but doesnt ur system have a terribly low fsb?
i think alot of the 6xx series and 925xe chipsets can manage 1200fsb, meaning mem speeds of 800mhz! It should be faster then an fx55 then.

[krille]

sse3
hyperthreading(might come in handy when more things become multithreaded)
overclocking
kunnak,no offence, but doesnt ur system have a terribly low fsb?
i think alot of the 6xx series and 925xe chipsets can manage 1200fsb, meaning mem speeds of 800mhz! It should be faster then an fx55 then.

sse3? well, ever heard about rev E0 coming up april?

ht? well, read above. with dcs ht is gone (except for EE).

oc? well, you have to oc your EE quite a bit for it to keep up with the FX-55 on stock (think it was above 5 Ghz for games) also, the a64s usually scale better when oc'd while still beating. the winchesters were also said to be the new "2.4c". (1.8 to 2.7 on air wasn't very uncommon) etc.etc.

fsb? well, for a64s timings are still more important. also ddr is still > ddr2. faster than an fx-55? if you mean bandwidth, maybe. i doubt it would perform better though.

[c7775]

well m8 i have a PIV at 3ghz PIV nortwood at 4Ghz and a 3000+ at 2600Mhz and the amd is better :) but i nevertheless prefer intel, no apparent reason thou

[M.Beier]

hehe, the thing with "ohh, A64 sucks at multitasking..." I can prove that wrong...

http://bigup.peecee.lir.dk/view.php?id=5185
I know non of them are very hard for the CPU - but a 10% slower superpi is ok, and its not with all my tweaks enabled...

#8
You got northwood, right? - My A64 pulls 12600 mips ;)

And to be honest, I think the dual-core AMD isnt nesserary... - I dont know about you guys... But I dont play and encode at the same time, and compressing files - thats something I got other comps to do ;)

Best regards
1 2 know

[xsky]

does anyone remember thaz test on systems which were not configured for benching.
intel was much closer to amd or even faster on those everyday rigs because of HT.

don't know what people said about that review and if was true or sponsored by intel ;)

[M.Beier]

#17

Hmm, the smart thing with A64's are the FSB is extremely high ;) - My FSB is 318 at 24x7 usage... - Can run 425FSB rock stable on the board - but multi/FSB doesnt reach high enough speed ;) - but.... 425 FSB gives DDR850, and combined with 3x HTT ~ 1275mhz.... -
So the FSB on Intel is lagging behind, but... - What I think of as the pro @ Intel... The boards... Intel makes some nice chipsets... We AMD guys have to research alot before buying a motherboard :(

[HARDCORECLOCKER]

my last 3 comps have been AMDs (duron 1ghz, xp 2000+, 64 3200+), the last intel comp i've owned was a PII 200mhz 32mb one

can anyone give me reasons to go intel over AMD (btw, i won't be buying another comp for about 1 1/2 years, but i was just wondering)

:D Triple checked all I know - was wondering about it for many hours, but curiously I found none.......... :p:

:toast:

[Mikesta]

Okay I couldn't live with myself without completing what I started. I am so dead tired now. Was dead tired before when I was posting my last thread before I had to go. But hey I'm back.

In my previous some might interpret what I did as Intel bashing. It was none of the sort. I'm trying to state my views as objectively as I can.

Here is where I stand with regards to the question of the origional poster.

Market Place RIGHT NOW

Intel>AMD in Multitasking / encoding / rendering.

AMD>Intel in most general Apps especially games.

AMD's Advantage > Intel's unless user is heavy multitasker /encoder / renderer

AMD>Intel 478/5** in the next few months then from then on 64bit will be a great advantage especially as more games are programmed for them.

AMD>Intel General Value for money

Market Place in 1 Months time

Intel>AMD in Multitasking / Encode / Render BUT the lead will be cut down substantially.

Remember Intel is no longer scaling up Mhz and 2MB Cache is hardly better and sometimes worse then previous Prescotts thanks to 17% exra latency.

Also AMD is scaling its process up another 200 mhz. Add SSE3 and that cuts down Intels lead in areas such as Encoding and Rendering as far as I understand. (plz note that SSE3 doesn't help K8 as much as it helps Prescott because it is naturally more efficent in handling the processes SSE3 Instruction set is supposed to enhance - some please confirm or deny)

AMD>Intel in gaming....for above reasons + slight tweaks on memory controller AMD will be increasing the lead.

However AMD will be losing some of its 64 advantage with increasing sales and availablity (of non price gauged) 6** series. However early indications are that AMD's implementation of 64bit is superior to EMT64. No suprise here.

Market Place in 3-7 months time

Alot can happen here especially if Intel pulls something fantastic with its new chipsets or 65nm process. This time frame is before launch of AMD Socket M2.

AMD's DC's will totally own Intel's. Refer to my previous post.

Intel is starting at 3.2 ghz
AMD at 2.4 ghz but at a rating ~ P4 4000.

Intel will struggle to scale, whilst it will be easier for AMD. Intel loses more advantage in multitasking (in fact DC AMD will be a much better multi tasker then Intel equiv.)

AMD will either lead or be slightly behind in encode / render. It's advantage in games will be HUGE.

All depends on what Intel does with chipsets and 65nm.

Market Place in 8 months 1 - 1 1/2 years

If you made it to here this where things my AMD loving stops. Remember I'm trying to be objective.

Some of you here have read through the DOTHAN thread. the Pentium M line of CPU's was/is a true gem waiting to be uncovered, refined, cut and given a good mounting.

It's been uncovered thanks to pioneers like Macci Fugger etc.
All indications are that a Pentium M Overclocked to equivalent Mhz of an A64 are superior. @ 2600 it can beat an FX-55. Okay so in some area's they can even beat Winnies at = speed however this is because the CPU is SEVERALLY handicapped. You and I all could beat Maurice Green in a sprint if he had been shot in the leg and beaten some.

Pentium M's and associated Architecture need to be refined. That Pentium M needs to me set into a beautiful gold ring to give it real value rather then the cheap almost plastic setting it has now.

Imagine a Pentium M in Dual Channel. Imagine it being able to run top class memory 1:1 from 200 - 300+? Right now you have to use crazy dividers like 3:5 etc and no Dual Channel.

And this CPU architecture with its single channel, low memory frequency and low performance boards can put up a fight with the FX-55, and sometimes beat it.

It's an amazing chip considering the amount of power it uses and how easy it is to overclock. Those Fans are tiny. I can't hear them. They don't get that hot. I don't have to buy an XP-120 for it or a case with top air flow, or that other expensive cooling stuff I can't afford. And as sure as hell I'm not paying over $1000 for it like an FX either.

When these chips are given proper support they could break AMD. AMD better have something good up it's sleeve. K8 won't be able to compete IMHO. They should pray they can K9 out in time and that it is GOOD.

Intel are actually playing a very smart game. They have to recoup their investment in Prescott (design costs, machinery etc etc etc). People are saying that at the IDF they are very open. They are actually lalling AMD into a false sense of security. They are purposefully keeping Pentium M handicapped till they can achieve their sales target /margins with Prescott.

And many of us consumers are falling right into their laps. Most are ignorant and can be forgiven. Some of us here should know better.

Intel in Q2 06 will ditch Prescott and will be much better for it (and so will consumers).

Pentium M will become the mainstream and it will be a great time to buy a system based on them. A smug and Lazy AMD may well be caught napping. I hope not. I don't want to support and/or be subject to a virtual monopoly in Intel. But if they have a significantly superior product it would be silly to choose otherwise. Lets hope AMD releases a Good K9 at least just for competitions sake.

Now totally dishevelled I'll leave you all to ponder.

Please be kind to one another.

Mikesta

[oqy77]

afaik ... AMD's HyperTransport gives lots of bandwidth, and also because of the memory controller has been taken out from the northbridge, this gives the whole system a lot more room to breath. intel's system is dependant on FSB, so its bandwidth are very, very limited.

That's why an SLi setup with an intel system doesn't gives a performance boost significantly.

and that's also why intel is researching its own "hypertransport"....

cmiiw...

[Salkcin]

There's a obvious reason to go AMD if your a enthusiast - there's like 100 different settings to play with... that calls the inner nerd :cool: . A overclock with a Intel CPU has to be a lot more planned since the multiplier is locked, there's chipset limitations and it's pretty predictable wich memory will run wich speeds.

But... I like the :worship: Hyper-Threading feature a lot and that what keeps me at Intel. It's simply awesome... never getting the feeling of a slow computer is nice, but if your gonna like Hyper-threading depends on how you use a computer. The feature is usefull for us who runs a resolution of 1600x1200 and have like 30 windows open while compressing files and watching a video clip while 3 webpages is loading... all a full speed because of Hyper-Threading. Actually it's possible to compress a bunch of files while playing a game - the FPS drop and longer time of encoding are minimal.

AMD's actually capable of producing good benchmarks while 2 apps runs at once, but in my experience the computer won't run smooth. Playing a game while compressing some files would result in a delay of the mouse if playing a game or such... that's here Hyper-threading is good - gives a feeling of a fast computer wich runs smooth.

So it depends on if you need this. A lot of people have 2 computers as well - one for gaming and one for workstation applications... people who combine this into one machine will need Hyper-Threading IN MY OPINION :)

EDIT: On the link below there's a head-to-head flat panel monitor setup where a 3.6GHz non-Hyper-threaded P4 is compared to the 3.06GHz P4 with Hyper-threading. The video shows the increase that hyper-threading gives under some circumstances. To bad there is'nt such a head-to-head comparision between a Athlon64 and a Pentium 4 Prescott. But take a look :)

http://www4.tomshardware.com/images/thg_video_5_p4_ht.zip

[Nugz]

All i know is i'm dissapointed in my jump over to amd from intel. DAM ON DIE MEMORY controller is crap! ( right now ). I can run my OCZ VX 3200 @ 2-2-2-5 250 1:1 on my IC7. This AMD is crap. 225-230 tops with the ram. Singal channel i can do up to 250 64 bit singal channel. But i try everything possable to get it to run @ 240 1:1 3200+ 0451 CBBID ( lame ) ( 2500mhz on air tho 1.65v). It dont happen. so i have to run the 166 divider to get 2500mhz 4x HTT 250 1000fbsx 2 213 ram :( .

i payed 250$ for this ram to run on my amd @ 213 2-2-2-5. LOL think not. i'v tryed all the way up to 3.7v. the on die memcontroller sucks......... + put some subzero temps to the amd and what happens? No boot.

I'll take the performace hit, so i dont have to deal with the harware issues amd allways has had.

My first chip down at my local shop was a 0447 CBBHD. I got all excited ran home. DOA. i was so pissed to go back and all they had was 0451 CBBID's. Same has happen to me back when the 1700+Xp first came out. Came home and DOA. went back and got a 1900+ and finally worked. And Same for a Athlon 1100 mhz DOA went back to get a 1200 mhz Athlon. Not once have i bought a P4 and it didnt work. (got 5 here)

PREFORMACE blah at this point. It's about harware for me and how they are made. You ask me AMD's has a shack(somewere out in Malaysha) were they make there die's lol and Intel has a real lab lol jk but ya know.

Peace Nugz

[DragoNs]

Biggest Reason not to go intel i say is its like double the price for the same performance... HT is a big reason to go Intel but if you dont have alot of money.. buy AMD... i was choosing between Intel 3.0E $233 CAD or AMD64 3000+ socket 939 $ 173 CAD.. the money is what led me to AMD

[oqy77]

well talking about price, i have a story.

one of my friend wants to buy a PC. but he only wants intel, well he gets it (P4 3,2GHz LGA775 + extra cooling), but because its more expensive, he gets only a X300 vga because his budget was kinda limited.

the next day, another friend which had the same budget, bought an AMD (A64 3200+) system, but his VGA was a GF6600GT PCI-e

now... who had the nicer/balanced system?

[boban10]

hi to all.
If someone really wannt to encode, and to do heavy, heavy multitasking, then i see no reason to go with P4.
why ?
look here:
http://www.x86-secret.com/?option=newsd&nid=849

if you wannt to encoding, this is right system for everyone, a dual-core cpu, or dual cpu. there is a no reason to go with single cpu...
yes the price will be higher, but not to much, of one higher speed single cpu.

and next games build around Unreal Engine 3 will suport dual-core, dual cpu system.

[BigStan]

my last 3 comps have been AMDs (duron 1ghz, xp 2000+, 64 3200+), the last intel comp i've owned was a PII 200mhz 32mb one

can anyone give me reasons to go intel over AMD (btw, i won't be buying another comp for about 1 1/2 years, but i was just wondering)
A lot of things can happen in the market place in 1.5 years. Why not post back in 1~ 1.5 years when you can get accurate information on the chipsets and CPU features at that time. Anything posted today is total speculation as what would be a better choice 1.5 years from now.

[i found nemo]

foxie

"The most I've ever used AMD is in my laptop, and I'm pretty happy. It's an older laptop, had a Duron 900 in it, now has an AXP-M 1500. It's only running at 1ghz though, but is capable of over 3600 MIPS. And that's on a mobo with the KT133 chipset!"

yea my pIII gets 3425 mips

[dimasdw]

my last 3 comps have been AMDs (duron 1ghz, xp 2000+, 64 3200+), the last intel comp i've owned was a PII 200mhz 32mb one

can anyone give me reasons to go intel over AMD (btw, i won't be buying another comp for about 1 1/2 years, but i was just wondering)

For now stick with AMD :D
A64,Hypertransport,next Dual Core,cool temp,low price...

Intel win in Encode,syntetic benchmark and 3d Max...

[isp]

HT is nice and the P4 feels smoother to me when I have many programs open. That's about all I can say for it. I prefer AMD for brute force gaming and benching. :)

[M.Beier]

I've had 2,2@3 ghz P4 400QDR
2,4@3,4 ghz P4 800QDR HT
3200+ 2000@2700 - No doubt my A64 rules the two previous systems, one should keep in mind i changed from single to dual DDR as well :\ - But still... Think AMD64 rules, even at multitasking, the power is so overwhealming it can outmatch a 2 "logical" cpu / Intel at 3,2 ghz, without blinking, while it being nearly twice performance...

[grimREEFER]

right now, i would chose intel, but i might prefer amd in the future when toledo comes out. dual core, sse3, and great gaming performance. what more could u want?

[warlock110]

the only people that can have say in this is someone who owns a P4 and an A64 so that they can compare. The bottom line is alot of us is speaking out of speculation or what we "hear" from other people, that's not so good as far as accurately providing the infomation. I just made a switch from AMD to intel, still putting in the system, so i'll tell you how i like it, i have an AXP so that's kindda a no comparison to a P4. But anyways, i perfer P4 for it's raw speed, i really don't care how "efficient" AMD works, but raw speed is still better, and intel feels smoother as far as i know cuzz i own a P3 before, at 2.2ghz the AMD feels just a tiny bit quicker than my P3 @ 1Ghz. AMD is good for benching though, i don't know how they do it, but they put up big number in tests. I perfer INtel for daily use. In the final word, when i say my CPU is running at 4Ghz i really mean 4ghz, not the freaking PR #, PR# makes the chip sounds likes it's tricking people into thinking that it's fast when it's not.

[Mikesta]

the only people that can have say in this is someone who owns a P4 and an A64 so that they can compare. The bottom line is alot of us is speaking out of speculation or what we "hear" from other people, that's not so good as far as accurately providing the infomation. I just made a switch from AMD to intel, still putting in the system, so i'll tell you how i like it, i have an AXP so that's kindda a no comparison to a P4. But anyways, i perfer P4 for it's raw speed, i really don't care how "efficient" AMD works, but raw speed is still better, and intel feels smoother as far as i know cuzz i own a P3 before, at 2.2ghz the AMD feels just a tiny bit quicker than my P3 @ 1Ghz. AMD is good for benching though, i don't know how they do it, but they put up big number in tests. I perfer INtel for daily use. In the final word, when i say my CPU is running at 4Ghz i really mean 4ghz, not the freaking PR #, PR# makes the chip sounds likes it's tricking people into thinking that it's fast when it's not.

Warlock110. Please don't be ignorant. Is my brother's 2.4 Celeron D @ 3.6 Faster then my a64 3500+ @ 2.2? Is DDR2 at higher frequencies better then DDR1 with lower latencies. Most members here understand that there is more to a processor then its clock speed.

Even the belligerent Intel is moving away from the Mhz pushing philosophy. So why are YOU (and a few others) still buying it?

You also seem to imply that AMD putting big numbers up in tests is a trick. In fact it is Intel which uses 'tricks' that help it's benchs but not Real life performance.

I personally used Intel before educating myself. I have used a 2.66 Northwood (not a bad chip). I've also used a 2.8 and a 3.4 Prescott (friends computers physically borrowed whilst building my system -actually waiting 4 parts)

They aren't that shabby (except trying to keep em cool in Australia is hard!) and the encoding is substantially better but I have never felt a more responsive system then my A64. Multitasking with Prescott's is a bit better when loading up 2+ CPU intensive programs. However when Dual Core's come about Intel will lose all of its multitasking advantage. (in fact AMD will probably be better) AMD will further close the distance in encoding and rendering and increase by a substantial amount it's lead in gaming.

What is there to really argue about? most currrent benches show AMD's superiority. Dual Core by all reports will be better implemented by AMD since they have designed the A64 to be multi-cored. AMD's power/thermal properties ensure that it's transitation to Dual Core is smoother.

thats all for now

[grimREEFER]

Warlock110. Please don't be ignorant. Is my brother's 2.4 Celeron D @ 3.6 Faster then my a64 3500+ @ 2.2? Is DDR2 at higher frequencies better then DDR1 with lower latencies. Most members here understand that there is more to a processor then its clock speed.

Even the belligerent Intel is moving away from the Mhz pushing philosophy. So why are YOU (and a few others) still buying it?

You also seem to imply that AMD putting big numbers up in tests is a trick. In fact it is Intel which uses 'tricks' that help it's benchs but not Real life performance.

I personally used Intel before educating myself. I have used a 2.66 Northwood (not a bad chip). I've also used a 2.8 and a 3.4 Prescott (friends computers physically borrowed whilst building my system -actually waiting 4 parts)

They aren't that shabby (except trying to keep em cool in Australia is hard!) and the encoding is substantially better but I have never felt a more responsive system then my A64. Multitasking with Prescott's is a bit better when loading up 2+ CPU intensive programs. However when Dual Core's come about Intel will lose all of its multitasking advantage. (in fact AMD will probably be better) AMD will further close the distance in encoding and rendering and increase by a substantial amount it's lead in gaming.

What is there to really argue about? most currrent benches show AMD's superiority. Dual Core by all reports will be better implemented by AMD since they have designed the A64 to be multi-cored. AMD's power/thermal properties ensure that it's transitation to Dual Core is smoother.

thats all for now
even the pacifistic AMD is moving toward ddr2. :p:

[Mikesta]

even the pacifistic AMD is moving toward ddr2. :p:

I'm taking the bait ;) Anyone please feel free to correct me, what I say is only from what I understanding in my Internet wanderings

AMD is going DDR2 only when it makes sense to do so and where it outperforms DDR. AMD is waiting for DDR2-800. The memory will run at a frequency of 200mhz like DDR-400 if I am not mistaken. DDR2-800 4-4-4-X is supposed to be roughly equal in actual performance to DDR-400 @ 2-2-2-X EXCEPT that it should have roughly double the bandwidth (better performance in high bandwidth operations).

So for me personally I would have to wait for DDR2-1066 @ 4-4-4-X or similar timings to match up with with my VX running @ 250 (DDR500) @ 2-2-2-7. This DDR2 would be roughly as efficient as my VX in non-bandwidth intensive situations but will be significantly to doubly as good in high bandwidth operations.

Granted that the DDR2 will require less power and wil generate less heat then my VX. It also won't put as much pressure on CPU's memory controller nor will it need its own fan 4 cooling.

However at the moment DDR2 represents poor value for money. AMD will support it just as DDR2 hits 800 and is cheaper (more performance less cost). This is much better value IMHO. Intel is ramming poor choices down our throats (Prescotts, DDR2) and some people are happy about it. It really doesn't make sense especially since Intel has some great performing Chips in Pentium M and are holding it back from the masses (must flush the crap out first).

I wish Enthusiasts, DIY's abandon the Prescott altogether. Intel will get a kick in the pants and realise the Pentium M. This will then give AMD a kick in the pants and knock them off their high horse. The entire market will benefit. Unfortunately this won't happen. I just wish those who know something (i.e people who frequent this and similar forums) would join the movement.

Then again I usually see a 10:1 ratio in AMD vs Intel forum viewings so this is a great sign. :p:

[calcal]

have you guys thought about that extra fps amd gets over intel is somewhat useless becaues most games like cs only allows 100fps, intel and amd both accomplishes that, what good is extra fps when you cant use it?

You guys make it sound like intel cant game for shiznits..That is absolutely not true my 3.0c plays any game out there, i love my and intel and HT

Would you sacrifice HT + other goodies over useless fps?

[Mikesta]

Calcal.

We are not saying that the P4's can't play up-to-date games. What we are saying is that they run better and smoother on an A64. Sure some of these extra frames are useless...but what about games in 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? What about when bigger and better graphics cards come out and you want to play games at higher resolution with AA etc. You don't want your CPU being a bottleneck...

P4's are likely to bottleneck in gaming before equivalent A64's. They also aren't as future proof in gaming. And in ultra-high end gaming they don't cut it next to a A64.

Prescott is a (barely) passable architecture in its current form. I believe it was designed to really hit its straps 4-5 ghz+. Sadly it didn't make it and never will. If AMD wasn't resting on its laural's it could really beat the crap out of Intel by scaling its processors speeds higher and reducing prices. But with lowish capacity they are in business terms 'milking the cow'. I don't think that is wise in the long run but that sentiment is for another thread.

[freecableguy]

...but what about games in 6 months? 1 year? 2 years?

Am I the only one here that upgrades constantly? I don't keep ANYTHING for more than about 4-6 months tops.

[warlock110]

Warlock110. Please don't be ignorant. Is my brother's 2.4 Celeron D @ 3.6 Faster then my a64 3500+ @ 2.2? Is DDR2 at higher frequencies better then DDR1 with lower latencies. Most members here understand that there is more to a processor then its clock speed.

Even the belligerent Intel is moving away from the Mhz pushing philosophy. So why are YOU (and a few others) still buying it?

You also seem to imply that AMD putting big numbers up in tests is a trick. In fact it is Intel which uses 'tricks' that help it's benchs but not Real life performance.

I personally used Intel before educating myself. I have used a 2.66 Northwood (not a bad chip). I've also used a 2.8 and a 3.4 Prescott (friends computers physically borrowed whilst building my system -actually waiting 4 parts)

They aren't that shabby (except trying to keep em cool in Australia is hard!) and the encoding is substantially better but I have never felt a more responsive system then my A64. Multitasking with Prescott's is a bit better when loading up 2+ CPU intensive programs. However when Dual Core's come about Intel will lose all of its multitasking advantage. (in fact AMD will probably be better) AMD will further close the distance in encoding and rendering and increase by a substantial amount it's lead in gaming.

What is there to really argue about? most currrent benches show AMD's superiority. Dual Core by all reports will be better implemented by AMD since they have designed the A64 to be multi-cored. AMD's power/thermal properties ensure that it's transitation to Dual Core is smoother.

thats all for now


the celeron D is 1/4 the cache, not a good comparision, and when i'm talking about PR # i'm talking about the AXP line, do you honestly think that the 3200+ AXP can be equivilant of a 3.2ghz P4 HT? that's really a trickery on AMD part. to me benches doesn't really matter, i'm over that a long time ago, benches are cool to show, but the reality is real life performance, and i like P4 better than AXP, i never have own an A64 system so i can't speak for the thing, but i do own a 1.6ghz Pentium that is suppose to be the equivilant of the A64, and to be honest, it feels slow, maybe cuzz it's on a laptop but i do not like the way that chip work one bit, it saves my battery however, and that's more important when i'm on my laptop. That's why i chose to buy a P4 instead of an A64.
I'm not a fan boy of anything, i'm just choosing what i feel is best, and right now i would be better off with a P4, especially with the 05 A64 crapping out. When the A64 gain back it's ablity to OC then i'll buy it.

[uclajd]

LOL, I don't usually have the luxury of letting my PC run and going to watch TV. As I type this, I am converting a TiVo-encoded 480x480 MPEG to standard 720x480 DVD MPEG with some cropping and a two-pass motion filter. Enormously taxing to a processor. I am also typing this, surfing the Web, sending e-mails, uploading stuff for work, and working in Word. Not the slightest stutter or delay on my PC.

So not only will this save me a ton of time (so I can run the next MPEG file) vs. what an AMD would do, it will allow me to multitask to the point where I wouldn't even notice the MPEG was done if I didn't have an audible alert.

If you don't think that is much more noticible and productive than 10 extra FPS for me in Unreal Tournament, then I suggest you try to do what I just described and get back to me - without leaving your PC to watch TV. In fact, I could watch TV on this PC while I did it. :lol:

Again, if you just game or run pi, get an AMD. If you do serious video encoding on a regular basis and actually want to use your PC at the same time, get a P4. ;)

FWIW...


so let me get this straight...

if say it takes you 20 minutes to render something.
your just gonna sit there staring at your computer waiting for it to get done??

I dont know about you, but every time I do anything video or sound related, and need the time to let it do whatever it needs to do, I just get up and go watch tv or something, so I honestly don't care if I can save 30 seconds with a Intel, verus a faster machine for games, cause when it comes to games, I am right here, doing it.
when it comes to editing and such, I do it, get up and leave while it does whatever it does.

P4's are fine.
but they are still rather disappointing for what you actually get.

and the same "outdated benchmarks, that ignore modern proccessor features", also ignores AMD's modern processor features too... so whats your point?

[boban10]

i think here are to much bias pro HT.
i watching tv and capture something from it, and i now encoding 3gb mjpeg file to rm with easy real media producer.
i have opera open with 10 windows, i have kerio, emule, shareaza, and winamp(paused, because i listen to tv), and i have 4 mirc open.
i dont see any slowdown of any type.

i just think that some people are missinformed, or pro biased....because i dont have HT to do all this things at once....

[Xassius]

DDR2-800 at 4-4-4-12 would suck. unless you have 400mhz HTT, then running 3:4 divider on DDR2 would be useless. DDR2-600 @ 3-2-2-1 timings would equal that of DDR2-800 at 4-4-4-12 (1:1, 3:4 respectively)

[Mikesta]

the celeron D is 1/4 the cache, not a good comparision, and when i'm talking about PR # i'm talking about the AXP line, do you honestly think that the 3200+ AXP can be equivilant of a 3.2ghz P4 HT? that's really a trickery on AMD part. to me benches doesn't really matter, i'm over that a long time ago, benches are cool to show, but the reality is real life performance, and i like P4 better than AXP, i never have own an A64 system so i can't speak for the thing, but i do own a 1.6ghz Pentium that is suppose to be the equivilant of the A64, and to be honest, it feels slow, maybe cuzz it's on a laptop but i do not like the way that chip work one bit, it saves my battery however, and that's more important when i'm on my laptop. That's why i chose to buy a P4 instead of an A64.
I'm not a fan boy of anything, i'm just choosing what i feel is best, and right now i would be better off with a P4, especially with the 05 A64 crapping out. When the A64 gain back it's ablity to OC then i'll buy it.

I must admit I'm being alittle unfair in my Celly D Analogy. I was merely using an extreme example of how Architecture of CPU is more important then clock sppeds.

About the AXP I haven't had one nor have I used one to the best of my knowledge. However I have to say the PR ratings on them are misleading. The XP's are inferior to their A64 cousins. I guess AMD thinks that consumers know the difference and compare A64's with P4's. Comparing AXP's with Celeron's is alittle more fair IMHO.

However I must say I'm confident that an A64 3200+ is good substitute for a P4 3.2 (of which ever flavour).

About the 05 Winchesters I must admit considerable disappointment in what I'd been hearing. However (Andy I think it is?) from OCZ created a post in the AMD section where he has noticed the problem and has gotten around it. It has something to do with the any voltage set above stock defaulting back to stock. Of course this hurts OCing. However when he used the VID% option in BIOS the voltage stuck and he was able to get 2650 compared to his <2400 previously.

Still this is annoying especially for the practical minded like myself. Some people however consider AMD clocking an Art - to an extent I agree and enjoy it (when not frustrated!).

However we should not be worried about Winnies anymore. Venice's are now out with a few enhancements. Early indications see these chips overclocking well, though I'll reserve judgment. Still they shouldn't have prob's like 05 Winnies. Thankfully.

The general point is that AMD is still on the improve and Intel has totally stalled.

[Mikesta]

DDR2-800 at 4-4-4-12 would suck. unless you have 400mhz HTT, then running 3:4 divider on DDR2 would be useless. DDR2-600 @ 3-2-2-1 timings would equal that of DDR2-800 at 4-4-4-12 (1:1, 3:4 respectively)

Xassius would DDR2-800 @ 4-2-2-X sort of like OCZ's new DDR2 do the trick?

Also is DDR2-800 @ 4-4-4-X like DDR-400 @ 2-2-2-X in most respects or am I way off the mark? Can any memory educated people or experts comment here?

I'm not sure if it is possible but when M2 comes out (if Intel hasn't grabbed me with a superior product) I'm hoping for DDR-1066 @ timings like 4-3-3-X. Would that be any good. Am I dreaming? Is it possible? I hope OCZ can make it happen though I'm not sure how they will handle the fullscale transition to DDR2 and beyond, at least as a memory marketer.

[Mikesta]

LOL, I don't usually have the luxury of letting my PC run and going to watch TV. As I type this, I am converting a TiVo-encoded 480x480 MPEG to standard 720x480 DVD MPEG with some cropping and a two-pass motion filter. Enormously taxing to a processor. I am also typing this, surfing the Web, sending e-mails, uploading stuff for work, and working in Word. Not the slightest stutter or delay on my PC.

So not only will this save me a ton of time (so I can run the next MPEG file) vs. what an AMD would do, it will allow me to multitask to the point where I wouldn't even notice the MPEG was done if I didn't have an audible alert.

If you don't think that is much more noticible and productive than 10 extra FPS for me in Unreal Tournament, then I suggest you try to do what I just described and get back to me - without leaving your PC to watch TV. In fact, I could watch TV on this PC while I did it. :lol:

Again, if you just game or run pi, get an AMD. If you do serious video encoding on a regular basis and actually want to use your PC at the same time, get a P4. ;)

FWIW...

UCLADJ.

Not all people can't afford a monsterous system like yours. I'm not suprised your system can handle so much. I'd venture to say that a 3.2 FX-55 can almost pull it off as well. I know however that this is an unfair comparision $ wise.

However you won't be able to argue the next point I'm going to make. When Dual Core comes out your multi-tasking point becomes moot and even Intel encoding herald's will be silenced. My AMD 939 compatriots and I will happily upgrade to an AMD Dual Core @ 2.4 and you will have to buy ANOTHER motherboard and also get an inferior hodge-podge Prescott Dual Core without your beloved HT.

Then we will see who can do some serious multi-tasking and encoding :p:

[Salkcin]

Looking at the new Pentium 4 600's they kind a kick ass. A 3.2GHz (640) will in most cases overclock to 4,3-4,4GHz when it's watercooled by a regular kit... and that's by only increasing the vcore to ~1,45v.

Actually this example I'm about to give is'nt that good, but it still gives a idea of the CPU. A 3.2 @4,4GHz 1:1 (275MHz) CAS2.5-3-3-x scores 31,6k in 3Dmark2001SE with a stock X800XT PE. A Athlon64 @2.7GHz with a overclocked X850XT (~600/600MHz) scores 31,4k wich means that a Athlon64 needs to go 2900-3000MHz to beat Intel here and would a Winchester 3500+ be able to do that? it's priced about the same as a P4 640... I don't know the FSB or memory on the Athlon64, but it's not a horrible setup...

I don't know how they compare in other "games", but one thing is for sure. This CPU IS fast! and fast enough for the games now and fast enough for the games in the future.

[uclajd]

UCLADJ.

Not all people can't afford a monsterous system like yours.Well this is xtremesystems.org, not BudgetDellSystems.org. :lol: But my processor is about ~$400, a lot less than a FX-55.

However you won't be able to argue the next point I'm going to make. When Dual Core comes out your multi-tasking point becomes moot and even Intel encoding herald's will be silenced. Sure I can argue it - I have yet to see any benchmarks suggesting that AMDs will surpass Intel in encoding in the dual cores (and I have seen at least one report that suggests that some Intel dual cores will have 4 logical processors, i.e., HT). And every time I hear someone say a mobo won't support a processor, companies develop a workaround bios. Remember the "6XX"s won't work on current boards" hysteria?

Regardless, I change mobos and other equipment regularly. Isn't that the essence of being extreme and cutting edge? Obsolescence is the one constant in this game.

[PetNorth]

Sure I can argue it - I have yet to see any benchmarks suggesting that AMDs will surpass Intel in encoding in the dual cores (and I have seen at least one report that suggests that some Intel dual cores will have 4 logical processors, i.e., HT).

Here you have some encoding benchmaks with Dual CPU systems. Obviously, Dual Core will be a replay of this situation but bigger, because notice that these benches are Dual Xeon Nocona with HT 3,4 Vs. Dual Opteron 250 2,4 and keep in mind that in the beginning, the fatest Dual Core P4 will be at 3.2 (less than this Xeon speed) and the fatest Dual Core A64 will be at 2.4 (exactly this Opteron speed).

http://img.hexus.net/v2/processors/intel/xeon/nocona34/images/mainconcept.png

http://img.hexus.net/v2/processors/intel/xeon/nocona34/images/gordianknot.png

http://img.hexus.net/v2/processors/intel/xeon/nocona34/images/canopusmpg2avi.png

http://img.hexus.net/v2/processors/intel/xeon/nocona34/images/canopuswmv9.png

http://img.hexus.net/v2/processors/intel/xeon/nocona34/images/canopusavidvd.png


Basically, Dual Opteron outperforms Dual Xeon in mayority encoding tasks right now.
Isn't difficult to imagine what will happen with Dual Core... even more clearly.

[Donnie27]

I must admit I'm being alittle unfair in my Celly D Analogy. I was merely using an extreme example of how Architecture of CPU is more important then clock sppeds.

About the AXP I haven't had one nor have I used one to the best of my knowledge. However I have to say the PR ratings on them are misleading. The XP's are inferior to their A64 cousins. I guess AMD thinks that consumers know the difference and compare A64's with P4's. Comparing AXP's with Celeron's is alittle more fair IMHO.

However I must say I'm confident that an A64 3200+ is good substitute for a P4 3.2 (of which ever flavour).

About the 05 Winchesters I must admit considerable disappointment in what I'd been hearing. However (Andy I think it is?) from OCZ created a post in the AMD section where he has noticed the problem and has gotten around it. It has something to do with the any voltage set above stock defaulting back to stock. Of course this hurts OCing. However when he used the VID% option in BIOS the voltage stuck and he was able to get 2650 compared to his <2400 previously.

Still this is annoying especially for the practical minded like myself. Some people however consider AMD clocking an Art - to an extent I agree and enjoy it (when not frustrated!).

However we should not be worried about Winnies anymore. Venice's are now out with a few enhancements. Early indications see these chips overclocking well, though I'll reserve judgment. Still they shouldn't have prob's like 05 Winnies. Thankfully.

The general point is that AMD is still on the improve and Intel has totally stalled.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=p4660&page=1

Donnie27

[mdzcpa]

My Intel rigs with HT are indeed a bit "smoother" running multiple applications. That's a fact.

BUT, AMD performance has dwarfed Intel on every other front. The performance difference was so compelling I did the unthinkable and put an AMD system into my Multimedia computer :eek:

Bring price into the equation and it further puts AMD ahead.

As far as "needing" Hyper Threading in order to mutlitask...that's just bunk. My AMD system does encoding just fine while I surf, email, and work in Word. The mutlitasking is more than adequate (although the P4 I had in there was indeed a tad smoother). However, I'd rather get 95% of Intel performance with the AMD system while performing these type of tasks, and in return get 20% more performance in gaming.

When SSE3 hits the AMD the gap will close even further.

Right now I can't think of any reason to go Intel over AMD. In fact, I haven't built an Intel rig for a client in over 6 months now. That may sound trivial...but it isn't. This has never happened before and I've been in the business since 1991.

EDIT- BTW, and anyone who doesn't have enough time to take a break while the system encodes because they MUST continue working on other things shouldn't be wasting time on the XS forums:D

[cirthix]

prescotts are the worst chip i've ever heard of, and i wouldnt run one if i got it for free (i'd sell it and stick with my axp setup). the only good processor intel makes are the pentium ms and celeron ms. for the dollar, these chips are not fast at all either (mainly due to the mobo prices, but the asus adapter should fix that soon :D). on the amd camp, nearly every cpu they have is a good performer, running at nearly half of the power (im talking heat here, 60sumthing watt winchesters vrs 110sumthing watt prescotts), and high overclockability. in the future, amd will get a larger lead but intel will come back with the dual core pentium m. it will be an interesting christmas this year, but for now and the near forseeable future, GO AMD

[uclajd]

prescotts are the worst chip i've ever heard of... GO AMD
Wow, we have a name for this type of person, but I won't use it since most of the mods have AMDs. :lol:

Bottom line, anytime you want to run some video encoding benchmarks (I'll upload the file, and you tell me your times) we'll see how useless the P4 is. :rolleyes:

This isn't a religion people; it's silicon and copper.

[uclajd]

Basically, Dual Opteron outperforms Dual Xeon in mayority encoding tasks right now.
Isn't difficult to imagine what will happen with Dual Core... even more clearly.Great, but we are talking a whole new line of chips (on both sides). Not analogous.

[mdzcpa]

Bottom line, anytime you want to run some video encoding benchmarks (I'll upload the file, and you tell me your times) we'll see how useless the P4 is. :rolleyes:


Well, encoding benchmarks are all over the net already. So the bottom line is that few people here care about the encoding performance:D

BTW, I'm just teasing :stick:

[matt9669]

This isn't a religion people; it's silicon and copper.And aluminum, gold, tin, lead, zinc, nickel, hydrogen peroxide, sulfuric acid . . . :D

Seriously guys, the days of simple "Intel is better than AMD" or vice versa are over. Processors (and graphics cards, for that matter) are far too complex these days to declare one brand or the other the absolute best. Certain computing tasks simply work faster on different platforms, period. Heck, even nVidia's 6800 architecture is superior in Doom3 while ATI's X8XX line handles HL2 more efficiently . . .

Buy what suits your needs, debate what best fits a given task - don't be a rabid fanboi, use your mind! :)

[SLaY3r07]

I myself am an AMD Fanboy, but the Dothan seems very nice to me, and if I had a lot of money, I would have already gotten it.

[Donnie27]

I myself am an AMD Fanboy, but the Dothan seems very nice to me, and if I had a lot of money, I would have already gotten it.

Then you're most certainly are not an AMD Fanboy then. AMD Fanboys don't use nothing maded by Intel. As the other poster said, he'd not use a Prescott if it were free. If I had to buy, I'd get an Athlon3500+ because IMHO, I don't think the 10 to 18% increase in performance the FX-55 is worth it. I mean, $267 instead of $850 to get how many more frames per second?

prescotts are the worst chip i've ever heard of, and i wouldnt run one if i got it for free (i'd sell it and stick with my axp setup).

AXP sucks LOL! At least sell it and get an Athlon64, hehehehe!

Donnie

[Donnie27]

Then again I usually see a 10:1 ratio in AMD vs Intel forum viewings so this is a great sign.""

No it doesn't! That just means that there's 10:1 AMD Fans to everyone else here. It has nothing to do with 89% of the PC install base, or the 83.9% from last year. Nope, it just proves more AMD Fans hang out here then in other places. Returns of polling data from Half Life 2 should have made folks wake up. I see nothing's changed.

Nope, most site's polls showed many folks picking AMD even when the Northwood's were kicking the AthlonXP's @$$ all over the place, nothing's changed for Fans. Intel sucks in their eyes so they're already hung out to dry. Jan 17 showed registered HL2 users as 54% Intel, 46% AMD and everyone else. Most used processor was only a 2GHz
Intel processor. 1.46 million users. Maybe all of the millions of AMD Processor users don't play HL2 and are Doom3 fans?

Donnie

[death metal]

Nope, most site's polls showed many folks picking AMD even when the Northwood's were kicking the AthlonXP's @$$ all over the place, nothing's changed for Fans. Intel sucks in their eyes so they're already hung out to dry.
how true =)...

[Mikesta]

Wow, we have a name for this type of person, but I won't use it since most of the mods have AMDs. :lol:

Bottom line, anytime you want to run some video encoding benchmarks (I'll upload the file, and you tell me your times) we'll see how useless the P4 is. :rolleyes:

This isn't a religion people; it's silicon and copper.

Uclajd.

Are you a journalist or involved in the media?

They way you totally misconstrued Cirthix's post is masterful.

Cirthix wasn't really that biased. He was quite funny and alittle over the top but I'm suprised that you guys didn't pick it up though I think Donnie did.

BTW I would use a Prescott if I got it for free...I'd replace my little bros Celly D then have fun overclocking it. Otherwised I'd sell it. I'd even consider swapping it with my mates 2.66 Northwood if the free CPU was 3.2 or under. Then I'd put the Northwood in my bro's computer. Otherwise I'd sell it o get money for an A64.

However using an AXP over a Prescott is abit much. LoL.


Then again I usually see a 10:1 ratio in AMD vs Intel forum viewings so this is a great sign.""

No it doesn't! That just means that there's 10:1 AMD Fans to everyone else here. It has nothing to do with 89% of the PC install base, or the 83.9% from last year. Nope, it just proves more AMD Fans hang out here then in other places. Returns of polling data from Half Life 2 should have made folks wake up. I see nothing's changed.

Nope, most site's polls showed many folks picking AMD even when the Northwood's were kicking the AthlonXP's @$$ all over the place, nothing's changed for Fans. Intel sucks in their eyes so they're already hung out to dry. Jan 17 showed registered HL2 users as 54% Intel, 46% AMD and everyone else. Most used processor was only a 2GHz
Intel processor. 1.46 million users. Maybe all of the millions of AMD Processor users don't play HL2 and are Doom3 fans?

Donnie what I mean is that this place symbolises at least to some extent the enthusiast/computer Savvy segment of the market. A 10:1 ratio is good news for AMD in this segment though I am aware that this 10:1 ratio is probably not indicative of the true product usage ratio. I'd have to have access to alot more data that this site my not even collate to make a reasonable assumption. I'd say it more indicative of product interest. It really would be interesting to see some statistics of this and other site. Ok I'm flying off a tangent here, but then again I am a Marketing Graduate with a Distinction in Market Research!

As for people sticking with AMD when Northwood's were kicking their asses...well thats the irrational behaviour that Fanaticism (or in other words extreme loyalty and indoctrination) incites. I can count myself as reasonably neutral perhaps with a very slight anti-Intel Bias. I want Intel to do well. It will force more competition and get AMD off its ass. If Intel does really well then I will switch if it makes sense to do so. I can't stand Fanboys from either side of the fence, though Intel ones make me alittle sicker.

Also mdzcpa nice post.

[uclajd]

Well, encoding benchmarks are all over the net already. So the bottom line is that few people here care about the encoding performanceYeah, they all care about that important business productivity benchmark, SuperPi. :lol:

BTW, I'm just teasing :stick:No prob, it's just a piece of copper and silicon (and aluminum, gold, tin, lead, zinc, nickel, hydrogen peroxide, sulfuric acid). ;)

[ISS]

For me, I am just bored with sticking with AMD (previously using 3200 winchester) for so long, thus decide to try something new and go for LGA775 instead. But nothing much though. I don't do video encoding nor do I find hyperthreading any useful to me. But one thing is for sure: Prescott is really hot!! However, there is 1 major bug with WinXP and some games. When you go over 4.3GHz, WinXP will detect it as 13MHz and games will go crazy. Even though SP2 fixed this issue, my F1 challenge 2002 still don't run properly over 4.3GHz.

[ISS]

Looking at the new Pentium 4 600's they kind a kick ass. A 3.2GHz (640) will in most cases overclock to 4,3-4,4GHz when it's watercooled by a regular kit... and that's by only increasing the vcore to ~1,45v.

Actually this example I'm about to give is'nt that good, but it still gives a idea of the CPU. A 3.2 @4,4GHz 1:1 (275MHz) CAS2.5-3-3-x scores 31,6k in 3Dmark2001SE with a stock X800XT PE. A Athlon64 @2.7GHz with a overclocked X850XT (~600/600MHz) scores 31,4k wich means that a Athlon64 needs to go 2900-3000MHz to beat Intel here and would a Winchester 3500+ be able to do that? it's priced about the same as a P4 640... I don't know the FSB or memory on the Athlon64, but it's not a horrible setup...

I don't know how they compare in other "games", but one thing is for sure. This CPU IS fast! and fast enough for the games now and fast enough for the games in the future.

Err.......You can't just use 3Dmark2001 alone and conclude that P4 is faster. In real world games, even my 530 @ 4.5GHz can't trash my A64 @ 2.7GHz.

Also, you must remember that 4.4GHz is not attainable w/o using water cooling (not even XP120 can handle the heat). However, A64 can run 2.7GHz on just air cooling. My previous A64 can run 2.7GHz @ 1.55V using just an Ultra Vortex HSF.

One more thing is than the new A64 E3 core is coming very soon.

[ISS]

All i know is i'm dissapointed in my jump over to amd from intel. DAM ON DIE MEMORY controller is crap! ( right now ). I can run my OCZ VX 3200 @ 2-2-2-5 250 1:1 on my IC7. This AMD is crap. 225-230 tops with the ram. Singal channel i can do up to 250 64 bit singal channel. But i try everything possable to get it to run @ 240 1:1 3200+ 0451 CBBID ( lame ) ( 2500mhz on air tho 1.65v). It dont happen. so i have to run the 166 divider to get 2500mhz 4x HTT 250 1000fbsx 2 213 ram :( .

i payed 250$ for this ram to run on my amd @ 213 2-2-2-5. LOL think not. i'v tryed all the way up to 3.7v. the on die memcontroller sucks......... + put some subzero temps to the amd and what happens? No boot.

I'll take the performace hit, so i dont have to deal with the harware issues amd allways has had.

My first chip down at my local shop was a 0447 CBBHD. I got all excited ran home. DOA. i was so pissed to go back and all they had was 0451 CBBID's. Same has happen to me back when the 1700+Xp first came out. Came home and DOA. went back and got a 1900+ and finally worked. And Same for a Athlon 1100 mhz DOA went back to get a 1200 mhz Athlon. Not once have i bought a P4 and it didnt work. (got 5 here)

PREFORMACE blah at this point. It's about harware for me and how they are made. You ask me AMD's has a shack(somewere out in Malaysha) were they make there die's lol and Intel has a real lab lol jk but ya know.

Peace Nugz


P4 and A64 overclocking aren't exactly the same. You have to learn how to OC on A64 (things like command rate and HT multiplier). Also, most A64 boards are limited to just 2.85V for Vdimm. If you are using TCCDs, you will see the difference.

[matt9669]

Fugger told me the Prescott thermal diode is read incorrectly by most boards as 10C greater than actual, which doesn't help for thermal throttling et al. Just keep in mind, as long as it's stable and not throttling the temperature shouldn't be an issue.

[jrw]

If you are a goal-oriented overclocker, you just have to consult the ORB and the SuperPI/Pifast -lists to see which to go for.

If you on the other hand consider overclocking a hobby, getting to know hardware and the way it works and can be pushed farther you could base your decision whats boring and whats fun. Overclocking AMDs for several years might get tidious, and in that light moving to Intel might be worth considering.

Working on different platforms gives different experiences... It might be fun to try something new :)

Fugger seems to have fun "overthere" as well :eek:

[chainbolt]

This isn't a religion people; it's silicon and copper.

Well said. :cord:

There is now doubt that a A64 system gives you at low and medium resolutions and quality settings a few fsp more in 3d games. In the same way there is no doubt, that in productivity, general usage, and multitasking a 6xx based system is in a majority of benchmarks a few seconds or whatever ahead.

Truth is, with a very exceptions, there isn't any visible, tangible, or relevant difference between an Intel 6xx system or an A64 system.

There are other considerations, like pricing, overclocking, platform stability, or SLI availability that are probably much more important than these differences of 5 fps in Doom 3 or 10 seconds faster encoding.

[Mr. Tinker]

The only reason I buy intel is because I am a computer animator, and I usually do a lot of radiosity-based rendering. For about the same price, the Intel models perform this specific task faster, which is pretty critical when this is your work. You can't exactly watch TV at the office, and you do do a lot of test renders, so the extra speed helps productivity. If it were my style to rely more on volumetrics, I would probably go AMD.

Too bad, I'd probably have more fun with AMD. I've been very enticed by the new DFI NF4 boards lately.

[cirthix]

However using an AXP over a Prescott is abit much. LoL.



i'm very impressed with a chip i bought a year ago and cost me only 100 bucks. even when overclocked to whats in the sig, it puts out as much heat as a stock high speed prescott. its not the fastest chip out there and i'm sure a highly overclocked prescott would be faster than it, but i think amd has done a great job of putting out good performing chips at prices lower than intel's. and when you look at the recent cores, northwood, prescott, dothan, and the gellatins, its easy to see that while the prescott sound the most impressive with its 2mb of l2 cashe (600 series) and very high clock rates, it is not the fastest chip intel has (i prefer an oc'd dothan to an oc'd prescott), it is not the coolest core intel has (once again, dothan takes the cake), it is arguably not the most overclokable core intel has (try doubling the clockrate on your low-end prescott, you cant, but try it on a dothan and you can(both assuming the mobo/ram is not a limiter)). its pretty easy to notice that prescott is the worst chip intel has (and the a64s are much better in terms of heat, ipc, and with venice and early winchesters, oc a fair bit). i'm not really for any company, but right now the only worthwhile chip intel has is dothan, while amd has a few nice chips out there like the winchester and soon to be turions and venice (i'm starting to wonder if they are the same core, but they might not be). the mobile athlon xps arent bad chips for the money and intel has nothing to match the performance of a 90 dollar 2.6ghz athlon xp (if your lucky) except for the low end celeron ds, which arent nearly as good.

i would go a64 if i had more money, but i'm saving up for summer when i'll go either venice, dothan, or turion. its too early to tell what will happen with them

[Mikesta]

i'm very impressed with a chip i bought a year ago and cost me only 100 bucks. even when overclocked to whats in the sig, it puts out as much heat as a stock high speed prescott. its not the fastest chip out there and i'm sure a highly overclocked prescott would be faster than it, but i think amd has done a great job of putting out good performing chips at prices lower than intel's. and when you look at the recent cores, northwood, prescott, dothan, and the gellatins, its easy to see that while the prescott sound the most impressive with its 2mb of l2 cashe (600 series) and very high clock rates, it is not the fastest chip intel has (i prefer an oc'd dothan to an oc'd prescott), it is not the coolest core intel has (once again, dothan takes the cake), it is arguably not the most overclokable core intel has (try doubling the clockrate on your low-end prescott, you cant, but try it on a dothan and you can(both assuming the mobo/ram is not a limiter)). its pretty easy to notice that prescott is the worst chip intel has (and the a64s are much better in terms of heat, ipc, and with venice and early winchesters, oc a fair bit). i'm not really for any company, but right now the only worthwhile chip intel has is dothan, while amd has a few nice chips out there like the winchester and soon to be turions and venice (i'm starting to wonder if they are the same core, but they might not be). the mobile athlon xps arent bad chips for the money and intel has nothing to match the performance of a 90 dollar 2.6ghz athlon xp (if your lucky) except for the low end celeron ds, which arent nearly as good.

i would go a64 if i had more money, but i'm saving up for summer when i'll go either venice, dothan, or turion. its too early to tell what will happen with them

See guys is he really an AMD fanboy? He is quite reasonable. I have to agree with your post. Prescotts are the worst of the Intel chips within the last 2 years.

BTW if your saving up to get an upgrade this summer save up for a DFI nF4 mobo or the new ATI board for AMD and then get an AMD dual core! Dothan won't go Dual Core till Q2 2006 especailly desktop compatible. I seriously doubt that a Dual Core Pentium M will fit in SKT 479 and therefore SKT 478.

However I am quite excited to see how ASUS's Adapter works on 865/875 chipsets / motherboards. I have a feeling if things go reasonably well that they will be a killer. Factor in the price decrease in July and you might want to do that instead of my AMD recommendation.

BTW uclajd

This was the masterful piece of journalism I was refering to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cirthix
prescotts are the worst chip i've ever heard of... GO AMD

If that isn't out of context, selective cut and paste style common in journalism then I can't add 1+1 and banana's grow from under the ground. :D

[jaguarking11]

Frankly I did not read the entire thread as threads like this turn into fanboy fights etc. But the prescott cores are just rescaled northwoods with more cache and higher latency cache. The northwoods were set to compete with the now defunct amd XP's witch it demolished. Intel along the lines lost the focus on some of their core designs, the tualatin core was an awsome core to start with but they chose to dump it untill they decided to run centrino powered notebooks. But the next gen intel chip will most likely be a complete redesign of the core mutch like IBM did for amd on the a64.

and the price diference comparison isnt a factor anymore for amd or intel as frankly they both are within price of eachother.

Granted the new winchester cores are amazing for today, But most dont know how well a amd 64 will run under true 64bit enviroment and the same goes with intel.

My sugestion would be this, wait for next gen cpu's and OS check it out for a fiew months. I prefer to stay away from new cpu's when they are first relesed , as the yeilds are worse in the begining and tend to oc less and the hardware is still buggy.

Simple point I want to make, it is good that amd and intel are competing for the simple fact that it benefits me in prices, and also drives the industry. Just remember how bad things were when the only competing companys with intel were winchip, cyrix, and amd. back then you payed almost 2x the price for a midrange intel than you did for a high end anything else.

also dont forget that in general terms an intel spec machine is less problematic than an amd machine for a fiew simple reasons, First reason is that intel specifys motherboard manufacturers with rules on how to build a stable board, second is the chipset as of late, in the past via chipsets on p3's were mutch better than intels own. and third final reason is that intel is geered at the profesional market and oem's.

[saratoga]

Frankly I did not read the entire thread as threads like this turn into fanboy fights etc. But the prescott cores are just rescaled northwoods with more cache and higher latency cache. The northwoods were set to compete with the now defunct amd XP's witch it demolished. Intel along the lines lost the focus on some of their core designs, the tualatin core was an awsome core to start with but they chose to dump it untill they decided to run centrino powered notebooks. But the next gen intel chip will most likely be a complete redesign of the core mutch like IBM did for amd on the a64.

and the price diference comparison isnt a factor anymore for amd or intel as frankly they both are within price of eachother.

Granted the new winchester cores are amazing for today, But most dont know how well a amd 64 will run under true 64bit enviroment and the same goes with intel.

My sugestion would be this, wait for next gen cpu's and OS check it out for a fiew months. I prefer to stay away from new cpu's when they are first relesed , as the yeilds are worse in the begining and tend to oc less and the hardware is still buggy.

Simple point I want to make, it is good that amd and intel are competing for the simple fact that it benefits me in prices, and also drives the industry. Just remember how bad things were when the only competing companys with intel were winchip, cyrix, and amd. back then you payed almost 2x the price for a midrange intel than you did for a high end anything else.

also dont forget that in general terms an intel spec machine is less problematic than an amd machine for a fiew simple reasons, First reason is that intel specifys motherboard manufacturers with rules on how to build a stable board, second is the chipset as of late, in the past via chipsets on p3's were mutch better than intels own. and third final reason is that intel is geered at the profesional market and oem's.

Prescott is actually a significant redesign of the P4 core. Its much more then a simple "rescaleing". The pipeline is reworked in both depth and functionality, the cache is changed, new instructions are added, and existing instructions have different latencies. Its a fairly complete reworking, even if the basic idea (deep pipeline == high clock speed) is still intact.

[Salkcin]

I think the Prescott core is better than the Northwood - I can see it from a mainstream users point of view with all the heat and loud air coolers, but I'm into large watercoolers with quite fans in a hightower and I'm able to cool "any" setup below 45 celcius degrees load on the CPU and good temperatures for the GPU too... and that's with complete silence, but my cooling system is about 400$ worth in new parts (I live in Denmark. It's expensive over here!).

So I only have positive things to say about Prescott. Applications and Windows are running more smooth on a Prescott compared to a Northwood, but I guess that has something to do with the extra cache. The performance drop is practical nothing and keeping in mind that many Prescott's are able to overclock beyond 4GHz (especially the Socket 775 platform) then I think it's a question of buying a expensive video card instead of a Athlon64 setup to run games in very high detail with AA and AF.
I've talked to some people who have a Pentium 4 of the new 600 series who claims that FPS drops in various games have disapeared compared to their former 500 series CPU. The examples I got was 1600x1200 with anti-aliasing in CS:Source (map = Aztec) and 1280x1024 with Anti-Aliasing in Need for Speed Underground 2 when making burners (smoke). I can't confirm this, but I believe in the people who I spoke to.

I'm advertising Athlon64 for people who needs gaming power and for regular use, but this thread is about why you should go Intel and in my opinion Intel is the choice of you need to combine a workstation with a gaming machine. The Hyper-Threading is neat... actually not because of the increase it gives in practical, but because of the computer runs smooth and even if the Athlon64 runs allmost as smooth then it's nice to work on a computer wich just processes all you throw at it (at once!) instantly - or close to.

[Donnie27]

Uclajd.

Are you a journalist or involved in the media?

They way you totally misconstrued Cirthix's post is masterful.

Cirthix wasn't really that biased. He was quite funny and alittle over the top but I'm suprised that you guys didn't pick it up though I think Donnie did.

BTW I would use a Prescott if I got it for free...I'd replace my little bros Celly D then have fun overclocking it. Otherwised I'd sell it. I'd even consider swapping it with my mates 2.66 Northwood if the free CPU was 3.2 or under. Then I'd put the Northwood in my bro's computer. Otherwise I'd sell it o get money for an A64.

However using an AXP over a Prescott is abit much. LoL.

Donnie what I mean is that this place symbolises at least to some extent the . A 10:1 ratio is good news for AMD in this segment though I am aware that this 10:1 ratio is probably not indicative of the true product usage ratio. I'd have to have access to alot more data that this site my not even collate to make a reasonable assumption. I'd say it more indicative of product interest. It really would be interesting to see some statistics of this and other site. Ok I'm flying off a tangent here, but then again I am a Marketing Graduate with a Distinction in Market Research!

As for people sticking with AMD when Northwood's were kicking their asses...well thats the irrational behaviour that Fanaticism (or in other words extreme loyalty and indoctrination) incites. I can count myself as reasonably neutral perhaps with a very slight anti-Intel Bias. I want Intel to do well. It will force more competition and get AMD off its ass. If Intel does really well then I will switch if it makes sense to do so. I can't stand Fanboys from either side of the fence, though Intel ones make me alittle sicker.

Also mdzcpa nice post.

Great post and thanks for talking to me instead of yelling or etc.. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Just one example-->"enthusiast/computer Savvy segment of the market". I was flamed by folks on this site for saying "There are no across-the-board winners". I'm not the best writer and even went back to see if I screwed it up, I didn't. I said that the architectures were too different and different apps played to each processor's strenghts and weaknesses. It seems as though some folks don't want to try and figure out those areas. SSE 1, 2, and 3 are streaming SIMDs. It is not just a case of Video encodes, but Audio and Certain kinds of other apps as well. I say any site that's using Adobe Premier Pro 6.5 instead of 7, is BIASed when 7 has been out for how long now?

Here my favorite; AMD names there processors for newbies. Then since only newbies use Microsoft's Media Player, Movie Maker and etc., we don't test it. Wouldn't you like to know how those newbies are getting _____ed? How many folks use LAME? I don't.

Yes I'm BIASed but I'm not blind. I can tell you right here, right now that I know folks who own 3 to 6 Intel rigs and don't post on any forum. Yet, I don't know any AMD owner who doesn't post on at least 3. See a pattern? Many Intel owners ask me, "Why waste your time, you can't talk to AMD Fans". I told them I don't most of the time, I talk more with the folks in the middle.

I waited for Dual Cores and the two common tests so far show 3.2GHz Dual core Intel = 36, 2.4GHz = 40 in Cinebench, lower is better. Intel's score was at PC Perpsective and the DC Athlon64 linked from HardOCP and Anand.

Other 64bit previews and reviews. At least the fairer ones LOL!
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2005q1/64-bits/index.x?pg=1
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=p4660&page=1

http://www.pcper.com/content_home.php?s=1

In my IDF coverage, I mentioned how healthy the 65nm technology from Intel looked, but I didn't think they would be bumping up time tables, but it looks like that may happen.

The interesting bit is that Intel is now telling people that it may pull the 65 nanometre launch forward by a few months, maybe as early as late Q3. This would mean Cedar Mill, Presler, and possibly Yonah wukk arrive much earlier than anyone thinks.

Now, what Intel did to piss me off. To turn off Hyperthreading on Penitum D 8xx, then leave it enabled on the so call Petium D XE (Expensive Edition) is a friggen Joke! The $400 price difference is for only HTT? Something that was free on the Northwood-C. Here's something AMD Fans should be complainning about, but many locked themselves out by trying to pretend and made rants of how Hyperthreading didn't work. Same dumb things they said about SIMDs (MMX, SSE SSE2 and SSE3 BTW). I don't really like Anti-anybody, slight is normal. But at least you understand competition and that's what really matters the most.

Sorry for the long Post! Let's see, I'm the Intel Fan who's getting ready to buy a 3500+, :confused: :confused: I try to build my rigs to fit my needs. My next rig I'll call a mid-level GamePC. I'm only waiting for the next GPU so the 6800's or 800 (16 pipe versions) prices to fall.

Donnie

[Donnie27]

Frankly I did not read the entire thread as threads like this turn into fanboy fights etc. But the prescott cores are just rescaled northwoods with more cache and higher latency cache. The northwoods were set to compete with the now defunct amd XP's witch it demolished. Intel along the lines lost the focus on some of their core designs, the tualatin core was an awsome core to start with but they chose to dump it untill they decided to run centrino powered notebooks. But the next gen intel chip will most likely be a complete redesign of the core mutch like IBM did for amd on the a64.

and the price diference comparison isnt a factor anymore for amd or intel as frankly they both are within price of eachother.

Granted the new winchester cores are amazing for today, But most dont know how well a amd 64 will run under true 64bit enviroment and the same goes with intel.

My sugestion would be this, wait for next gen cpu's and OS check it out for a fiew months. I prefer to stay away from new cpu's when they are first relesed , as the yeilds are worse in the begining and tend to oc less and the hardware is still buggy.

Simple point I want to make, it is good that amd and intel are competing for the simple fact that it benefits me in prices, and also drives the industry. Just remember how bad things were when the only competing companys with intel were winchip, cyrix, and amd. back then you payed almost 2x the price for a midrange intel than you did for a high end anything else.

also dont forget that in general terms an intel spec machine is less problematic than an amd machine for a fiew simple reasons, First reason is that intel specifys motherboard manufacturers with rules on how to build a stable board, second is the chipset as of late, in the past via chipsets on p3's were mutch better than intels own. and third final reason is that intel is geered at the profesional market and oem's.


Please take the time to at least read this page.

http://www.chip-architect.net/news/2003_03_06_Looking_at_Intels_Prescott.html

The two middle images show the same Floating Point units. The Northwood version comes from a high resolution die plot while the vague Prescott Floating Point unit was found on Prescott die plot shown during the spring 2003 IDF.

The lower two images show how the location has changed. Again this shows that Prescott is a significant change from its Willamette / Northwood predecessors
Part #2
http://www.chip-architect.net/news/2003_04_20_Looking_at_Intels_Prescott_part2.html

Donnie

[PetNorth]

http://www.vr-zone.com/index.cgi?i=1821&s=1

[Bloody_Sorcerer]

In my opinion, being a poor teenager with little money, there is no logical reason to consider Intel. equally performing systems based on intel versus amd wind up with price differences in the hundreds of dollars. There is no tangible difference between the two systems beyond:
1) heat
2) power draw
3) cost
everything else is a mere technicality; does 1 FPS faster of 1 second of encoding faster or having everything "flow nice and easy" when encoding all your porn and being able to download more at the same time really matter? It isn't like you can notice the difference of 1 fps, 1 second of encoding, or extra half a second it takes to do something. I don't know about you guys, but all that really matters is cost (which my other 2 points are rolled into: power costs money, and cooling these blast furnaces we call CPUs requires money too). I have no bias towards or against intel or AMD; if in the future Intel came out with a Dothan/Yonah variant on desktop that was priced competitively with AMD, I would seriously consider buying the Intel system (and if it was cheaper, would buy it).
You all are blowing everything out of proportion on both sides of the arguement. HyperThreading really doesn't have that big of an impact on anything, and neither do rediculously low latencies. If you're in such a rush that you need everything to be done .001234634 seconds faster and you're willing to spend 1000 dollars to do it, maybe you should step back for a moment and re-evaluate your life.

[Donnie27]

From PC Perspective.com!

While I don't have pictures to share with you yet, I will get them soon, but Intel has shared with the press their plans for the upcoming Q2 2005 introductin of dual core processors. Here are the details I have now:

Intel Pentium Processor Extreme Edition
3.2 GHz clock speed
Dual Core
Two threads per core
800 MHz FSB
2 MB L2 cache (1 MB for each core)
EM64T
Execute Disable Bit
LGA775 Package
Die size: 206mm^2
230 million transistors
For the accompanying chipset we have:

955X Platform Chipset
Dual x16 GFX with bridge (will get more info on this soon!)
Up to 8GB of memory
Pentium D is another dual core option coming in Q2 -- there wasn't specific data on it, but I would guess it would NOT have the two threads per core to differentiate between it and the Extreme Edition version.

Check this post later for pics and more data! Feel free to discuss it with others in the forums!

Update: At the demo Intel showed the 3.2 GHz quad-thread (dual core) system run a test on CineBench 2003 with four threads in the render test. The test completed in 37.8 seconds. Looking at my recent DFI nF4 SLI-DR motherboard review the best AMD score for that same test (using only a single thread of course) was 77 seconds and the best Intel score was 69.6 seoncds. That is an 84% improvement over the Intel 560 processor and a 103% over the AMD 4000+ results. If we can get performance like this out of other, multi threaded applications as well as in multitasking, AND with SLI coming on the new nForce Intel chipset, then we may see Intel on the PC Per Hardware Leaderboard for the first time...
================================================== ==============

One other test showed 36.7 but I can't find it.

Either way, this one showing four threads is the Expensive Edition, not just a normal 840 that has HTT turned off. My point was if there's no large cache or etc., there's no friggen need for Intel trying to trick folks! Their pushing this as an expensive edition, it should only be the regular Pentium D. Hyperthreading sure as hell doesn't cost $350, IMHO!

Donnie27

[jaguarking11]

what I was saying is that even though the northwood redesign into a presscott looks completly diferent, the point being besides sse3 a northwood and presscott are not very diferent at least between the northwood and the 5xx series. The 6series shows the diference in the redesign. So it only depends on how you look at it.

[PetNorth]

IMO, PCPer mistake (with some other web with the same shared info). Probably those results were with a new Xeon Nocona 3.6/2mb system. It makes sense (keep in mind the similar time showed with Dual Nocona 3.6/2mb in Dual Core A64 preview at http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/1193/2.html ).
37-38s 3.2 EE DC (two Prescotts/Noconas 1mb in the same package) doesn't make sense. 44s does (VR-Zone capture).

[accord99]

tecchannel confirms the score for the HT enabled Smithfield and includes an image of the score:

http://google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tecchannel.de%2Fnews% 2Fhardware%2F19725%2F&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

It scores 692 in the multiprocessor test, which is comparable to dual 3.6GHz Xeon.

[Donnie27]

IMO, PCPer mistake (with some other web with the same shared info). Probably those results were with a new Xeon Nocona 3.6/2mb system. It makes sense (keep in mind the similar time showed with Dual Nocona 3.6/2mb in Dual Core A64 preview at http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/1193/2.html ).
37-38s 3.2 EE DC (two Prescotts/Noconas 1mb in the same package) doesn't make sense. 44s does (VR-Zone capture).

The one at PC Perspective is the XE (EE) version of the 840@3.2GHz=P It is NOT the yet to be released Xeon version of this processor. The EE model has Hyperthreading and shows up as 4 processors. From what others are talking about, the Xeons (Except for the Low Power models) are supposed to like you said, ship with 2MB L2's. The Micro Opps part of the L1 was supposed to be larger as well. Are so the "Chip Architect" says.

The 8xx processors show up as two, just like an AMD Dual Cores. With that said, IMHO, it is very sleezy and crookid for Intel to charge $350 or whatever for Hyperthreading. It's already crappy enough that they jacked the price up for 64bit.

Not much else has changed, software will still rule at the end of the day. Not some imagine Super processor.

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

tecchannel confirms the score for the HT enabled Smithfield and includes an image of the score:

http://google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tecchannel.de%2Fnews% 2Fhardware%2F19725%2F&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

It scores 692 in the multiprocessor test, which is comparable to dual 3.6GHz Xeon.

Oh well, Had I seen your post, I wouldn't have posted what I did. I was writing while you posted. Just as I said Intel is not helpless and there clearly was no reason for the "Poor Intel" thread or all the crap that went on in the P4 was cancelled thread. I said then that there was no way Intel didn't have something planned or would just sit there. Thought they are being jerks now.

Donnie

[Donnie27]

what I was saying is that even though the northwood redesign into a presscott looks completly diferent, the point being besides sse3 a northwood and presscott are not very diferent at least between the northwood and the 5xx series. The 6series shows the diference in the redesign. So it only depends on how you look at it.

The Northwood and Prescott are more different than a AthlonXP and Hammer except for the Hammer's Integrated controller. Intel could have saved a lot of money by just moving Northwood to 90nm and launched Prescott as something else, too bad! Keep in mind that Intel pulled this same crap with with Willy to Northwood's A & B, and except for the 3.06, went back and turned on Hyperthreading that was already part of all P4's going back to the Willy. There's no real difference between the 5xx and 6xx series. ALL PRESCOTTS have 64bit, 5xx just has it turned off or Disabled. Yamhill, Intel's code name for 64bit, is even on the first Presscotts as HTT was part of the first Willy.

Read the great articles at the Chip Architect and you'd see what changes made an Northwood into a Prescott and what made an AthlonXP in to an Athlon64.
Ace's
ARS
Tech-Report
Have great info, others I rather not name have more Fanboy rant than real info. ;)

Donnie

[cirthix]

i'm glad this thread is staying sane and not going into a flamefest as it would on most forums, but its getting a little off topic, talking about future stuff and all. by the way, dual core pentium m i beleive is socket 480, but it might be compatible with other stuff. i'm torn between the newer amd cores and dothan, its a tough choice as bloody_sorcer said above, being a poor teenager with little money and all, but it will be an interesting one.
now i'll go off topic :P
note: this is all speculation, but it should be reasonably clear
Here's what we know

2.4ghz a64 will toast a 3.2ghz p4

opterons scale far more effeciently than xeons (not so much when there are jsut two xeons, but when there are 4 or 8+, opterons scale much better)

dual core p4(or whatever they are gonna be called) will not go into most lga775 boards

dual core a64 will work in socket 939 (with bios update) and possibly in s745 (dual core mobile cpus are on amd's roadmap, and since mobiles are socket 754... they might be compatible, but its a big MIGHT)

the thermal envelope for the dual core p4s is somewhere between 140 and 120 watts (i dont remember what exactly, but its in that range for sure)

the thermal envelope for the dual core athlon 64s is less than 90 watts

there will be many implementations of dual core cpus by each intel and amd, but i think that yonah (i think its called that) will be the most interesting by far to us (65nm process, pentium m, dual cores, drooolllllll, shoud be overclockable wtih even more ipc)

the p4 architecture (chipsets and cpus) wasnt originally intended for dual core stuff, so it probably will be somewhat of a hack job

the a64 architecture (both chipsets and cpus) were designed with dual core (and more than two, like quad core and stuff) in mind, so its relatively simple for amd to do and requires much less reworking of stuff (bios update vrs getting a whole new board/socket/chipsets), so it will be the more elegant solution

make your own decisions/speculation on which dual core platform will perform and be the best, but I think amd is going to be winning untill yonah is out and ready (and by out i don't mean released, i mean in retail channels)

edited for readibility

and for the record, i'm not a fanboy, i'll go with whatever company gives me the best performance,stability,overclockability, and support for the dollar, ati or nvidia, intel or amd, etc... (except westen digital.... gah! long story on that one, i'll ONLY get seagate disks from now on)

[Donnie27]

i'm glad this thread is staying sane and not going into a flamefest as it would on most forums, but its getting a little off topic, talking about future stuff and all. by the way, dual core pentium m i beleive is socket 480, but it might be compatible with other stuff. i'm torn between the newer amd cores and dothan, its a tough choice as bloody_sorcer said above, being a poor teenager with little money and all, but it will be an interesting one.
now i'll go off topic :P
note: this is all speculation, but it should be reasonably clear
Here's what we know

2.4ghz a64 will toast a 3.2ghz p4

opterons scale far more effeciently than xeons (not so much when there are jsut two xeons, but when there are 4 or 8+, opterons scale much better)

dual core p4(or whatever they are gonna be called) will not go into most lga775 boards

dual core a64 will work in socket 939 (with bios update) and possibly in s745 (dual core mobile cpus are on amd's roadmap, and since mobiles are socket 754... they might be compatible, but its a big MIGHT)

the thermal envelope for the dual core p4s is somewhere between 140 and 120 watts (i dont remember what exactly, but its in that range for sure)

the thermal envelope for the dual core athlon 64s is less than 90 watts

there will be many implementations of dual core cpus by each intel and amd, but i think that yonah (i think its called that) will be the most interesting by far to us (65nm process, pentium m, dual cores, drooolllllll, shoud be overclockable wtih even more ipc)

the p4 architecture (chipsets and cpus) wasnt originally intended for dual core stuff, so it probably will be somewhat of a hack job

the a64 architecture (both chipsets and cpus) were designed with dual core (and more than two, like quad core and stuff) in mind, so its relatively simple for amd to do and requires much less reworking of stuff (bios update vrs getting a whole new board/socket/chipsets), so it will be the more elegant solution

make your own decisions/speculation on which dual core platform will perform and be the best, but I think amd is going to be winning untill yonah is out and ready (and by out i don't mean released, i mean in retail channels)

edited for readibility

and for the record, i'm not a fanboy, i'll go with whatever company gives me the best performance,stability,overclockability, and support for the dollar, ati or nvidia, intel or amd, etc... (except westen digital.... gah! long story on that one, i'll ONLY get seagate disks from now on)

Yes and No!
How either Scales depends on software.
How great either runs depends on software.
Heat doesn't depend of software and AMD has an advantage.
Power Draw, Advantage goes to AMD.
Whichever one gets smoked, again depends on software used.
People biased against Intel or AMD can make either look bad, average and or great.

Biased can come from misplaced hate, getting paid to advertised. Meaning getting more folks to read any Webmaster's sites, Hits = Dollars. Since most folks visiting these kinds of forms use AMD's products, that who most Webmasters cater to=P

The Dual Core Opterons and Athlon64 *MIGHT smoke the Intel Dual Cores, that hasn't been the case so far. A better question would be, how much will the Dual Core AMD processors cost? Intel released prices already.

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

If some one is using a 3.4GHz P4, there is ZERO danged reason to dump it and Start over with any AMD processor in or even NEAR that price range.

Donnie27

[agenda2005]

If some one is using a 3.4GHz P4, there is ZERO danged reason to dump it and Start over with any AMD processor in or even NEAR that price range.

Donnie27

For gamers, A 3000+ A64 will run all over it. Have you seen reveiws where a $185 3200+ A64 gave a $1000 EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE INTEL P4 A RUN FOR ITS MONEY IN SOME GAMES? Don't let me give links, because it's humiliating. If the owner also wish to browse the internet and do other petty office work, a $150 A64 3000+ should handle it like any other processor out there.

[Donnie27]

For gamers, A 3000+ A64 will run all over it. Have you seen reveiws where a $185 3200+ A64 gave a $1000 EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE INTEL P4 A RUN FOR ITS MONEY IN SOME GAMES? Don't let me give links, because it's humiliating. If the owner also wish to browse the internet and do other petty office work, a $150 A64 3000+ should handle it like any other processor out there.

Thank Goodness for Games then. Here's just one of my multi-tasking sessions. Make a Digital Photo Album, Pick out the Photos and while they're parsing, parse at least one more since the software limits this folder to 100 photos. Mix together 3 songs since the app only allows one wav file. SO I have two folders being parsed while mixing 3 wav Files. During VCD or DVD setup, instead of waiting, I'll crank up a game, Call of Duty on line or maybe Half Life 2. Brought my buddy's down "speed wise" and the FX took 15 mins to make a VCD this way and ran the game slower as well LOL! Now that was humiliation. Sure, his kills mine doing any of this one at a time.

Donnie27

[uclajd]

For gamers, A 3000+ A64 will run all over it. Have you seen reveiws where a $185 3200+ A64 gave a $1000 EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE INTEL P4 A RUN FOR ITS MONEY IN SOME GAMES? Don't let me give links, because it's humiliating. If the owner also wish to browse the internet and do other petty office work, a $150 A64 3000+ should handle it like any other processor out there.OK Chief, bring your top-of-the-line, $832 FX and let's run some DivX or Windows Media Encoder or TMPGEnc or DVD Shrink against my $349 560J (I keep saying this over and over, but I haven't seen a single AMD advocate take me up on it). :stick:

Here's a newsflash: Not everyone plays games, and even for those that do, you will not likely noice the difference between 100 FPS and 115 FPS.

But you will notice the time difference in media encoding. Some of these TiVo files I am running can take hours, and considerably longer on an AMD. Meanwhile, I can play Unreal Tournament without a stutter while I am doing it.

If you are a teenie bopper who only plays games, by all means, get an AMD. But some of us old farts actually use PCs for productivity! :lol:

Just a little intellectual honesty - so rare in these debates except with people like Donnie - if I ever do build a gaming-only rig for myself or someone else, at this point I would likely go AMD, unless the new P-M mobos suggest otherwise. Unfortunately, I don't have the money or deskspace for two rigs, which is why Intel, jack-of-all-trades, is right for me.

p.s. - You guys that keep calling video encoding "porn" might be funny, but that doesn't make you right. I wish I produced porn, but my video encoding is much more boring.

[PetNorth]

I'm not talking about next Xeon Dual Core. I'm talking about actual Dual Xeon. I'm talking about that this result, IMO, is of the very recent launched Xeon Nocona 3.6/2mb. It is the result with a system demostration of this new recent launch Xeon Nocona 2mb (Dual Xeon). A PCper mistake (with some other sites with same shared info).

Simply, I repeat, that time in next 3.2 EE DC doesn't make sense. VR-Zone capture, again, does:

http://www.vr-zone.com/index.cgi?i=1821&s=1


And, for example, AnandTech talked about this test too with next DC 3.2 EE. They mention a time that is in concordance +- with VR-Zone capture.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2362&p=3


Let's wait and we will see...

[megahurtz-oc]

wow u mean there is more computers can do besides benching and playing games? i have owned both amd and intel and from my experince amd shreds intel in everything i use a comp for! my 2 cents:)

[Donnie27]

I'm not talking about next Xeon Dual Core. I'm talking about actual Dual Xeon. I'm talking about that this result, IMO, is of the very recent launched Xeon Nocona 3.6/2mb. It is the result with a system demostration of this new recent launch Xeon Nocona 2mb (Dual Xeon). A PCper mistake (with some other sites with same shared info).

Simply, I repeat, that time in next 3.2 EE DC doesn't make sense. VR-Zone capture, again, does:

http://www.vr-zone.com/index.cgi?i=1821&s=1


And, for example, AnandTech talked about this test too with next DC 3.2 EE. They mention a time that is in concordance +- with VR-Zone capture.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2362&p=3


Let's wait and we will see...

Yes, let's wait and see. I stopped trusting almost any damned thing Anand has to say. Dual Xeons will still prove to be slower than one Dual Core Xeon in a lot of cases simply because the CMP version will have lower latency and better arbitration. A SMP CMP system will show up as 8 Processors.

For the record, it could be a mistake, I wasn't there. One look at PC Perspective's Leader board will tell you they're not Intel fans or biased though. Unlike Anandtech, I like and trust the VR Zone.

There are many fact that can and does influence final results. Like Anand leaving FOP Codes enabled in the BIOS when he knows it causes a 17% hit to performance. Why would anyone worry about 16bit compatibility with Win2K, oh never mind.

Again, we're talking Cinebench.

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2005q1/pentium4-600/index.x?pg=14
The 2MB L2 cache helps slightly in the shading tests, but not at all in the Cinebench renderer, where the Pentium 4 was already quite fast.

So we're talking about an app that the P4 already runs pretty well. It's not like we're talking about something the P4 sucks at. If this were a Game then I'd wonder if there were a mistake as well. "Cinema 4D's renderer is multithreaded, so it takes advantage of Hyper-Threading, as you can see in the results."

Last but not least, I'm sure Intel might have used an optimized version of this app. Some of the others might not have done the same.

Donnie

[PetNorth]

I'm not referring a configuration mistake. Simply an info mistake. I think they saw (or someone saw at IDF) a new Dual Xeon 3.6/2mb system demostration running Cinebenech too -remember has HT, 4 threads- and they thought it was the DC 3.2EE. A simple info error with an attributed capture error (tech chanel). If not, what is VR-Zone capture? It's reasonable to think (time showed, comparing it with Dual Xeon 3.6 time) that it is the *correct* capture of the DC 32EE demo at IDF. Simply this. Keep in mind, on the other hand, P4 DC isn't other thing that two Prescott/Nocona cores in the same package, nothing special at all. (Yonah is, A64 DC is, Montecito is, P4 DC not, imo).

[Donnie27]

I'm not referring a configuration mistake. Simply an info mistake. I think they saw (or someone saw at IDF) a new Dual Xeon 3.6/2mb system demostration running Cinebenech too -remember has HT, 4 threads- and they thought it was the DC 3.2EE. A simple info error with an attributed capture error (tech chanel). If not, what is VR-Zone capture? It's reasonable to think (time showed, comparing it with Dual Xeon 3.6 time) that it is the *correct* capture of the DC 32EE demo at IDF. Simply this. Keep in mind, on the other hand, P4 DC isn't other thing that two Prescott/Nocona cores in the same package, nothing special at all. (Yonah is, A64 DC is, Montecito is, P4 DC not, imo).

That's why I said I wasn't there and was not sure. But the P4 840 XE shows up as 4 threads as well. They could have easily mistaken it as you're saying. But, why would anyone be running a single Xeon 3.6-2MB? I heard (from an Intel Rep) that the Xeon versions were delayed because Intel couldn't make its mind to ship it with 2MB per core or not for DP and Total of 8MB MP Xeons that cost $3,300. That only the low power versions would ship with 1MB per core.

Sorry, I don't see anything "special" about any of these truely untested Desktop processors. Again, where's AMD price MSRP lists? If one FX-43 or 4000+ costs what they do, I'm not expecting a 2.4GHz Dual core to be anywhere near being affordable.

Donnie

[PetNorth]

But, why would anyone be running a single Xeon 3.6-2MB?

no, not a single Xeon, a Dual Xeon Nocona 3.6/2mb system.
This processor is a very recent launch (about one month ago). For this reason, some system with this configuration would be at IDF for sure, to show it.


About price, who knows. Let's see. But if P4 DC (no EE) are cheap as info says, I don't think equivalent A64 DC will be much expensive.

[perry_78]

I like the post AMD shreds Intel in everything I ever use my computer for

I just got my hands on a Intel 530 - previsou owner ran 4100mhz @ 1,425Vcore, so I have great hope for this chip. I want to see 4500mhz on water and my rather bad DFI 915P T12 which was tested at FSB301.

But I'll be interested in performance:

A64 3000+ vs. Intel 530
A64 3000+ vs. Intel 530 @ 4,1ghz
A64 3000+ 2700mhz vs. Intel 530 @ 4,1ghz
A64 2700mhz vs. Intel 530

In 3dMark and SuperPi, something tells me Intel will only win the second showdown, and get its ass seriously whooped in all the other :(

[Lithan]

For all the people who say INTEL > AMD multitasking, you really need to be less general. In some cases intel is > then amd for multitasking. Mainly for running two intel/HT optimized benchmarks at the same time. A stunted gorilla with his head up his ass could realize that isn't really a level playing field. Right now I'd say the only reason to buy an intel for functionality is for a machine primarily used for encoding and related functions because those softwares are so heavily intel favoring even twice the raw power from an AMD would have a hard time keeping up. Of course, I'm sitting on my hands to keep from making any upgrades right now, because AMD hasn't really done anything that catches my eye in the past two years either. In the past three years AMD has kept slightly ahead of technological demands, intel has in my opinion actually fallen short. Prescotts remind me of Cyrix 6x86.

[Donnie27]

no, not a single Xeon, a Dual Xeon Nocona 3.6/2mb system.
This processor is a very recent launch (about one month ago). For this reason, some system with this configuration would be at IDF for sure, to show it.


About price, who knows. Let's see. But if P4 DC (no EE) are cheap as info says, I don't think equivalent A64 DC will be much expensive.

OK, my bad!

Donnie

[Donnie27]

For all the people who say INTEL > AMD multitasking, you really need to be less general. In some cases intel is > then amd for multitasking. Mainly for running two intel/HT optimized benchmarks at the same time. A stunted gorilla with his head up his ass could realize that isn't really a level playing field. Right now I'd say the only reason to buy an intel for functionality is for a machine primarily used for encoding and related functions because those softwares are so heavily intel favoring even twice the raw power from an AMD would have a hard time keeping up. Of course, I'm sitting on my hands to keep from making any upgrades right now, because AMD hasn't really done anything that catches my eye in the past two years either. In the past three years AMD has kept slightly ahead of technological demands, intel has in my opinion actually fallen short. Prescotts remind me of Cyrix 6x86.

Please don't shoot the messenger or anything, but from the few IT folks I do know, the ones who are now picking AMD say it has more to do with the Platform than the Processor. Doesn't matter if anyone agrees with them or not, that's what they said. Processor speed is near or at the bottom of the list for not only AMD, but Intel as well.

Donnie