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

[Donnie27]

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.

Thanks and you're one of the reason I came back to the forum. I have an 18 month old daughter and my wife wants a Video, DVD and or Digital Photo Album at least every two weeks. These are made in PAL as well for the In-Laws in Germany. Games are by no means the only thing I do with mine.

I'm looking forward to something better than an ATI 9800 Pro more than I'am either Intel or AMD. But it's hard to get good video card info as well. Video card Zealots are just as bad if not worse.

Donnie27

[Bloody_Sorcerer]

from the looks of it, this seems to break down as follows:
if you have tons of pr0n (or other long videos) to encode/do stuff with: intel
if you have a fairly recent system (754, later 478, what have you): don't bother upgrading (unless you're rich)
if you game: AMD
if you use your computer for alot of different things (like me): whatever provides the most bang for your buck (unless, again, you're rich)
if you're rich: whatever the hell you want.(8-way opterons, what have you :) )

[Donnie27]

from the looks of it, this seems to break down as follows:
if you have tons of pr0n (or other long videos) to encode/do stuff with: intel
if you have a fairly recent system (754, later 478, what have you): don't bother upgrading (unless you're rich)
if you game: AMD
if you use your computer for alot of different things (like me): whatever provides the most bang for your buck (unless, again, you're rich)
if you're rich: whatever the hell you want.(8-way opterons, what have you :) )

Hehehehe!

Donnie

[Donnie27]

I like the post

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 :(

Except for the overclocked version, the rest of the examples can befound at GamePC.com. The reason I keep using GamePC is that GamePC sells everything they review, from Celerons to Opterons and everything in between.

Donnie

[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.

Here's that Xeon 3.6GHz / 2MB vs Opteron.
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=x36o252&page=1

Donnie27

[perry_78]

Regarding the platform issue, I can confirm that ;) Talking to the admins of various PC dependent promotions/conventions they all agreed that the soul reason they use Intel over AMD is compatibility between parts and the greater overall stability.

They said they don't have the nerves or time to mess with AMD's when putting together 200 pc's over a week's period. My DFI NF4 is still haunting my dreams, took me 1 month to tune it. Picture doing that 200 times, I would go crazy :confused:

And of course, Intel is Intel. When the average citizen hears 3,6ghz he nearly wets his pants, while hearing "3500+ 2,2ghz" he merely snorts.

[PetNorth]

Yes, I saw it. I'm basically very impressed with new Opty 252 0.09nm power consumition. Really fantastic for a top dual system, extremely fast, but cool, so you can enjoy a really quiet dual machine. A successfully process transition, without doubt.

[PetNorth]

My DFI NF4 is still haunting my dreams, took me 1 month to tune it.

stock values?

[jaguarking11]

Load balancing is what i built my system for. i can get resnoble performance from my 3.6ghz northwood. My northwood 3.0c @ 3.6ghz cost me less to built than a A64 of the same time. My system unzips files and zips em extremly quick, I do run cancer reserch project all the time and move allot of files around and still be in game and have very little slowdown.

[Donnie27]

Regarding the platform issue, I can confirm that ;) Talking to the admins of various PC dependent promotions/conventions they all agreed that the soul reason they use Intel over AMD is compatibility between parts and the greater overall stability.

They said they don't have the nerves or time to mess with AMD's when putting together 200 pc's over a week's period. My DFI NF4 is still haunting my dreams, took me 1 month to tune it. Picture doing that 200 times, I would go crazy :confused:

And of course, Intel is Intel. When the average citizen hears 3,6ghz he nearly wets his pants, while hearing "3500+ 2,2ghz" he merely snorts.

Yes and many of these folks have AMD system at home.

I hear ya ("hear 3.6GHz) but the absolute number one selling processor in the world continues to be, you got it, the Celeron. I just worked on one for the last 3 hours, hehehehe!

Here's something for you to think about. It's not performance or folks getting excited by 3.6GHz, Intel sells more Celerons than all of their top 3 combined. I read somewhere than Intel sold more Celerons in one Quarter than AMD Hammers of all kinds that were sold in 6 quarters. IMHO, those kinds of numbers mean AMD's PR and Intel RAMPing up MHz was a waste of time. For every Gamer, there must be 175 web surfers or Grannies who think making an E Card means they're computer Savy. Hell, I know Hard Core users who think Games are for Kids and Geeks, as if Games were dirty or something.

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

Yes, I saw it. I'm basically very impressed with new Opty 252 0.09nm power consumition. Really fantastic for a top dual system, extremely fast, but cool, so you can enjoy a really quiet dual machine. A successfully process transition, without doubt.

WOW! I agree but I was expecting better. As Game PC (not the cheapest place) pointed out, both of these are $1000 dollar processors. Needless to say, I can't afford either of them. Two are way out of the question.

Donnie27

[grenadier]

I finally switched from my p4 setup to an a64 because I got sick of trying to deal with the heat / power consumption these prescott chips have. Simple as that. My P4 rig idled at ~155W.

My new A64 rig idles at ~75W :banana: . That's LESS than half the power usage of my old rig!

THIS IS AN EVEN BIGGER DEAL FOR DUAL CORE. The thought of buying a new chipset (945/955) just to support Intel's dual core chips and then having to stare a 130W TDP in the face made me cringe. We're talking like 200W+ load just for the processor :eek: because Intel's wattage rating system is such a joke! I have no idea how they're going to cool this much heat using air, but it's totally unacceptable. Upgrading to AMD dual core should be easy: upgrade my nf4 bios, pop out my 3000+, and pop in my 2.0Ghz X2 or whatever it ends up being called. Intel dual core on the other hand is going to need a new motherboard, new power supply, new cooling system, and some pretty impressive case airflow!

I haven't had an athlon since my slotA 600 :p: and I'm happy to be back. That is until Yonah shows up...

[perry_78]

Yes and many of these folks have AMD system at home.

I hear ya ("hear 3.6GHz) but the absolute number one selling processor in the world continues to be, you got it, the Celeron. I just worked on one for the last 3 hours, hehehehe!

Here's something for you to think about. It's not performance or folks getting excited by 3.6GHz, Intel sells more Celerons than all of their top 3 combined. I read somewhere than Intel sold more Celerons in one Quarter than AMD Hammers of all kinds that were sold in 6 quarters. IMHO, those kinds of numbers mean AMD's PR and Intel RAMPing up MHz was a waste of time. For every Gamer, there must be 175 web surfers or Grannies who think making an E Card means they're computer Savy. Hell, I know Hard Core users who think Games are for Kids and Geeks, as if Games were dirty or something.

Donnie27

Those are scary numbers - not to mention the CeleronD is probably the worst thing ever to come out of Santa Clara. The NetBurst technology demands Cache, which is one of the reasons why the new 6 series is so popular.

It's important to realise what the two companies want. Intel has and for a long while will be the crowd pleaser. AMD on the other hand obviously focuses on the enthusiast market. No offence to their Semprons, but they haven't pushed them nearly enough commercially. As long as AMD continues to do what it's good at it will survive and flourish. THe moment it starts trying to beat intel at its own game it is screwed. AMD is for those who understand what they are doing. Intel is for the average Joe who wants lots of MHZ (oh behave!).

When I put together pc's for people I usually go with Intel, unless it's people who trust me with what Iøm doing, then its A64. A64 setups need maintenance every 3 months or so. P4 setups run 3 years then drop dead.

[mdzcpa]

A64 setups need maintenance every 3 months or so. P4 setups run 3 years then drop dead.

I've been selling A64 systems for a year and a half now. Probably over 40 systems out there now. None....and I mean none...have required any maintainence at all. Not a single warranty issue on a mobo, ram, or CPU in any A64 box. My only warranty work on any of these systems was a single premature HD failure. And OS issues....zero.

I'm not sure how you're setting up your A64 rigs, but I think you're doing something very wrong if they "require maintenance."

That said, the Intel systems I've built have been just as trouble free.

[fordf250]

Reasons to go intel over amd, well I just went back and looked at this review of the 3200 a64 and compaired it to my 640 intel and some of my numbers are better.

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=230

both on air at max overclocks and me with an x800xt at 580/580 them with a 6800 gt at a little over ultra settings my Doom 3 demo at 1280 x 1024 and 2x aa is 86.7fps. With ati and intel, catalyst 5.2.
My superpi score unpached is 30s and patched is 27s intel is faster.
And my 3dmark score is also higher.

[perry_78]

I've been selling A64 systems for a year and a half now. Probably over 40 systems out there now. None....and I mean none...have required any maintainence at all. Not a single warranty issue on a mobo, ram, or CPU in any A64 box. My only warranty work on any of these systems was a single premature HD failure. And OS issues....zero.

I'm not sure how you're setting up your A64 rigs, but I think you're doing something very wrong if they "require maintenance."

That said, the Intel systems I've built have been just as trouble free.


MSI K8N NEO - DOA
MSI K8N NEO2 - DOA
Asus A8V - Died

The poeple I built them for succeeded in killing them quite well. I myself re-install benching windows every now and then to get rid of some of the stuff I dont like running in the back ground.

The primary reason is because after talking to the guy who gives me favourable deals on HW, he has a 20% higher RMA case with A64 setups over Intel P4 setups.

But it could be I'm just unlucky, you never know. You obviously have some good experience with A64 setups, I have had quite the opposite, and so have some admins/shop owners.

My own A64 is running fine, just tuning the DFI to run DDR600 2,5-3-3-7 stable was tricky ;)

[dssconsumer]

i would go amd when the dual core is out. i don't know what the prices will be but to go intel dual core is to spend money for motherboard and ram as well as amd. so the question for me would be what the wattage of the processor will be. one is for shure: the intel will be HOT! i do overclocking under phase-change direct die, the compressor is in my case and i see that amd fixed the sub zero bug. the system will be more efficient with 2X amd insted of 2X intel. i hate prescott core!
there is another consideration for me: the dothan core with the asus adaptor. maybe better this way. this proc will be deep frozen under phase-change, and how ever there is disadvantage with the 64-bit version of windows - will not run...so next year longhorn will be out and every game will be 64-bit, dual core optimized. video encoding is my priority, so dual core is essential for me. we will see when everithing is out and how it performs.

[someone124]

AMD's do not encode that much slower than Intels, they do encode somewhat slower, but not much, just because encoding depends on clock speed

HT won't help that much now because nothing is optomized for more than one thread, so when things do become optimized for multiple threads it will help, but by that time 2.8-3.8 GHz will be obsolete anyway

[Donnie27]

Those are scary numbers - not to mention the CeleronD is probably the worst thing ever to come out of Santa Clara. The NetBurst technology demands Cache, which is one of the reasons why the new 6 series is so popular.

It's important to realise what the two companies want. Intel has and for a long while will be the crowd pleaser. AMD on the other hand obviously focuses on the enthusiast market. No offence to their Semprons, but they haven't pushed them nearly enough commercially. As long as AMD continues to do what it's good at it will survive and flourish. THe moment it starts trying to beat intel at its own game it is screwed. AMD is for those who understand what they are doing. Intel is for the average Joe who wants lots of MHZ (oh behave!).

When I put together pc's for people I usually go with Intel, unless it's people who trust me with what Iøm doing, then its A64. A64 setups need maintenance every 3 months or so. P4 setups run 3 years then drop dead.

You got it! The only thing I disagree with is that I think they both are in bed with eachother more than either wants to admit in public. Just like any other company money comes first, second and third with all of them. There's no love anywhere to be found for anyone=P

I agree 100% that the Celeron D bites ;) I wonder what will happen as the Celeron gets 64bit while Simpr(O)ns are still without?

I've defended Intel in the past from stuff I thought (yes just me) was just wrong or BIASed. Man, what Intel has been doing lately though, makes me sick to the stomach and pissed.

1. 6xx series 64bit is not worth the added costs.

2. 2MB on the 660 in its current config is a Joke, also not worth the added cost.

3. For Intel to disable Hyperthreading on the DC 8xx Pentium D, then enabled it on the 8xx XE (Xtreme Edition) and charge about $350 more is a bad joke. :mad:

4. Sc-771, bad joke part#3

5. Fake updates and poor planning for the whole 915X/925X to 915/925XE, the i945/955, then what, i945X/955XE? Shame on you Intel.

6. The 3.73EE is total BS! (Can I say that saaya?) Even one Intel Reps I know thought it sucked!

The only question I have, is this C. Barrett's last screw ups or is the Paul Otellini seeing how much ripping off the market will bear? If it's the latter, then Intel will be in big trouble. Its new boss is FOS!

More should be done for PM, give northwood or the rumored NorthScott a second look? That's just a start LOL! Look at #6 again. Just think what would have happened if Intel did this same schlock when they moved to 800MHz? Hell, that's all the 3.73 is? 66MHz X 4 increase on the FSB!

Donnie

[i found nemo]

juliette why would amd need a maintnence every 3 months????? and well can't say nothin' about pentiums my system is well over 4 years old, runs smoothe like a 454, but bore is a bit washed out :)

[ieatrawbacos]

The way I see the only really viable benifit of a properly setup intel over a properly setup AMD is hyperthreading. It DOES help in multitasking and it DOES make many things smoother. To get the best multi-tasking perfromance out of my A64 I have to play with process priorities. It's just easyer to get multiple things running at once to be smooth on a P4.

Conversely, intels encoding advantage is not all that big. It's there, but the difference is quite small now. In pritty much everything else, P4s and A64s are tied, or the A64 has a significant advantage at it's pricepoint.

It's a rollercoaster ride for both companies. The AMD freaks trying to say their XP3200+s where just as fast all round as a 3.2C back when those CPUs where reasonably new, were all full of crap, or just plain fooling themselves. Some Intel fanatics are doing similar things now.

As for reliability, both types of CPUs and there platforms can be perfectly stable. It's easier for me to assemble an A64 that works correctly the first try, becuase I know more about them. People that know more about Intel setups likewise find seting up a stable system to be more hassle free with them.

[Nasgul]

When I put together pc's for people I usually go with Intel, unless it's people who trust me with what Iøm doing, then its A64. A64 setups need maintenance every 3 months or so. P4 setups run 3 years then drop dead.

Well, in 1999, I built a P3 500MHZ, 256MB PC100, TNT 2M 64, Sound Blaster Live!, Generic Case, 250W PSU, 15" SONY Trinitron monitor and just three months ago I took it to the local PC shop for recycling. In Sept. 2001 I built a P4 1.7GHZ (willamette), ASUS P4T 850, 512MB PC800 RDRAM, GeForce 3, AUDIGY card (OEM), Antec 1080SOHO w/430w PSU, 19" KDS and that system is still being used (after 4 years and 5+months) by my best friend. I built two celeron machines two and a half years ago and they are still going strong.......now, I can say that, perhaps the Intel systems dropping dead is because the builder DOESN'T know how to put systems together, let alone saying, it needs maintenace every 3 months?, what the heck is that? an OIL change?. What's next? the 30,000 mile tune-up?, timing belt change?

Reasons why I will never consider/recommend/imagine/dream of/building an AMD based system is because, AMD processor might be a tad faster than an Intel here in there but those benchmarks are so meaningless because the one and most important bechmark of them ALL is never there......the STABILITY AND RELIABILITY benchmark and that's where an AMD based system tends to fail, not all lof them but most of them . I've seen so many people crying over their newely-freshly build AMD machine is so pathetic, I laughs at those poor suckers whom were bamboozled into that "bang for the buck" crap.
Will I ever consider an AMD based system?, as long as INTEL releases a chipset that will be compatible with an AMD processor......YES!, but we all know that, that ain't gonna happen.

Current system: Built in Sept. 2004 Intel D875PBZLK, P4 3.2C, 1GB Corsair XMS, GeForce 6800 GT, AUDIGY, 2x120GB Raid 0, 1x200GB, 1x250GB, dvd/cd-rw combo, DVD-DL burner, Thermaltake Case, 480w PSU, wireless keyboard/mouse, Cambridge SoundWorks FPS2000 digital and a 22" MITSUBISHI monitor manufactured in 2000. Guess what?, I'll be knocking on your door in October of 2007, after 3 years and 30 days. :banana:

[i found nemo]

you o/c or leave it stock?

eventhough i'm going amd when i first found out that they copied intel in the begining, and had same stuff as them but "less reliable", i figured that i'd never turn down the road to amd, but that bang for the buck thing ur talkin' about. tha's what i'm falling for :) don't get me wrong my sisters pIII encoded videos @ 500 mhz faster(kumati core) than my k6-2 did at 600 which was the main reason i switched to pentium. but now the tables seem to have turned, as with pentium being the big block and amd being the small block but with nitrous always on, in the end if built properly they will both run neck and neck. so figure price/performance ratio, why not go amd....

[jaguarking11]

I have way too many machines that are intel based ranging from pentium 1 classics to a pentium 4 3.0c@3.6 with flavor from everything in between exept for the willamete core as that core was useless when a celeron tualatin cost me 150bux to upgrade my system to 1.4ghz vs the p4 1.4 was around 1800bux at least.

The only amd system I have is an old guena pig machine I recently rescued from the bin and she is a k6-2 350.

Now on the reliability note. I worked for a decent sized network for a while and still show up at the old jopb site to help my buddy out. and I can say this about amd machines they had, most of the machines died within a year or so. But yet there are still pentium 1 machines that are operational. And the AMD machines were ranging from 486dx4 amd's to athalon xp's. Now most of the systems have been replaced and all the old junk has been removed. Lets just say that the NYCBOE (newyork city board of education) stoped buying amd machines completly for the school system. IT all came down that the machines cost em less to buy but they cost almost 3x the price of the machine to maintain and replace prematuraly.

[i found nemo]

want a k6-2 500 mhz?? got one :)

[Donnie27]

I've had way more problems with VIA and even nForce ones than all other problems by a Factor of 3, sheesh!

Poor memory performance.
IRQs woudn't share.
Poor I/O.
Corrupted HDDs.
SB Live Problems with 686B, no, George Breeze patch didn't work.
Terrible USB performance, even burned up a HP 5100 scanner.
30 to 45 day reinstalls of Win98SE. Tied to both SBLive and crappy 686B.
Super 7 board and K6-2 that wouldn't run at 95MHz FSB.
Lock ups on my PR-150 that was slower than my Pentium 100 for most apps.
Processors (3 K6's and 2 TBirds) seemly dieing for no reasons.

Yet, I've still been through 15 AMD systems since 1994, I used to only keep a computer about 6 months, some only lasted 3 months.

I still have a Y2K model P3 550, Asus P3B-F with 512MB of Corsair PC-133, 45GB Deathstar IBM HDD, nVidia Ti-200 video card, Hercules 5.1 Sound card, Gigabit NIC, USR Modem, 8X NEC DVD Writer, Liteon 52X CD-RW/16XDVD ROM Combo. The base of the system is 5 years old and with RaidMax Case and 300W Antec PSU. Hasn't skipped a beat and had the same version of Win98SE for 4 years before I tried a linux install on it.

Donnie

[Donnie27]

In Sept. 2001 I built a P4 1.7GHZ (willamette), ASUS P4T 850, 512MB PC800 RDRAM, GeForce 3, AUDIGY card (OEM), Antec 1080SOHO w/430w PSU, 19" KDS and that system is still being used (after 4 years and 5+months) by my best friend.

YIKES! What are you doing with my wife's computer? :p:
1080 replaced the 300W PSU with a TTGI 520W.
512MB od RAMBUS
1.7GHz Willy.
Replaced the Asus P4T i850 with a Gigabyte i850E, never did buy a P4 B.
Audigy sound card
replaced the Ti-200 with a ATI 9700
and so on.

Most of this system was built in Oct-2001. It's where all the backups are kept. It has NEVER crashed or failed.

Donnie

[saratoga]

I've had way more problems with VIA and even nForce ones than all other problems by a Factor of 3, sheesh!

Poor memory performance.
IRQs woudn't share.
Poor I/O.
Corrupted HDDs.
SB Live Problems with 686B, no, George Breeze patch didn't work.
Terrible USB performance, even burned up a HP 5100 scanner.
30 to 45 day reinstalls of Win98SE. Tied to both SBLive and crappy 686B.
Super 7 board and K6-2 that wouldn't run at 95MHz FSB.
Lock ups on my PR-150 that was slower than my Pentium 100 for most apps.
Processors (3 K6's and 2 TBirds) seemly dieing for no reasons.



nForce boards use APIC so they don't have (or need) IRQ sharing.

[Donnie27]

nForce boards use APIC so they don't have (or need) IRQ sharing.

nForce 2 has APIC, too bad the processors (In this case AthlonXP) doesn't support APIC=P VIA boards for AthlonXP has APIC as well. Yup, you got it, same case. Depending on the App or apps, as much as a 25% performance hit can be caused with APIC enabled.

When I had only AMD systems, it was one of the first things I learned. VIA was WAREZERS and didn't like paying license fees to anyone=P So APIC, AGP Driving values, I/O, Memory Controllers and etc.. were reverse engineered. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. They used their customers as BETA testers. nVidia did the same thing for at least 3 years.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/IO-APIC.mspx

Windows 95/98 both have a design requirement to support Microsoft MS-DOS® device drivers. Because MS-DOS device drivers may assume that they can write directly to the 8259 PIC and its associated IDT entries, the APIC is, unfortunately, unsupportable on these operating systems.
and
PIC Hardware Can't Do Multiple Processors
The 8259 PIC is limited because it cannot be used in machines with multiple processors. ""Must use APIC for Multiple and HTT"

PIC (8259) Hardware Is Slow

The PIC interrupt controller has a built-in hardware priority scheme that is not appropriate for machines running operating systems based on Windows NT Technology. To address this problem, a different hardware priority scheme is used by the operating system.



What I tried to explain to STEVil on that other thread. Hyperthreading needs APIC enabled as well.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_xp3200new/2.shtml

To APIC or not APIC..


http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_xp3200new/6.shtml

Keep in mind that ContentCreation applications involve massive I/O traffic to the virtual memory and this is where disabling APIC could make a big difference. For comparison, we have numbers with and without APIC mode enabled to show the effect.

On the nForce2 chipset, it appears as if enabling APIC per se leads to some performance hit in I/O intensive applications since the system apparently prefers to run the old-fashioned 8259 PIC.

It is also called Advanced Peripheral Interupt Controller but the other easier to remember and means the same thing.

http://aoafiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14582

11th February, 2003, 12:26 PM
froudeg
Member Join Date: February 2003
Posts: 22


Sounds like you have APIC mode enabled (not to be confused with ACPI)....APIC mode is supposidly designed to releave IRQ problems. But comes with more problems itself (i had to reinstall without APIC mode as my sound card was having sound glitches and causing my game to stutter.

Unfortunatly if you install with APIC mode on, you will have to reinstall windows xp/2k before you can turn it off. APIC has a different HAL (hardware abstraction layer) to the normal ACPI one, forcing you to reinstall windows.

Its a pity EPOX have APIC mode on as default in the bios as many people then end up installing windows without realising this.


I tested my old Asus VIA and nForce boards and they did work better with APIC disabled=P This is why nVidia and VIA followed SIS and ATI with signing PCI/-Sig and Intel licenses for Industry Standards.

New nForce and VIA based mobos should have ALL of the same south bridge and hardware as their Intel conterparts now. This is a GOOD thing.

Donnie27

[saratoga]

nForce 2 has APIC, too bad the processors (In this case AthlonXP) doesn't support APIC=P VIA boards for AthlonXP has APIC as well. Yup, you got it, same case. Depending on the App or apps, as much as a 25% performance hit can be caused with APIC enabled.


Processors do not support APIC or PIC. The choice of CPU makes no difference at all, so I don't know what you're trying to say.

And a 25% performance hit from APIC is unreasonable. One of the ideas of APIC was to reduce latency, not increase it. If your system's performance is actually being effected by your interupt addressing scheme used by Windows, its pretty broken.

I tested my old Asus VIA and nForce boards and they did work better with APIC disabled=P This is why nVidia and VIA followed SIS and ATI with signing PCI/-Sig and Intel licenses for Industry Standards.



Its no secret that Intel did a better job then everyone else with APIC implimentation. Read through some of the NT guy's writings and you'll see that even MS isn't thrilled with how a lot of BIOS code was written. Thats not really an argument against APIC. Just an argument against poorly written BIOS code, and now that the transistion is over and nearly every machine on earth uses APIC its not too relevent.

New nForce and VIA based mobos should have ALL of the same south bridge and hardware as their Intel conterparts now. This is a GOOD thing.

What do you mean?

[Donnie27]

Processors do not support APIC or PIC. The choice of CPU makes no difference at all, so I don't know what you're trying to say.

And a 25% performance hit from APIC is unreasonable. One of the ideas of APIC was to reduce latency, not increase it. If your system's performance is actually being effected by your interupt addressing scheme used by Windows, its pretty broken.

Its no secret that Intel did a better job then everyone else with APIC implimentation. Read through some of the NT guy's writings and you'll see that even MS isn't thrilled with how a lot of BIOS code was written. Thats not really an argument against APIC. Just an argument against poorly written BIOS code, and now that the transistion is over and nearly every machine on earth uses APIC its not too relevent.

What do you mean?

That's just it LOL, it WAS broken. Last things first, Proper and or Good APIC support is ABSOLUTELY relevent=P

APIC suports Multi-processor, Multi-processors need APIC. It's clearly a two-way street. They both need eachother, that's what I mean, Processors have APIC built-in, or at least supposed to have it built-in. What do you mean APIC has nothing to do with the porcesor?

We tested my Asus P4T-E i850 with and without APIC but the system was much smoother/faster with it enabled. That's without HTT BTW.

I can't tell you how many folks I helped when they ran into the dreaded;

"I came from an AMD based system. I disabled APIC as I've always done, now I can't get Hyperthreading enabled on my 2.4C. What's wrong?"

Enabled HTT, Enabled APIC and reinstall windows was the answer.

Tested both VIA and nForce with it enabled and disabled, got the same results as Lost Circuits. I complained about AMD's poor APIC support before the i850 and this article BTW. Even the VIA P4 Boards worked with APIC and their AMD counterparts didn't work so well. That's why my Buds who tested it blamed the Processor. Some of the same South Bridges, APIC and BIOS settings had ZERO problems with Hammers and APIC enabled, ummmm, I wonder why?

So if you don't understand what I'm saying, here, see if you understand this?

http://www.adriansrojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/New_BIOS_Guide/APIC_Function.htm

The local APIC delivers interrupts to a specific processor so each processor in a system has to have its own local APIC. Therefore, a dual processor system must have two local APICs. Because a local APIC has been integrated into every processor since the debut of the original Intel Pentium P54C processor], there's no need to worry about the number of local APICs.

Get it?

No, MS and even the BIOS folks themselves weren't thrilled about almost any of the added features as BIOS jumpped for 256K to 4MB, I agree. MS (OS-Zilla)and the largest Chip (maker ChipZilla) have always had a Love-Hate Relationship, no secrete there either buddy! You think Intel like being told they must use AMD's x86-64 and not its EPIC based iA32-64?

Donnie

[Nasgul]

We've all seen the "reasons to go Intel over AMD" but this is what happens when You go AMD over Intel
Here, P4 prescot 2.8, and a 9800 pro to a amd 64 3000, chaintch mobo, 6800 GT (http://www.maximumpc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14701).
Bambozled by the "gaming" performance over "stability/reliable" performance.

Now, you know this is not the end of it......there are plenty more to come...Stay tunned, don't go away!!!. :D

[ieatrawbacos]

That has absolutely nothing to do with AMD or Intel.

Likely the guy damaged something, or simply doesn't know what he is doing. The simple fact that he tried to boot without reformatting in the first place after such a major hardware change virtually proves he (or she) is clueless.

There is no stability difference between the two makes of processors, unless you get a flatly defective part, wich is extremely rare, either and intel or an amd system will be 100% totally stable, IF they are assembled (this includes selection of proper parts to go along with the CPU as well) and setup correctly. I dare anyone to prove otherwise.

[alpha0ne]

We've all seen the "reasons to go Intel over AMD" but this is what happens when You go AMD over Intel
Here, P4 prescot 2.8, and a 9800 pro to a amd 64 3000, chaintch mobo, 6800 GT (http://www.maximumpc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14701).
Bambozled by the "gaming" performance over "stability/reliable" performance.

Now, you know this is not the end of it......there are plenty more to come...Stay tunned, don't go away!!!. :D

WTF does this have anything to do with this post :) ?? to me it seems like a n00b that has NFI how to change mobo/CPU etc

if he did not do a clean install from scratch then he is either getting very bad advise OR he is a fool :rolleyes:

[Donnie27]

We've all seen the "reasons to go Intel over AMD" but this is what happens when You go AMD over Intel
Here, P4 prescot 2.8, and a 9800 pro to a amd 64 3000, chaintch mobo, 6800 GT (http://www.maximumpc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14701).
Bambozled by the "gaming" performance over "stability/reliable" performance.

Now, you know this is not the end of it......there are plenty more to come...Stay tunned, don't go away!!!. :D

There have always been times to go back and forth between AMD and Intel based systems. With both leapfrogging eachother, I feel sorry for folks missing out on the best technolgy both AMD and Intel had on the markets. Being a hardware Biggot (hate for any Hardware company) is silly IMHO.

Donnie

[Lithan]

First, I don't know HOW you are having IRQ conflicts. I haven't seen a rig in ten years that couldnt properly share irqs. Last OS I had that problem with was windows 95.

Second, AMD rigs need no more maintainance then intel rigs. That is just a stupid accusation with no grounds in reality. As for rigs of either manufacturer dying after 3 years, my father has a p2 400 with a L&C 250watt PSU and the cheapest parts available for everything. He runs with an open case and no filters in a home with seven cats. He has no virus or firewall protection and has every sort of spyware available installed on his machine. In the six or seven years he has had it, the only parts that have died on him was a single stick of SDRAM. And there are plenty of people here who have been running overclocked tbirds and xp's nearly as long.

"Reasons why I will never consider/recommend/imagine/dream of/building an AMD based system is because, AMD processor might be a tad faster than an Intel here in there but those benchmarks are so meaningless because the one and most important bechmark of them ALL is never there......the STABILITY AND RELIABILITY benchmark and that's where an AMD based system tends to fail, not all lof them but most of them . I've seen so many people crying over their newely-freshly build AMD machine is so pathetic, I laughs at those poor suckers whom were bamboozled into that "bang for the buck" crap.
Will I ever consider an AMD based system?, as long as INTEL releases a chipset that will be compatible with an AMD processor......YES!, but we all know that, that ain't gonna happen."

I'm so sick of this crap. There is no bigger load of bull circulating on these forums then this. Some tool who's never used amd before buys the cheapest amd parts he can find because he's building a "value system" to overclock, overclocks it beyond stability, and just plain has no clue what the hell he's doing. So he sells the parts and goes around shouting about how amd's aren't stable and run too hot and cause cancer. I've seen it dozens of times. Frankly, anyone who still suggests that either chip have legitimate stability problems ought to be immediately ignored because they have no clue what they are doing or talking about.

[uclajd]

Dude, unless you have AMD stock or your Dad runs the company, you need to take two chill pills and call me in the morning. :rolleyes:

It's just silicon and copper people.

I'm so sick of this crap. There is no bigger load of bull circulating on these forums then this. Some tool who's never used amd before buys the cheapest amd parts he can find because he's building a "value system" to overclock, overclocks it beyond stability, and just plain has no clue what the hell he's doing. So he sells the parts and goes around shouting about how amd's aren't stable and run too hot and cause cancer. I've seen it dozens of times. Frankly, anyone who still suggests that either chip have legitimate stability problems ought to be immediately ignored because they have no clue what they are doing or talking about.

[Lithan]

Im perfectly calm, but such claims are crap and bull so I call them as I see them.

Edit: Oh and nazgul, you can't actually assume that the thread you linked has anything to do with AMD. It's A: The guy doesnt know how to format/reinstall, B: Bad or inproperly configured hard disk, or C: weak PSU. My guess is he has screwed up his boot partition while trying to cut corners in the upgrade or else he reinstalled one of his OS, not the other, then tried to boot from the one he hadn't reinstalled. (Yes he is probably that stupid.)

Pretty sad when even max PC knows more about building rigs then the guys you use as sources.

[jaguarking11]

There have always been times to go back and forth between AMD and Intel based systems. With both leapfrogging eachother, I feel sorry for folks missing out on the best technolgy both AMD and Intel had on the markets. Being a hardware Biggot (hate for any Hardware company) is silly IMHO.

Donnie

Totaly agree. And the whole thing about me bringing up amd based pc's going bad was a bad example as I lader thght about the problem and that was purely because the machines were the same make and modle down to the T. The amd based machines had bad mobos, but I have seen quite a fiew intels with the same problem.

I however still stand by my choice on the type of hardware I buy mainly because of comfort and also at some level bigotry. Intel and amd's have had flops in the past years and its nice to see such a close competition between the two, after all isnt the fude between amd and intel creating better hardware? Also its driving prices down. Both amd and intel drive prices down a conciderable amount every quarter, Lets all be thankfull that amd and intel relese chips quarterly and not anualy like in the old days.

On another note, this thread should be closed as its geting somewhat out of hand, and I do agree I have aded to the instability of this thread.

Now lets all take a breack and try our best to answer the original call of the thread and leve personal biast aside or else it will turn into a flame war.

[Nasgul]

Im perfectly calm, but such claims are crap and bull so I call them as I see them.
Edit: Oh and nazgul, you can't actually assume that the thread you linked has anything to do with AMD. It's A: The guy doesnt know how to format/reinstall, B: Bad or inproperly configured hard disk, or C: weak PSU.----- My guess is he has screwed up his boot partition while trying to cut corners in the upgrade or else he reinstalled one of his OS, not the other, then tried to boot from the one he hadn't reinstalled. (Yes he is probably that stupid.)
Pretty sad when even max PC knows more about building rigs then the guys you use as sources.
Um.. I said it wouldnt work when he would reformat and reinstall.
Second he did get a new power supply and is a Antec 480W power supply.
Should I revise it for you again?
-----------------------------------------------------------
With both leapfrogging eachother, I feel sorry for folks missing out on the best technolgy both AMD and Intel had on the markets. Being a hardware Biggot (hate for any Hardware company) is silly IMHO.


Sad when the point is being missed------by a mile, this is where everyone fails miserably to "base" their entire system over one single part/brand and think (I love that part "think"), that part as a whole is the miracle of what the system is. Just like buying anything else on the market, if ONE is better than the OTHER but if ONE tends to be more unreliable even though is better than the OTHER, why bother with ONE?, it is worth taking a chance over something that's a 50/50 chance it will or it will not work but still....it's a great little product, here take a chance. Read and comprehend the point in such previous post, it tends to understand a little bit more over "choices" and not "chances" and not bigotry (yes, 1 g and not 2). What's next? The geekaholic term BIAS?

[ieatrawbacos]

Now lets all take a breack and try our best to answer the original call of the thread and leve personal biast aside or else it will turn into a flame war.

I don't see that it ever really left topic. Nasgul gave a reason to go Intel over AMD that was plainly false and misleading.

A legit reason would have been simple familiarity with Intel, and unfamilarity with AMD. This is a good reason to go Intel if you do not want the hassles of adapting to change. Saying that AMD systems are inately inferior in reliability/stability is wrong. Saying that intel makes the only stable chipsets is also incorrect. I can build a 100% 24/7 stable Pentium 4 system that uses a ViA chipset. I can also build an unstable Pentium system, with an intel chipset, if I take stupid shortcuts.

Choosing a motherboard for an Intel system might be easier. You always have Intel branded boards to fall back, if you don't know enough about the various other options.

Intel systems (meaning hyper-threaded P4s in this case) are potentially better at multi-tasking thans single processor AMD systems.

Programs that are not latency, or branch mispredict sensitive, can take advantage of the P4s typically higher clockspeed.

In some cases, there are fewer memory compatability issues with Intel systems, esp when dealing with more than two double sidded dimms. AMDs on die memory controler is fast, but it can be picky, esp if the BIOS used with it has impropely configured timings. None of this really applies to Opteron vs. Xeon.

Price gap is not as big as it once was. The atmosphere is very competitive and hence you can get good deals on P4 processors.

The pentium-Ms are nearly the opposite of the P4s, they are crap multi-taskers (compaired to P4s or even A64s, I've used em). They don't have high clockspeeds and don't do many of the streaming/encoding stuff well. However they are very efficent in nearly all areas, power perfromance per clock, and thanks to the recent price drop, they are even competitive in price.

[Lithan]

Should I revise it for you again?
-----------------------------------------------------------


Sad when the point is being missed------by a mile, this is where everyone fails miserably to "base" their entire system over one single part/brand and think (I love that part "think"), that part as a whole is the miracle of what the system is. Just like buying anything else on the market, if ONE is better than the OTHER but if ONE tends to be more unreliable even though is better than the OTHER, why bother with ONE?, it is worth taking a chance over something that's a 50/50 chance it will or it will not work but still....it's a great little product, here take a chance. Read and comprehend the point in such previous post, it tends to understand a little bit more over "choices" and not "chances" and not bigotry (yes, 1 g and not 2). What's next? The geekaholic term BIAS?


I said "doesn't know how to" not didn't. And your point is invalid. The parts of a system you "build around" the processor must be selected for the appropriate processor, and most parts aren't so restricted. In fact, motherboards are the only part that typically is. So you have the choice of motherboard and cpu as a package (even if purchased seperately). Ironically, you dispute your own claimed "point" in that you use the intel chipset's benefits to sell the intel processor as superior. Also, you continue to be wrong about reliability. Both processors are superbly reliable. If they weren't, the companies that release them would be out of business. That's what happens when you provide a three year or better warranty on every product line that you release.


Oh and this was typed on a second hand 1700+ with a chipped core and silent hsf unit running on an $11 refurb via chipset mobo with 217days+ continuous uptime as data collector/server/web browser.

[Nasgul]

I said "doesn't know how to" not didn't. And your point is invalid. The parts of a system you "build around" the processor must be selected for the appropriate processor, and most parts aren't so restricted. In fact, motherboards are the only part that typically is. So you have the choice of motherboard and cpu as a package (even if purchased seperately). Ironically, you dispute your own claimed "point" in that you use the intel chipset's benefits to sell the intel processor as superior. Also, you continue to be wrong about reliability. Both processors are superbly reliable. If they weren't, the companies that release them would be out of business. That's what happens when you provide a three year or better warranty on every product line that you release.

What do you mean by "resctricted"?. Yes, Intel chipsets are the only reliable chipsets on the market. SiS and VIA are a joke. nForce is somewhat decent but only popular because it's the only chipset that it can make use of the full potential of the processor it's pair with. Hey! whatever happened to the VIA's SLI chipset or VIA's PCI-E motherbaords?, see the point?. Also I said I would consider an AMD processor as soon as Intel releases a chipset for it. I only use nVidia cards because they're stable and never-ever had a problem with them and wouldn't change that. But when it comes to the nForce chipset, for what I've seen at MAXIMUM PC Forum, there have been many people having issues with and still 1 post is made every week about someone having issues with an nForce 4 chip. I don't think it's an user issue, as every mobo comes with a MANUAL (printed in English). By the way, the nForce 3 Ultra was no exception either.

I have few other reasons why to build Intel over AMD but those are the same personal reasons why you and everyone else build what you want to build your system for.......

[Donnie27]

Totaly agree. And the whole thing about me bringing up amd based pc's going bad was a bad example as I lader thght about the problem and that was purely because the machines were the same make and modle down to the T. The amd based machines had bad mobos, but I have seen quite a fiew intels with the same problem.

I however still stand by my choice on the type of hardware I buy mainly because of comfort and also at some level bigotry. Intel and amd's have had flops in the past years and its nice to see such a close competition between the two, after all isnt the fude between amd and intel creating better hardware? Also its driving prices down. Both amd and intel drive prices down a conciderable amount every quarter, Lets all be thankfull that amd and intel relese chips quarterly and not anualy like in the old days.

On another note, this thread should be closed as its geting somewhat out of hand, and I do agree I have aded to the instability of this thread.

Now lets all take a breack and try our best to answer the original call of the thread and leve personal biast aside or else it will turn into a flame war.

Amen!!!!!!!!! There's only a problem when Fans don't like to be reminded of Crap from any company they are a fan of. There's more than enough to go around.

I'm going with an AMD processor for my next rig. I don't have to trash out Intel to use as motivation for my reason why. Just as if I were buying an Intel Processor, no need to bash AMD or their users.

There are many reasons or events that could have caused problems. One bad piece or RAM-system match, Processor-Mobo Match, Combinations of both, hell, even the wrong PSU. That's why I hate Fans, Intel and AMD fans. They sugar coat, lie and spin. Message boards use to be about if something sucked, folks said so. Now we have fans doing AMD and Intel spin better than AMD or Intel can themselve, sheesh!

Do you know that less than half of all PSU's have independant rails? Most of todays boards depend on this feature? Add in SLI and a whole new set of problems pop up.

There's crappy hardware all over the place, here's one for ya'. I bought an AOpen AX4C i875 Rev 1. The board absolutely sucked. ALL of my past AOpen boards rocked, IMHO was only a very close 2nd to Asus, my old Aopen BX crushed all comers and the guy I sold it to is still using it. Yet, the AX4C wouldn't run at 800MHz FSB for more than a two weeks to a month before it would corrupt the install as if it were overclocked. I had a bud try it after I replaced it with an Abit IC7 MaxII that I'm still using right now. That bud thought maybe it was some setting I was missing or etc.., nope! He had the same problems. I've set up about 50 i875s and none of them had problems like this one. I had one Intel Fanboy say I didn't know how to set it up, I didn't even reply to him. Sad part was, even when it worked, it was slower than every other i875 I've tested, as if it were running in some kind of stability mode. There were later AX4C that were fixed and AOpen has stead fastly said there's nothing wrong with the first one. Owners and Ex-owers know better.

So, if some guy bought one of these POS AX4C Max boards, would it be fair to say all i875's Sucked and Intel sucked? I don't think so, so some of the newer nForce board should be seen in the same light so to speak. The first Gigabyte boards sucked as well. MSI, Abit Asus and other had great boards right out the gate. But if some one threw up their hand and gave up after the first board, they'd have missed out on some great i875 boards and kick-ass NorthwoodC as well. This might be the point some of these guys are trying to make. I wish folks wouldn't act as if AMD is their mother or sister and act like some one is talking about screwing them. Some folks take this stuff way too personal.

I've enjoyed my NorthwoodC for the last two years (23months). I've had this one system longer than any of the previous 15, except for my P3 550 CuMine/Asus P3B-F. Mine cost less because I didn't have to upgrade.

BTW, I sold that AOpen AX4C to a lady that's running a 2GHz NorthwoodA on it and she is loving it.

Donnie

[Lithan]

What do you mean by "resctricted"?. Yes, Intel chipsets are the only reliable chipsets on the market. SiS and VIA are a joke. nForce is somewhat decent but only popular because it's the only chipset that it can make use of the full potential of the processor it's pair with. Hey! whatever happened to the VIA's SLI chipset or VIA's PCI-E motherbaords?, see the point?. Also I said I would consider an AMD processor as soon as Intel releases a chipset for it. I only use nVidia cards because they're stable and never-ever had a problem with them and wouldn't change that. But when it comes to the nForce chipset, for what I've seen at MAXIMUM PC Forum, there have been many people having issues with and still 1 post is made every week about someone having issues with an nForce 4 chip. I don't think it's an user issue, as every mobo comes with a MANUAL (printed in English). By the way, the nForce 3 Ultra was no exception either.

I have few other reasons why to build Intel over AMD but those are the same personal reasons why you and everyone else build what you want to build your system for.......

I can't clarify "restricted" any more then a dictionary could. And no, both via and Nvidia release fine chipsets. Via's are traditionally more lower-middle market focused and certainly not tailored for overclockers, and they have in the past released buggy chipsets. Nvidia is a better chip builder then intel in my opinion, but its a personal preferance. Both produce unerringly stable chipsets, I think nvidia provides better features and support to third party manufacturers. The reason maximum pc forums have people with problems is because maximum pc forums is full of ignorant people. People who shouldn't be building their own systems in the first place. What you need to understand, is that there are hundreds of users on this forum, thousands (last I looked) on Overclockers and anandtech, and hundreds of thousands across the net and world who have no problems with their amd systems. The symptoms you are seeing make it blatantly obvious this is not a stability (or QC) problem but instead a problem of you singling out the complaints against amd by ignorant users and ignoring the same against intel. In short, it's all in your head because you have convinced yourself of it.

[cirthix]

We've all seen the "reasons to go Intel over AMD" but this is what happens when You go AMD over Intel
Here, P4 prescot 2.8, and a 9800 pro to a amd 64 3000, chaintch mobo, 6800 GT (http://www.maximumpc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14701).
Bambozled by the "gaming" performance over "stability/reliable" performance.

Now, you know this is not the end of it......there are plenty more to come...Stay tunned, don't go away!!!. :D

lets not post 'horror stories' because they don't add anything useful to the discussion. there are plenty to be found on each side

and people, lets not make this a flamefest

as for stability, cpus from both amd and intel do their job, at stock frequencies, just fine. if they run prime fine for a day at stock, it proves that the system (excluding video card, other cards, and drives) is stable. nearly all the cpus from both amd and intel that are sold can do this. the ones that can't are returned as defective or never sold at all OR are set up incorrectly (example: set to run too fast, given too little voltage, etc). both companies test designs for thousands upon thousands of hours before they even bother making large numbers of chips. motherboard companies do the same, along with graphics cards and every other component. basically, there is no difference in stability between the two platforms (not quite the right word, but it fits sort of).

we can all think of examples where an amd system lasted longer or an intel system outlived its competition and post it here, but the fact is that you are effectively doing is wrong. you are effectivly taking a study that you conducted, surely not in a scientific manner, with an extremey small sample size, and posting the results in a public place, as fact. if you've ever taken a stastics course, you would realize that comparing two things out of a pool of tens of millions is not enough to generalize into predictable results for the rest of that pool, and is therefore worthles to do.

the only things that matter about a cpu are stability, speed, physical attributes, price, and support

stability, as it was said above, is great from both intel and amd cpus, and is effectively equal between them

speed, go look at benchmarks, but be careful to look at important benchmarks (like the ones most similar to the things you will be doing). while comparing the speed of cpus, you have to be careful about when and how you generalize things, as i've heard many people earlier in this thread say "intel is faster at encoding, amd is faster at gaming". this is false, intel is faster at some games and amd in some encoding apps. performance is APPLICATION specific, not GENERAL CATEGORY specific. sure, a program can be optimized for either cpu, but because there are so many programs in a general category of programs, you can't make a generalization

physical attributes, such as heat matter, and are measureable, most important of them is heat. size only really matters for those really small notebooks.

Heat: prescott uses 100+ watts depending on the model, a64s use less than 70 watts, and dothans use less than 21 watts. i think its obvous why i dislike prescott and like dothans and turions (and venice too)

Physical size: if we are dealing with desktops, it doesnt matter really, but in notebooks, they are all pretty small, so i'd say they are all equal

support: i don't know, but i'd expect good support from both

price: its easy to compare this, its just a straight number.

make your own decisions, but based on price/performance/heat, i'd say that the a64(and its derivatives, like turion) and dothan(and its derivative, the

[Lithan]

Good post cirthix. I remember when Intel released their 3.73 cpu or something like that and it was something nuts like 120watts typical output. There was a thread about it (on anandtech I think) and I saw no less then five people who had ragged on Thunderbirds (which were what, about 60-70watts TPD?) for running too hot saying that thermal output doesn't matter. It was a laugh. Wish I had it saved.

[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.

Well, you were right and Legit review shows the same 42 secs as that screen shot shows.

P4EE 840 is said to have an MSRP of $999 or roughtly the going rate of the 3.73EE that should see a price cut of about $70 US dollars. Or So one VAR says. They said AMD is tight lipped and has NOT released any price.

Again, message boards are about getting good info out and your was correct (on this one). Good Call!

Donnie27

[IluvIntel]

OK, my 2 cents,

I bought this Intel based rig (see sig - PC1) last year in December only because I wanted to have PCI-Xpress Architecture MoBo, DDR2 and because of Hardware stability issues that favoured Intel at that time. Asus MoBo are always updating there BIOS's too, since buying this board, I have counted 6 BIOS updates. Proof that they are always refining the platform the the LGA775 chip has to push along and thus making it perform smoother and faster overall.

Now I have been a heavy gamer on this rig all the way through a hot Australian Summer in a house with NO A/C, the only CPU cooling is a crappy underpowered TT Aquarius III W.C. I played the latest game releases at the time eg: HL2, Doom3 and slightly older FarCry (March 04' release - a game which punishes any CPU and GPU) I only play my games at the same resolution as my desktop 1280x1024 and have moderate eye candy on (2xAA, 4xAF) and I can only say that this whole rig has performed flawlessly. People please note that I am not focusing solely on the CPU, But the WHOLE system as it is - the CPU being an important feature, but NOT the total show.
The only reason I got intel, like I said in my first paragraph is because they adopted cutting edge PC technologies and bought them to maket BEFORE Amd did. Now, having said that - everyone on this forum knows the LGA775 500 chips produce mega heat, but if thats the only drawback then thats fine, I can live with that.
At the moment, I'm just letting PC1 crunch scientific data in climate modelling all day, every day for about 15-16 hours AND playing games sporadically at high resolutions and moderate eye candy when I get the chance in my routine. I swear to God there is NO slow down on anything which I can consiously detect.

My point is Intel won me over because they were first off the bat and I have not been disappointed.

ahhhh, got that off my chest :clap:

[ingentingmendeg]

i have to agree with you, intel is much better than amd IMO., heres what i think of AMD.... :frag:
:shoot: :confused2

[jaguarking11]

i have to agree with you, intel is much better than amd IMO., heres what i think of AMD.... :frag:
:shoot: :confused2

No ofense but that is kind of ignorant.... Both have plus and minus parts to them but focus is on what you really want to do. Allot of people game and they may coose amd for its architecture and some people do bussiness related activities and rendering and they choose AMD... Now in a perfect world there would be amtel or intmd or something that does both well. That being said I have used both and im more familiar with intel versus AMD.


Another thing I want to point out is that people should not really make a decision on the chip they want to use because it runs too hot.... I remember amd being the but of that excuse and I for one ran with it untill I realised that the core that amd was making could withstand the temps just fine and it gave me the sense that the whole temp thing is bs. That being said intel has revised their prescott chips to run mutch cooler than before and amd has their temps under control as well. I personaly see no problem in runing a cpu at 60c as long is it can take the heat and keep chuging. My buddys amd system idles at about 50c and loads in the neighberhood of 66c with a stock running chip and stock amd fan, and as far as I am concerned that chip is rock stable. My cpu runs at 33c load (p4 3.0c@ 3.6ghz) and it crashes if I up the speed of it higher no matter what voltage I use.

Now to end my ranting I have to say that both manufacturers do make great chips and being a fanboy of one company is very stupid as that could limit your choices. I made that mistake when I bought my fx5900xt being that I was a nvidia fanboy and wanted nothing but nvidia chips and I must say a 9800pro of the same price would perform a bit better but after ocing it, it was able to perform the way I wanted it.... I have lerned and I will be buying my next gen card not for the company but for the bang for the buck this poor student can aford. As for my next cpu... I dont know yet as my pc is not going to get a major overhaul untill 64bit becomes mainstream and software is readily available for it.... In short another 1.5 years of wait time for me.
:toast:

[ingentingmendeg]

No ofense but that is kind of ignorant.... Both have plus and minus parts to them but focus is on what you really want to do. Allot of people game and they may coose amd for its architecture and some people do bussiness related activities and rendering and they choose AMD... Now in a perfect world there would be amtel or intmd or something that does both well. That being said I have used both and im more familiar with intel versus AMD.


Another thing I want to point out is that people should not really make a decision on the chip they want to use because it runs too hot.... I remember amd being the but of that excuse and I for one ran with it untill I realised that the core that amd was making could withstand the temps just fine and it gave me the sense that the whole temp thing is bs. That being said intel has revised their prescott chips to run mutch cooler than before and amd has their temps under control as well. I personaly see no problem in runing a cpu at 60c as long is it can take the heat and keep chuging. My buddys amd system idles at about 50c and loads in the neighberhood of 66c with a stock running chip and stock amd fan, and as far as I am concerned that chip is rock stable. My cpu runs at 33c load (p4 3.0c@ 3.6ghz) and it crashes if I up the speed of it higher no matter what voltage I use.

Now to end my ranting I have to say that both manufacturers do make great chips and being a fanboy of one company is very stupid as that could limit your choices. I made that mistake when I bought my fx5900xt being that I was a nvidia fanboy and wanted nothing but nvidia chips and I must say a 9800pro of the same price would perform a bit better but after ocing it, it was able to perform the way I wanted it.... I have lerned and I will be buying my next gen card not for the company but for the bang for the buck this poor student can aford. As for my next cpu... I dont know yet as my pc is not going to get a major overhaul untill 64bit becomes mainstream and software is readily available for it.... In short another 1.5 years of wait time for me.
:toast:

im sorry to be rude, but its just MO.

[jaguarking11]

im sorry to be rude, but its just MO.

Thats fine but what I was trying to say in my long winded post is that keep your options open and never say never. That being said I have owned nothing but intels personaly but I have used and built amd setups and I must say they are pretty good as well.

[ingentingmendeg]

Thats fine but what I was trying to say in my long winded post is that keep your options open and never say never. That being said I have owned nothing but intels personaly but I have used and built amd setups and I must say they are pretty good as well.

i understand, ive built amd for people to. its just u would rather prefer intel.

[Gaspar]

OK WOW! This thread should be in a heated debates forum but anyway IL add. I have owned quite a few intel rigs and just recently have moved over to AMD. I will say this. Intel in my opinion does feel a bit smoother while doing many things at once, albeit.. AMD does definately feel a bit more punchier with apps. IN gaming Hands down AMD wins, gameplay feels more fluid. I have an FX55@3ghz and I had an Intel 3c @4ghz. The AMD feels fater at times. Boot times seem lower, temps are lower and such. AMD has been a lot funner to OC and seems to require a bit of finnese. As far as my next CPU purchase I guess it all depends on who offers the most at the time. It seems CPU manf seem to offer features that are really meaningless seeing we really dont utilize them as the software is generally about a year behind the cpu features. So with that in mind. Im still waiting for apps to USE HT and to Use 1mb to 2mb cache and 1gb of memory and SSE3. so :stick:

[alpha0ne]

i have been an intel and AMD user though mainly intel the last two years with intel drawing me back with dual channel and HT + ICH-5

i would NEVER buy preschott BUT the ICH-6 looks good (i have just bought an 915 chipset with an 478 socket, Albatron 915G4 Pro just to try in place of my IC7) but intel IMHO really did have their stupid hat on when some tool decided to only incorporate 1 single IDE channel :rolleyes:

it may be OK for OEM's but for an enthusiast 1 IDE is just not enough, also using SATA when above 250MHz has been a nono on 6 out of seven boards i have used :(

[gokickrocks]

cubase sx 2 with multiple instances of reaktor felt (never measured, so this is strictly my opinion) like it ran smoother on my previous p4 2.4c rig (currently i have an a64 3200)

note: for those that dont know what those apps are that i mentioned, they are for music production

[Donnie27]

i have been an intel and AMD user though mainly intel the last two years with intel drawing me back with dual channel and HT + ICH-5

i would NEVER buy preschott BUT the ICH-6 looks good (i have just bought an 915 chipset with an 478 socket, Albatron 915G4 Pro just to try in place of my IC7) but intel IMHO really did have their stupid hat on when some tool decided to only incorporate 1 single IDE channel :rolleyes:

it may be OK for OEM's but for an enthusiast 1 IDE is just not enough, also using SATA when above 250MHz has been a nono on 6 out of seven boards i have used :(

I still have an Abit IC7-G Maxx II and its been at 251 since about July 03. It was fiirst overclocked in May of 03. I didn't trust 267 because even with the BUS locked my HDD did crash but was saved. The system seems very happy at 251/3.26GHz where it runs cooler than a stock 3.2GHz C model CNPS 7000A vs. Stock clooler HAHAHA!

Donnie27

[yasoumalaka]

AMD is better for gaming. If your bored just go frag somebody's mother or something.

[Lithan]

My point is Intel won me over because they were first off the bat and I have not been disappointed.

ahhhh, got that off my chest :clap:



Uhhh duuuuude. The only advantage of PCI-e over agp right now is SLI which AMD had first. And DDR is still better then DDR2.

Intel was first to bat with technologies that were unnecessary and caused performance losses. Good for them?

[metro.cl]

intel pentium m are really nice chips watch out amd :)

[Donnie27]

[QUOTE=Lithan]Uhhh duuuuude. The only advantage of PCI-e over agp right now is SLI which AMD had first. And DDR is still better then DDR2.

Intel was first to bat with technologies that were unnecessary and caused performance losses. Good for them?[/QUOTE

Ummm, that's not quite true. i7525 shipped with SLI first. MaxPC's Mag has it on the front of the magazine for the Gear of the Year edition. So there should be a qualifier of some sort on your statement. I wouldn't call SATA, PCI-E, Hyperthreading (which also leads to Multi-threading for Dual cores) advancements of DDR 1 (AMD had DDR1 first, it didn't get pushed faster until Intel invested money there) and DDR2. If this were up to poor broke assed AMD, developement would be years away. AMD is known for jumpping in after others have provided the R&D sweat and money. Sure some folks don't understand what sucks about doing business or etc..like that. :nono:

Donnie27

[jaguarking11]

ddr2 when fully unleashed can provide more memory bandwidth than ddr1. It is not uncomon to run ddr700 with ddr2 and enough voltage. And the 9x series chipset is a first gen ddr2 chipset so its not mature as ddr1. And as usual amd will jump in the bandwagon with ddr2 when intel has perfected it and it wont provide near as mutch bandwidth as intel, as usual.

I seem to remember amd doing the same thing with ddr1 and they were still using pc133 sd ram on their systems.

[Donnie27]

ddr2 when fully unleashed can provide more memory bandwidth than ddr1. It is not uncomon to run ddr700 with ddr2 and enough voltage. And the 9x series chipset is a first gen ddr2 chipset so its not mature as ddr1. And as usual amd will jump in the bandwagon with ddr2 when intel has perfected it and it wont provide near as mutch bandwidth as intel, as usual.

I seem to remember amd doing the same thing with ddr1 and they were still using pc133 sd ram on their systems.

Yup, both nForce4 and 955 are getting better bandwidth numbers, still room for improvement though.

Donnie27

[alpha0ne]

ddr2 when fully unleashed can provide more memory bandwidth than ddr1. It is not uncomon to run ddr700 with ddr2 and enough voltage. And the 9x series chipset is a first gen ddr2 chipset so its not mature as ddr1. And as usual amd will jump in the bandwagon with ddr2 when intel has perfected it and it wont provide near as mutch bandwidth as intel, as usual.

I seem to remember amd doing the same thing with ddr1 and they were still using pc133 sd ram on their systems.

YOU REALLY ARE BRINGING THESE GREAT FORUMNS DOWN TO YOUR OWN LEVEL WITH THIS intel FANBOY CRAP

WHAT A LOAD OF IT :rolleyes:

[IluvIntel]

Has anyone here ACTUALLY used a PCI-Express, DDR2 and LGA775 platform for everyday multitasking AND gaming with the manufacturers latest drivers and Bios updates? or are we just bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:ting from crap we have heard from mates and lies from the I.T. grapevine.
When I gave my post #154 above, I was speaking from first hand practical experience so I believe I'm in the best positon to comment on these technologies.

[Donnie27]

YOU REALLY ARE BRINGING THESE GREAT FORUMNS DOWN TO YOUR OWN LEVEL WITH THIS intel FANBOY CRAP

WHAT A LOAD OF IT :rolleyes:

3.73EE--If you find someone who has actually bought this CPU-- I have a few overpriced underperforming things that I'd love to get rid of too

If it bothers you it enough that it causes you to shout, please go back to the AMD side of the Forum and read AMD FANBOY CRAP! :rolleyes:

Donnie27

[Lithan]

ddr2 when fully unleashed can provide more memory bandwidth than ddr1. It is not uncomon to run ddr700 with ddr2 and enough voltage. And the 9x series chipset is a first gen ddr2 chipset so its not mature as ddr1. And as usual amd will jump in the bandwagon with ddr2 when intel has perfected it and it wont provide near as mutch bandwidth as intel, as usual.

I seem to remember amd doing the same thing with ddr1 and they were still using pc133 sd ram on their systems.



Didn't donnie just say in the post above yours that amd had DDR1 support first?


Donnie, yeah you're probably right about the xeon having SLI first. I don't pay much attention to high end server/workstation parts. So add in the qualifyer that AMD was first to market with affordable and home-pc sli support. My first S-ata hard disk will be arriving tomorrow. The only reason I like Sata over P-ata is the smaller cables. Performance-wise AMD was on board LONG before S-ata had better drives then P-ata. And of course, like DDR2, price premium was absurd right after it was released. I don't agree that amd "jumps on board." Optimizations of the x86 structure maybe. But actual hardware chip developments, amd is miles ahead of intel (and has been since the Thunderbird). The opteron/hammer is by far the most technologically daring and advancing chip in my lifetime. In fact most of amd's "jumping on board" is due to a delay in motherboard manufacturers offering support for certain products. Sata and PCI-e have nothing to do with amd. DDR2 amd has explained and most would agree with their decision that it's overpriced and underperforming. And when these two things change, they will look at it again. I don't know any AMD users who want amd to switch to DDR2 now. Hell, use of DDR1 is an ADVANTAGE of amd at the moment.

Oh yeah, and multithreading predates hyperthreading by just a touch... a decade or two, who's really counting. And it was probably alpha who developed it, though it might have been intel or some other proprietary chip maker.

[Donnie27]

Come on Lithan, DDR800 PC-1600, RAMBUS and even the first PC-100 went through the same growing pains. DDR PC-1600 wasn't any faster than PC-133 at the time. They tweak, it gets faster, we enjoy, hehehehe!

AMD didn't have the money, the Manpower or sales to move that market forward with DDR. Intel moved that market forward after giving up on RAMBUS. For AMD to sit back and enjoy the gains and spoils of others R&D might be great for AMD but not to the rest of the market. Intel spent about 1 billion prior to i875/i865 launching. Or we might be still using PC-2700 or just now reaching PC-32000 with higher CAS latency setting.

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

Has anyone here ACTUALLY used a PCI-Express, DDR2 and LGA775 platform for everyday multitasking AND gaming with the manufacturers latest drivers and Bios updates? or are we just bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:ting from crap we have heard from mates and lies from the I.T. grapevine.
When I gave my post #154 above, I was speaking from first hand practical experience so I believe I'm in the best positon to comment on these technologies.

It will always come down to What app and how that app is ran=P The two architectures are so different that's it's almost like Intel and AMD made a deal to run certain apps faster so they could split the market between themselves. Even all the money Apple spent on the "Switch" ads and "Fastest Personal Coputer in the world" couldn't changed that.

AMD's memory and other markets are hurting them more that Processor and etc.. sales.

All of this stuff is fast and IMHO, way to many folks take Geek Nit Pickin' way too far and personal.

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

Has anyone here ACTUALLY used a PCI-Express, DDR2 and LGA775 platform for everyday multitasking AND gaming with the manufacturers latest drivers and Bios updates? or are we just bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:ting from crap we have heard from mates and lies from the I.T. grapevine.
When I gave my post #154 above, I was speaking from first hand practical experience so I believe I'm in the best positon to comment on these technologies.

It will always come down to What app and how that app is ran=P The two architectures are so different that's it's almost like Intel and AMD made a deal to run certain apps faster so they could split the market between themselves. Even all the money Apple spent on the "Switch" ads and "Fastest Personal Computer in the world", couldn't changed that.

AMD's memory and other markets are hurting them more than Processor and etc.. sales where they did OK.

All of this stuff is fast and IMHO, way to many folks take Geek Nit Pickin' way too far and too personal.

Donnie27

[Lithan]

Intel sells a lot more chipsets then AMD, so they of course have more influence on when Memory technology will change. But with DDR1 the reason intel caused the advancement of it was that it just happened to raise FSB first, largely because it's processors weren't performing well enough at 133. Until the northwood C came out, amd really didn't have any need to increase bus speed past 133fsb. The way I figure it happened was since intel went to market with 166 and 200 bus chips first, they set release dates for B's and C's which got a standard for pc2700 and then pc3200 named in order for memory producers to be able to profit off of pc2700 and pc3200, since there was so little demand for it before (we all know how great running FSB async with memory works on Athlons). In that way they might have directed the forwarding of ddr technology, but I don't think they actually contributed anything to the technology itself as you seem to suggest.


Sad part is the flash memory profits were being dragged down by amd's processor's losses, and now the tables have turned. Amd heads gotta be thinking they can't win right about now.

[Donnie27]

Intel sells a lot more chipsets then AMD, so they of course have more influence on when Memory technology will change. But with DDR1 the reason intel caused the advancement of it was that it just happened to raise FSB first, largely because it's processors weren't performing well enough at 133. Until the northwood C came out, amd really didn't have any need to increase bus speed past 133fsb. The way I figure it happened was since intel went to market with 166 and 200 bus chips first, they set release dates for B's and C's which got a standard for pc2700 and then pc3200 named in order for memory producers to be able to profit off of pc2700 and pc3200, since there was so little demand for it before (we all know how great running FSB async with memory works on Athlons). In that way they might have directed the forwarding of ddr technology, but I don't think they actually contributed anything to the technology itself as you seem to suggest.


Sad part is the flash memory profits were being dragged down by amd's processor's losses, and now the tables have turned. Amd heads gotta be thinking they can't win right about now.

WOW! I couldn't agree more. You're right, they didn't do much but they invested cash so the Hynix, Samsung, and Micron/Inc. THese companies could then go back and do it right! Keep in mind though even the Inquirer said Intel sent engineers as well. Don't forget that during the 80's Intel manufactured RAM. This time though, I read they mainly tested what was being built. After they and Micron kissed and made up, Intel invested, not loaned, 400 million to keep them out of the red.

I'm at a stand-still with picking my next hardware (Processor, Motherboard and Video Card)! I want to go AMD because I really enjoy having both. I'm stuck between going cheap and waiting for Dual or going a little better and putting off Dual until next year when prices are better. Right now just doing Venice and waiting seems like what I'd like to do. As I told the others, I plan on installing and using both of these computers for everything but mainly for what they're good at.

Donnie27

[Lithan]

Ahh, I didn't know intel gave grants to DDR companies. That's good.

I'm sitting on my winchester right now. Though if Intel gets smart and puts out a desktop chipset for dothans, a 1.4ghz dothan + good overclocking desktop board would be tempting. I saw the asus adapter, but I'm a little concerned about a socket adapter. I remember a few guys who had big problems with slockets back in the day.

[IluvIntel]

It will always come down to What app and how that app is ran=P The two architectures are so different that's it's almost like Intel and AMD made a deal to run certain apps faster so they could split the market between themselves. Even all the money Apple spent on the "Switch" ads and "Fastest Personal Computer in the world", couldn't changed that.

AMD's memory and other markets are hurting them more than Processor and etc.. sales where they did OK.

All of this stuff is fast and IMHO, way to many folks take Geek Nit Pickin' way too far and too personal.

Donnie27


I only made the points I stated because reading through this thread gave me the impression that others were persuaded by:

1. computer magazine journalists

2. Friends with AMD CPU based rigs

3. Laboratory controlled benchmark testing

4. More friends who have/had Intel based rigs and experienced slow/hot system performance (always due to a myriad of other technical issues eg. software problems, mismatched case and/or fans)

5. other strings of 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand news.


The performance of a computer is the sum of ALL its parts. At the time I bought PC1 (see sig) Intel just happened to have what I considered the best value for your technology dollar. If AMD did that, then I would have gone with them.

Like any modern high technology product, the reality of using it in everyday life will always be different to what any source can tell you :)

[Donnie27]

Ahh, I didn't know intel gave grants to DDR companies. That's good.

I'm sitting on my winchester right now. Though if Intel gets smart and puts out a desktop chipset for dothans, a 1.4ghz dothan + good overclocking desktop board would be tempting. I saw the asus adapter, but I'm a little concerned about a socket adapter. I remember a few guys who had big problems with slockets back in the day.

I like Dothan but strictly for low power and gaming. For thoses uses I can't justify that price at all. More power to those who can though, I envy them. I've only seen one Dothan setup in a Desktop rig. That tiny heatsink, the almost noiseless system and a danged 300W PSU almost drew me in too! Then, the streaming tests started and I was like, on well, better luck next time.

Besides a buget box, I don't see myself ever bulding an AthlonXP. I wanted an Athlon64 since at least the nForce3 250GB and nForce 4 Ultra put me over the top. As I told you 5 months ago, it's been about Platform and I heard about the improved memory controller on Venice itself months ago as well.

So, I've not just been waiting on a New Processor, but the new platforms as well. I like what serveral sites have said about SATA-II and NCQ. Don't think I'll mess with SLI! I would like to keep one of each systems to have the best of both. Don't need the absolute fastest anything.

Donnie27

[ingentingmendeg]

right now, the fastest cpu for gaming is The Intel Pentium M at 2.6Ghz with the asus adapter. yay! go Intel :banana:

[Donnie27]

I only made the points I stated because reading through this thread gave me the impression that others were persuaded by:

1. computer magazine journalists

2. Friends with AMD CPU based rigs

3. Laboratory controlled benchmark testing

4. More friends who have/had Intel based rigs and experienced slow/hot system performance (always due to a myriad of other technical issues eg. software problems, mismatched case and/or fans)

5. other strings of 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand news.


The performance of a computer is the sum of ALL its parts. At the time I bought PC1 (see sig) Intel just happened to have what I considered the best value for your technology dollar. If AMD did that, then I would have gone with them.

Like any modern high technology product, the reality of using it in everyday life will always be different to what any source can tell you :)

I typed you this nice letter and didn't save, pressed enter, then got the dreaded Invalid Thread error, sheesh!

In short I'll just say I mostly agree with you. Where I don't, comes from me playing with and even testing my friends computers. I like Hardware more than I like Intel or AMD. If AMD or Intel BIASed folks think either is great at everything, they have a serious problem IMHO!

I have a P4 that's almost two years old. Even though it has seen serveral refresh type updates, its core was purchased in May of 03. It's been dependable and faster than most AMD fans think. As a whole P4 are faster and the Hammers are more stable than any fans are ready to admit. My current system will be come a HTPC while, the newer one will become a Gamer, office and etc. PC. If I already had a A64 Gamer Rig, then this new one would be Intel based=P I see ZERO reason to go with Intel or AMD exclusively =P That's is the first mark of a Fan Boy. :nono:

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

right now, the fastest cpu for gaming is The Intel Pentium M at 2.6Ghz with the asus adapter. yay! go Intel :banana:

But it gets killed with streaming apps. Then try to use it in the ultimate SLI config? Oh, that's right, you can't!

Donnie27

[Lithan]

Yes, Power usage and thermal properties are a big reason for my interest in Dothans. My main concern after performance with systems right now is silence and power consumption. Price is the one big downer for Dothans right now, maybe they'll release a 1mb cache version that will be cheaper.

[ingentingmendeg]

But it gets killed with streaming apps. Then try to use it in the ultimate SLI config? Oh, that's right, you can't!

Donnie27

rofl, SLI = total waste of money

[Donnie27]

rofl, SLI = total waste of money

SLI is not a waste of money for those folks wanting the Best looking fastest FPS.

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

Yes, Power usage and thermal properties are a big reason for my interest in Dothans. My main concern after performance with systems right now is silence and power consumption. Price is the one big downer for Dothans right now, maybe they'll release a 1mb cache version that will be cheaper.

The noisest thing in my computer is the Old ATI 9800 Pro. I didn't think the newer ones were than bad at all.

1.6GHz Dothan is below $200 but that's the 400MHz FSB model. Either way, I'll pass on this one.

Donnie27

[Turok]

If AMD had comercials for all the consumer n00bs buying Dells, they may sell more than Intel since they are cheaper, faster in games, and people care more about game performance than unzipping performance (an example).

If your going to encode, decode, listen to music, and use photoshop all the time, and have the money, then get a Intel,
but if youre a hardcore gamer, or like playing games and dont care much about opening photoshop a micron of a second slower, and want to save money, then AMD is for you.

I think AMD is the best, because I think gaming performance is more important than encoding music a micro sec faster, and AMD's future plans make more sence than upgrading everything just for BTX, 64 bit P4's, and slower dual core intels, wile at the same time AMD changes to Dual core with a impressive advantage vs Intels DC and you dont have to upgrade your board if you have a S939 board

[Lithan]

Amds between a rock and a hard place. 1. They dont sell enough to advertise like intel can. 2. If they borrow the money, advertise and make deals with oems to steal some of intel's business... then they wont be able to produce enough chips to keep up with demand and the OEMs will go right back to intel. It's called a monopoly. Japan already punished intel for it, I suppose their anti-anti-business laws are stricter than ours.

Compair Prescott to A64

Advantages of intel:
Hyperthreading (I think it's a joke but some people swear by it).
Most of the more popular home use a/v/enc/dec programs perform better on intel.
Price is more steady

Advantages of AMD:
Beats intel in most games and business apps and the spread increases nearly every quarter.
When price dips, it is a substancial value over intel
Still uses DDR1, so if you are using a ddr1 rig upgrade will be cheaper. Also, performance is better in 99% of instances.
Runs cooler
Uses less power
SLI support is available now
Upgrade path is more promising (64 bit capability is proven, many future procs including dual core will function on current motherboards)


(Needless to say I am not a fan of prescotts. I keep them about on par with Willy's, Covington's and early (66mhz) C2's. I think they are underperformers when the current market is considered. They also have massive power and heat issues that no one seems willing to acknowledge.)

Even with all this considered, Prescotts still outsell A64's by an "assload". Because Amd simply isn't ready to feed the market in the way intel can. Now as CPU stocks shift to dividend stocks, it wont necessarily be good for amd, but the huge shrink in market size will be MUCH worse for intel and will actually open some opportunities to amd (Grab market share FAST before the dip in sales settles out). You can see amd's strat is to get ready to take a bigger bite of the oem and server markets and intels strat seems to be to grow their other markets: Reflected in mobiles. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel tries to release a graphics processor that's more than just an onboard gpu slapped onto a card like they've been releasing.

[ingentingmendeg]

alright, lets just get this thread over with. "the reasons to go Intel over AMD" is, INTEL IS BETTER!!! ok are we done now?

[Donnie27]

Amds between a rock and a hard place. 1. They dont sell enough to advertise like intel can. 2. If they borrow the money, advertise and make deals with oems to steal some of intel's business... --->
(Needless to say I am not a fan of prescotts. I keep them about on par with Willy's, Covington's and early (66mhz) C2's. I think they are underperformers when the current market is considered. They also have massive power and heat issues that no one seems willing to acknowledge.)

Even with all this considered, Prescotts still outsell A64's by an "assload". Because Amd simply isn't ready to feed the market in the way intel can. Now as CPU stocks shift to dividend stocks, it wont necessarily be good for amd, but the huge shrink in market size will be MUCH worse for intel and will actually open some opportunities to amd (Grab market share FAST before the dip in sales settles out). You can see amd's strat is to get ready to take a bigger bite of the oem and server markets and intels strat seems to be to grow their other markets: Reflected in mobiles. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel tries to release a graphics processor that's more than just an onboard gpu slapped onto a card like they've been releasing.

I'm not a Fan of anything, I didn't like Prescott either, but the last Prescotts Do run somewhat cooler, has 64bit, 2MB of L2 and the top models cost less than their AMD counterparts.

Strike 1. I didn't buy one because I didn't like that Intel raised the prices that much over the older Prescotts and Northwoods.

Strike 2. Intel should be raked over the Coals for 3.73GHz P4 EE and how they're trying to sale this to so called "Gamers Processor". Let's see, what is 3.73GHz P4EE. This processor is more than likely a 3.6 or 3.4GHz P4 600 series processer at 800MHz FSB. It is then Down Clocked to its *Safety Feature-throttledown multiplier of 14, then the FSB is rasied to 1066.7. ALL Prescotts should be at 1066MHz FSB by now. If Intel wanted an EE version, they should have given it EE features like a larger cache, a 1200MHz FSB or etc......

Strike 3. Sell the almost free Hyperthreading feature, that does work and works well BTW, as a Value added feature on it Dual Core models.

Old hatred and etc. is useless. I could sit here and bee-ach about AMD's 380MHz K6-2 that wouldn't run at 95MHz FSB. The fix AMD sent me was to run it at 66.7 FSB and no refund LOL! I could have bought the cheaper 66 FSB from the start, sheesh! The $327 I spent is most I've ever spent on a processor for my personal use.

There's enough sleeze to go around. I still bought other AMD processors, just as I will buy from Intel again as well. I wish there a 3 or 4th company that would kick both of the @$$es. Then I could make a clean start.

What Intel does in Business is not much different than what Coke and Pepsi does LOL!

Donnie27

[Lithan]

Holy crap 327$ for a k6-2? I would have bought P2 for that. I think I paid shy of $200 for my k6-2 350. And are you sure it was the proc? Most of the people I knew with that problem had boards with no 1/3 pci divider.

Intel's dropped the 4ghz Prescott right? What's their next desktop chip going to be?

[PetNorth]

I'm not a Fan of anything, I didn't like Prescott either, but the last Prescotts Do run somewhat cooler, has 64bit, 2MB of L2 and the top models cost less than their AMD counterparts.

nooooooooo lol Where do you buy? ;-)

For example, Monarch (all boxed):

A64 4000+ $532
P4 660 $639

A64 3800+ $366
P4 650 $413

A64 3500+ $270
P4 640 $282

A64 3200+ $195
P4 630 $258

[perkam]

This argument wont be decided until the Smithfield and the Toledo dont go one on one against each other. ;)

Until then its quite useless to try and declare any side the winner.

Though I will say this, my next pc WILL be an AMD for my own reasons, but the Intel 9xx dual cores will be the Presler...a 4MB L2 Cache monster. :eek:

Perkam

[jumanji969]

With deals like this (http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=120421&Category_Code=AMD64), I didn't even think there is an option...

[Donnie27]

nooooooooo lol Where do you buy? ;-)

For example, Monarch (all boxed):

A64 4000+ $532
P4 660 $639

A64 3800+ $366
P4 650 $413

A64 3500+ $270
P4 640 $282

A64 3200+ $195
P4 630 $258

I buy from Monarch, Directron and mostly from Newegg. Have used XtremeGear and GameVE as well. Again the architechtures are way the hell too different to try your style of price matching. One it looks great and the next app it looks stupid!

It could be seen as kind of unfair that you'd pick the newest P4s vs. the older Athlon64s. Let's see what Mr. Venice sells for!

$450 - Pentium 4 570 3.8GHz LGA775
$339 - Pentium 4 560 3.6GHz LGA775
$243 - Pentium 4 550 3.4GHz LGA775
$199 - Pentium 4 540 3.2GHz LGA775
$165 - Pentium 4 530 3.0GHz LGA775
$149 - Pentium 4 520 2.8GHz LGA775

Now see how whacky AMD's price look? The 4000+ cost more than everything on that list. Thank Goodness for games.

There's one simple point AMD leaning folks who think they know better than most consumers keep missing time, after time, after time. It's simple as this. Most folks buying processors figure if something is priced like Intel, they may as well buy Intel. Doesn't matter if it's Flash memory or whatever else.

Donnie27

[jumanji969]

It could be seen as kind of unfair that you'd pick the newest P4s vs. the older Athlon64s. Let's see what Mr. Venice sells for!

The venice core cpu will cost relatively the same as their winchester counterparts, the obvious price gouging will happen though at first.

[Donnie27]

Holy crap 327$ for a k6-2? I would have bought P2 for that. I think I paid shy of $200 for my k6-2 350. And are you sure it was the proc? Most of the people I knew with that problem had boards with no 1/3 pci divider.

Intel's dropped the 4ghz Prescott right? What's their next desktop chip going to be?

No, not really at that time, the P2 400 sold for $525 (OEM) if I remember correctly. It was next to the top of the line at that time and seen as a steal! The real rip-off of $140 for the 128MB (2 64mb sticks) of Newly launched PC-100. Other prices included $279 for a 4GB WD HDD, $89 for a Memorex CD-ROM (24X I think). That K6-2 model launched at something like $350. Remember what I said about Early Birds getting the *Worm? I replaced it with a P2 350 = $270 (after a price cuts and waiting 2 months while prices went down from about $435)

Yes Intel dropped the 4GHz, IMHO, it was more to do with Marketing than anything else. Folks at this site pretty much prove that everyday. Yet, Intel didn't followthough, they slipped back into their old ways instead of planning to clean up their act, they only acted greeeeeedy.

The bigger question, will AMD follows them? I'm not about to say the early Venice prices are OK!

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

The venice core cpu will cost relatively the same as their winchester counterparts, the obvious price gouging will happen though at first.

Of course! They don't who they stick to or what fans they stick it to.

Donnie27

[PetNorth]

It could be seen as kind of unfair that you'd pick the newest P4s vs. the older Athlon64s.

No, I've picked P4s you've referred. Remember your statement:

but the last Prescotts Do run somewhat cooler, has 64bit, 2MB of L2 and the top models cost less than their AMD counterparts.

[Donnie27]

No, I've picked P4s you've referred. Remember your statement:

Gotcha!

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

No, I've picked P4s you've referred. Remember your statement:

Oh, while we're talking Prices.

ZDNet (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=812975#post812975)

Expected pricing for the processors ranges from $851 for the Opteron 265 to $1,299 for the Opteron 275. For more powerful chips in the 800 series, prices range from $1,514 for the Opteron 865 to $2,649 for the Opteron 875.

$825 - Opteron 252
$610 - Opteron 250
$439 - Opteron 248

Never mind the 4/8-way systems and these are Opterons!

Current speculation projects that Opteron x65, x70, and x75 processors will run at 1.8, 2.0, and 2.2GHz, respectively. Given those clock speeds, a dual-core Opteron 265 could cost more than four times as much as a single-core Opteron 244, which also runs at 1.8GHz. However, there appears to be a chance that early adopters will get a bit of a price break.

So;

$439 - Opteron 248
$307 - Opteron 246
$203 - Opteron 244

Take your pick?

Now, will desktop models be that much cheaper?

Donnie27

[PetNorth]

LOL of course, a lot much cheaper ;-)

And about Opteron DC, they aren't official AMD prices. May be some mistake(s). I mean, 800-series DC expected prices probably are correct. 200-series DC, probably not. We've to wait and see.

[Donnie27]

LOL of course, a lot much cheaper ;-)

And about Opteron DC, they aren't official AMD prices. May be some mistake(s). I mean, 800-series DC expected prices probably are correct. 200-series DC, probably not. We've to wait and see.

Hehehe LORL! I don't know either way, but if prices are anything close to these, they suck hehehehe! If the market goes along with this, I'm sure Intel will like that a lot and follow right along in their footsteps. Hey, afterall, these are business' and not anyone's friend.

Donnie27

[Nasgul]

Compair Prescott to A64

Advantages of intel:
Hyperthreading (I think it's a joke but some people swear by it).
Most of the more popular home use a/v/enc/dec programs perform better on intel.
Price is more steady

Advantages of AMD:
Beats intel in most games and business apps and the spread increases nearly every quarter.
When price dips, it is a substancial value over intel
Still uses DDR1, so if you are using a ddr1 rig upgrade will be cheaper. Also, performance is better in 99% of instances.
Runs cooler
Uses less power
SLI support is available now
Upgrade path is more promising (64 bit capability is proven, many future procs including dual core will function on current motherboards)


:argue:

HTT is there and it useful (not for Games obviously).
Media encoding always best on Intel.
Business apps better on Intel NOT amd. PCMARK04.
$30 more?, well at least you get what you paid for. A 3,000mhz cpu not a 1,800mhz (a.k.a. 3000+).

A64
The only benchmark amd users have to be proud of...well, XBOX is much cheaper and yes, XBOX has 10x more game titles than PC.
Build a $1200 machines so you can say "Hey!, I play HL2 10% faster than an Intel"....again. XBOX is much cheaper and you can hook it to a 50+ inches screen......not a lame 18".
You still have a choice to run a Prescot on DDR1.
AMD runs cooler?........lol, all 90nm amd's run on cool n quiet and still they run above 40C to 45C. This is a Pentium 4 630, PRESCOTT by the way, and running at 27C idle (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v655/dob1224/27C.png)
Uses less power, sure it may but pretty much everyone is buying PSU well above 480 watts so it wouldn't matter if it uses 20 more watts or 40 for that matter.
SLI is a joke, $700 for a set of two video cards....sure: buy a geforce 6800 now and add another one later, well guess what the new tech shows this new card is better than two GeForce 6800. As we all know SLI is not future proof because as of right now Two GeForce 6600 GTs are faster than a SINGLE GeForce 6800 GT, that's fact.
I like how everyone is saying "upgrade to dual core, bla, bla, bla, bla..." when amd HAS NOT said a word about their dual core. So keep dreaming.

AMD processors are lame, not even with their "integrated memory controller" and 7x larger L1 cache cannot outperform Intel in each and every benchmark. Heck, the only benchmark it outperforms an Intel is GAMES but that's because games only benefit from memory bandwidth not clocks which Media apps and office apps benefit from clock speed (something AMD cannot get straight). Then again.......my XBOX games are much better than any PC game ever and it's cheaper than any single AMD cpu.

By the way, IBM borrowed $300M to amd (saved amd from extinction) three years ago, when the Athlon XPs were being :slapass: by Intel (and almost nobody bought Athlon XPs) and lord and behold, the Athlon 64 became.

The A64 is nothing more than an Athlon XP with an Integrated memory controller and a heat-spreader with a larget L1 and L2 cache and X64 extension, still running at 200mhz fsb (2K with HTT). Throw in a re-named core and now small die-size also.

The new Prescotts 6 series are much better, run much cooler than any AMD ever and yes SLI will always be a joke (unless my games don't get 200% faster with two cards it will be a joke to shell out $300 for a 15% increase, then again AMD users like to say they play faster, when faster is only 10%).

Now, go play in your $1200 game console. hmm...HL2 that's about it. :hehe:
get an XBOX for crying out loud.

[PetNorth]

Hehehe LORL! I don't know either way, but if prices are anything close to these, they suck hehehehe! If the market goes along with this, I'm sure Intel will like that a lot and follow right along in their footsteps. Hey, afterall, these are business' and not anyone's friend.

Donnie27

Yes this is business, and server/workstation market much more lol

[PetNorth]

:argue:

HTT is there and it useful (not for Games obviously).
Media encoding always best on Intel.
Business apps better on Intel NOT amd. PCMARK04.
$30 more?, well at least you get what you paid for. A 3,000mhz cpu not a 1,800mhz (a.k.a. 3000+).

A64
The only benchmark amd users have to be proud of...well, XBOX is much cheaper and yes, XBOX has 10x more game titles than PC.
Build a $1200 machines so you can say "Hey!, I play HL2 10% faster than an Intel"....again. XBOX is much cheaper and you can hook it to a 50+ inches screen......not a lame 18".
You still have a choice to run a Prescot on DDR1.
AMD runs cooler?........lol, all 90nm amd's run on cool n quiet and still they run above 40C to 45C. This is a Pentium 4 630, PRESCOTT by the way, and running at 27C idle (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v655/dob1224/27C.png)
Uses less power, sure it may but pretty much everyone is buying PSU well above 480 watts so it wouldn't matter if it uses 20 more watts or 40 for that matter.
SLI is a joke, $700 for a set of two video cards....sure: buy a geforce 6800 now and add another one later, well guess what the new tech shows this new card is better than two GeForce 6800. As we all know SLI is not future proof because as of right now Two GeForce 6600 GTs are faster than a SINGLE GeForce 6800 GT, that's fact.
I like how everyone is saying "upgrade to dual core, bla, bla, bla, bla..." when amd HAS NOT said a word about their dual core. So keep dreaming.

AMD processors are lame, not even with their "integrated memory controller" and 7x larger L1 cache cannot outperform Intel in each and every benchmark. Heck, the only benchmark it outperforms an Intel is GAMES but that's because games only benefit from memory bandwidth not clocks which Media apps and office apps benefit from clock speed (something AMD cannot get straight). Then again.......my XBOX games are much better than any PC game ever and it's cheaper than any single AMD cpu.

By the way, IBM borrowed $300M to amd (saved amd from extinction) three years ago, when the Athlon XPs were being :slapass: by Intel (and almost nobody bought Athlon XPs) and lord and behold, the Athlon 64 became.

The A64 is nothing more than an Athlon XP with an Integrated memory controller and a heat-spreader with a larget L1 and L2 cache and X64 extension, still running at 200mhz fsb (2K with HTT). Throw in a re-named core and now small die-size also.

The new Prescotts 6 series are much better, run much cooler than any AMD ever and yes SLI will always be a joke (unless my games don't get 200% faster with two cards it will be a joke to shell out $300 for a 15% increase, then again AMD users like to say they play faster, when faster is only 10%).

Now, go play in your $1200 game console. hmm...HL2 that's about it. :hehe:
get an XBOX for crying out loud.


LOL!!!!!!!! oh my god!!!! what a funny!!! :p:

[RAMMAN]

greater overclockability of course!

[Disposibleteen]

My contribution is going to be that they tear through D2OL way better than any AMD chip can, especially the pressies with HT!

[Donnie27]

HAHAHAHA!

Donnie27

[Disposibleteen]

HAHAHAHA!

Donnie27
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :stick: :stick: :stick: :stick:

[IluvIntel]

My contribution is going to be that they tear through D2OL way better than any AMD chip can, especially the pressies with HT!

uhhh, I'm still not up with forum lingo, whats D2OL ? ( he states from the Intel scientific crunching powerhouse LGA775 O/C'd 560) :p:

[jaguarking11]

That last post by Nasgul, was very interesting at his point of view. And he does make some valid points. Now im wating for the thread to go to crap and the flame war begin.

Btw Nasgul, your point of view is valid and I comend you for expressing it especialy since I share your point of view. Coolness.

[Disposibleteen]

uhhh, I'm still not up with forum lingo, whats D2OL ? ( he states from the Intel scientific crunching powerhouse LGA775 O/C'd 560) :p:
D2OL is a distributed computing app that looks for candidates for major illnesses, we have our own team, look for all needed info here (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=43195)

That last post by Nasgul, was very interesting at his point of view. And he does make some valid points. Now im wating for the thread to go to crap and the flame war begin.

Btw Nasgul, your point of view is valid and I comend you for expressing it especialy since I share your point of view. Coolness.
the only thing that i didnt like about his view was his saying that Xbox was better than PC, the graphics on Xbox are crap compared to my X800 pro and that isnt even a top of the line video card!

[jaguarking11]

D2OL is a distributed computing app that looks for candidates for major illnesses, we have our own team, look for all needed info here (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=43195)


the only thing that i didnt like about his view was his saying that Xbox was better than PC, the graphics on Xbox are crap compared to my X800 pro and that isnt even a top of the line video card!

Well yes and no, Games are plentifull in the console market and the hardware changes arent as frequent and expensive as in the pc market. That being said, having a high end videocard and cpu will give you a wonderfull gaming experience in some games, but allot of pc games dont match the popularity of a console game.

[IluvIntel]

[QUOTE=Disposibleteen]D2OL is a distributed computing app that looks for candidates for major illnesses, we have our own team, look for all needed info here (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=43195)


OK, thanks Disposibleteen, guess I need more PC's - these ones (PC1, PC2) are already flogg'in it to the max in worthy causes. :)

[Disposibleteen]

i realize that more games are available for xbox but this is only becuase not enough people have the CPU performance to run them well, and when you buy an Xbox game you know it will run as good as it can look on you xbox right out of the box, its just less of a hassle.

[QUOTE=Disposibleteen]D2OL is a distributed computing app that looks for candidates for major illnesses, we have our own team, look for all needed info here (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=43195)


OK, thanks Disposibleteen, guess I need more PC's - these ones (PC1, PC2) are already flogg'in it to the max in worthy causes. :)
Thats a shame, if you ever have a spare PC come on over and give us a try :up:

[Donnie27]

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :stick: :stick: :stick: :stick:

I laughed at the XBox line!

Here's something.

Dell PC (http://www1.us.dell.com/content/top...s=19&l=en&s=dhs)



The NEW DimensionTM XPS Generation 5!

Be the envy of your friends with the latest DimensionTM XPS extreme gaming and enthusiast PC featuring Intel's latest 955X chipset.

The latest Dimension XPS desktop is designed with the power and performance for even the most demanding gaming and multimedia applications. The new Intel 955X chipset provides support for the new dual-core processors with Hyper Threading technology so customers can play intensive 3D games while performing other tasks such as burning music CDs with ease. The new chipset also supports dual channel DDR2 Memory at speeds up to 667 MHz for rich game play and fast performance. Customers can also choose high performance PCI Express graphics cards, 7.1 surround sound, and Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 for a realistic, home-theater experience.

The Dimension XPS Gen 5 will continue to come standard with our dedicated XPS telephone support and stunning arctic silver chassis! Features include the NEW Intel 840 Extreme Edition processor

Copy and Pasted from a another poster on HardOCP.

Donnie27

P.S. No more NDAs on Tuesday, there will more than likely be more reviews.

[IluvIntel]

D2OL is a distributed computing app that looks for candidates for major illnesses, we have our own team, look for all needed info here (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=43195)


the only thing that i didnt like about his view was his saying that Xbox was better than PC, the graphics on Xbox are crap compared to my X800 pro and that isnt even a top of the line video card!

Yeah, unless you played a late release game on modern Hightech ( does'nt have to be the absolute latest, ala - came out last week or yesterday gear) PC with a strong setup for gaming, you have no idea what your miss'in. Intel setups and AMD setups can both perform flawlessly to the Human conscious mind, only in labs, will you see very minor Frames Per Second variations - and there not noticiable when your fragg'in like mad in a First Person Shooter :fact: :D

[Lithan]

Quote: Nazgul

:argue:

HTT is there and it useful (not for Games obviously).

-Arguably. Generally the only way it's advantages can be proven is intentionally exploiting windows task assignment problems or running two intel-optimized apps over eachother. No one has yet shown a benchmark that would actually be a typical example.


Media encoding always best on Intel.

-Most programs run better on intel, these tend to be the most popular programs because most people own intel. There are some programs that run better on amd.


Business apps better on Intel NOT amd. PCMARK04.

-Intel has not been in the lead in business app benchmarks since the Slot A Athlon was released. PCmark is wholly synthetic.


$30 more?, well at least you get what you paid for. A 3,000mhz cpu not a 1,800mhz (a.k.a. 3000+).

-Huh? Where did I say $30 more? And your statement ranks right up there with the stupidest things ever said on this board. Be proud.

A64
The only benchmark amd users have to be proud of...well, XBOX is much cheaper and yes, XBOX has 10x more game titles than PC.

-Ok, the thing you said about mhz falls to second. This is the stupidest thing ever said on this board.


-Build a $1200 machines so you can say "Hey!, I play HL2 10% faster than an Intel"....again. XBOX is much cheaper and you can hook it to a 50+ inches screen......not a lame 18".

Goddamn it, ok the mhz thing is third now.

-You still have a choice to run a Prescot on DDR1.

True, but motherboard choices are very limited. It's about the same situation I'd expect with trying to find an new AMD motherboard with AGP two or three years from now.


AMD runs cooler?........lol, all 90nm amd's run on cool n quiet and still they run above 40C to 45C. This is a Pentium 4 630, PRESCOTT by the way, and running at 27C idle

Uhh, wow... Ok the mhz thing is 4th now.
Everyone, Prescotts with heat outputs of something like 80-110watts typical run cooler then Winchesters with heat outputs of 67watts maximum... because nazgul said so! He has a SS of hardware monitor to prove it!

Uses less power, sure it may but pretty much everyone is buying PSU well above 480 watts so it wouldn't matter if it uses 20 more watts or 40 for that matter.

-Power comes from that magical tree in your backyard where money comes from. It must be nice to live in fantasy land where everyone owns 500watt PSU's that aren't overrated and can actually supply a consistant 400+ watts without dipping. You do know that L&C sells more desktop PSU's then fortron right?


SLI is a joke, $700 for a set of two video cards....sure: buy a geforce 6800 now and add another one later, well guess what the new tech shows this new card is better than two GeForce 6800. As we all know SLI is not future proof because as of right now Two GeForce 6600 GTs are faster than a SINGLE GeForce 6800 GT, that's fact.
I like how everyone is saying "upgrade to dual core, bla, bla, bla, bla..." when amd HAS NOT said a word about their dual core. So keep dreaming.

-Ok, so you call SLI useless, then you say that two midrange cards are faster than a top of the line cards (thus demonstrating a "use" for it), as you say, "that's fact".
And amd has already said that current 939 boards will support dual core with a bios patch. But thanks for trying we have some lovely conciliatory prizes for you. Here, have this bucket of mud. It's full of muddy-goodness. Mmmm. Mud!


AMD processors are lame, not even with their "integrated memory controller" and 7x larger L1 cache cannot outperform Intel in each and every benchmark. Heck, the only benchmark it outperforms an Intel is GAMES but that's because games only benefit from memory bandwidth not clocks which Media apps and office apps benefit from clock speed (something AMD cannot get straight). Then again.......my XBOX games are much better than any PC game ever and it's cheaper than any single AMD cpu.

-There wasn't a single accurate statement in that entire paragraph. That's gotta be some kind of record for a non-political post.


By the way, IBM borrowed $300M to amd (saved amd from extinction) three years ago, when the Athlon XPs were being :slapass: by Intel (and almost nobody bought Athlon XPs) and lord and behold, the Athlon 64 became.

-I know there was a point in there somewhere. Wait a minute... are you saying that investment in technical development leads to the design of the fastest processor family available for purchase?! You monster!


The A64 is nothing more than an Athlon XP with an Integrated memory controller and a heat-spreader with a larget L1 and L2 cache and X64 extension, still running at 200mhz fsb (2K with HTT). Throw in a re-named core and now small die-size also.

-Ok, fifth.


The new Prescotts 6 series are much better, run much cooler than any AMD ever and yes SLI will always be a joke (unless my games don't get 200% faster with two cards it will be a joke to shell out $300 for a 15% increase, then again AMD users like to say they play faster, when faster is only 10%).


- I'm beginning to suspect that you are mentally challenged.


Now, go play in your $1200 game console. hmm...HL2 that's about it. :hehe:
get an XBOX for crying out loud.

[boban10]

Nasgul: i dont remeber if i see some more pro Intel Fanboyism in one post in my entire life....

you take the record...for most pro Intel fanboy post of all the time... :D

and now the reviews of some apps, that A64 is so much behind P4:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_13.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_14.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_16.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_17.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_18.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_19.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_20.html
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/1174/8.html
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/1174/9.html
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/1174/10.html
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353&p=7
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353&p=8
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353&p=10
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353&p=11
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050221/images/image033.gif
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050221/images/image035.gif
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/pentium4-600/index.x?pg=11

(i did not included video encoding tests , because P4 is clear leader in these...in almost all codec and apps available from 5-20% and i did not included games test, because A64 is leader in these...)

and here some test of temperatures and Power Consumption of the Pentium 4 6XX processors

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_7.html
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=p4ee373&page=3
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353&p=4
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/pentium4-600/index.x?pg=16

is all black and white like you say in your post ????

[IluvIntel]

This is unreal - we have done 223 posts (including this) and as far as anyone knows - next week or the week after, Intel or Amd could drop a bombshell on the other. whooooaahhhh

[Lithan]

First Amd dual caore benches should be out soon. And the Dothan adapter should be out soon. Don't see anything outside of those two dropping any huge bombshell. And both of those are fairly small bombshells if you ask me. Dual core's fancy and all but I doubt many people are actually going to buy it in the next few years, and Dothan adapter is basically an overclocker/tweakers toy... big news here maybe but not overall.

[IluvIntel]

I would'nt try and predict the future - its dangerous business. Commercial confidentiality is utmost in any game. A week to two weeks in the I.T game can change the landscape in significant ways, maybe only for us tweakers and tech heads, but still a change is a change.

[Donnie27]

I would'nt try and predict the future - its dangerous business. Commercial confidentiality is utmost in any game. A week to two weeks in the I.T game can change the landscape in significant ways, maybe only for us tweakers and tech heads, but still a change is a change.

It's not predicting the future but nothing more than speculation, half of the messages on message boards are speculation of some sort.

I hope the other guy was Joking, honestly, I got a good laugh from it. There are things I Like and Dislike about both processors.

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

Yeah, unless you played a late release game on modern Hightech ( does'nt have to be the absolute latest, ala - came out last week or yesterday gear) PC with a strong setup for gaming, you have no idea what your miss'in. Intel setups and AMD setups can both perform flawlessly to the Human conscious mind, only in labs, will you see very minor Frames Per Second variations - and there not noticiable when your fragg'in like mad in a First Person Shooter :fact: :D

Thought this was neat!

From the Inquirer.

http://www.heise.de/ct/05/09/022/bild.jpg

Donnie

[IluvIntel]

I'm gunna hang out till' the end of the year or so before my next major upgrade. In the meantime I'll be studying the developments of Intel and AMD throughout.
Don't know what AMD are going to do around that time (Xmas or NY) so far, Intel are outlining the "Presler" series for Q1 06' and they look pretty interesting.
I'll just keep flog'in me 500 series chips with all day, everyday, multitasking till' then. :)

[IluvIntel]

Thought this was neat!

From the Inquirer.

http://www.heise.de/ct/05/09/022/bild.jpg

Donnie


neat! its in German! :confused: and where are the references to the kind of rigs they were tested on?

I want facts! facts! and more facts! :p: ;)

[AP0ll0UK]

Sorry for the double post, conrad.maranan suggested I take a look at this thread which is confusing me even more. One minute I'm being built up for an AMD and then the next minute I'm all for a Pentium.

I'm currently selling my laptop, pda and mobile (as I've just had an upgrade) as I don't use them anymore and the money is going towards building an all singing all dancing machine that's going to last me a fair few years.

This is my current system:

AMD AthlonXP 2400+
Soltek 75FRV Motherboard
512MB DDR
GeForce4 Ti4600 128MB
80GB Western Digital HD
21" Monitor

I was looking at investing in a skt 939 PCI-e system like this:

AMD Athlon 64 3200+/3500+ Winchester/Venice
DFI LanParty UT NF4 Ultra-D OR MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum
Geil DDR500 Ultra-Platinum
GeForce 6600GT/6800 Ultra
A 480 watt PSU of some description

Now, this is where it gets complicated. I spoke to a friend last week and he said that AMD 64 were not as good as the Prescott LGA775's. It's about in the same price range as what I'm looking at depending on whether I go for a Venice (if I can get hold of one). I've included the full spec he suggested below:

Intel Pentium 4 540J "LGA775 Prescott" 3.2GHz (800FSB) with HT Technology
Abit AA8 DURAMAX (LGA775) PCI-Express Motherboard
Corsair 1GB DDR2 XMS2-5400 TwinX (2x512MB)
Enermax Coolergiant 480W EG485AX-VHB(G) SFMA ATX2.0 PSU (CA-010-EN)
XFX GeForce PCX6600 GT 128MB DDR3 TV-Out/Dual DVI (PCI-Express)

He said the Corsair memory is brilliant which sounds ok but it's pricey. He also said that Abit motherboards are the best overclockers. From what I'd seen it was either a DFI LanParty Ultra-D or an MSI Neo 4 Platinum, they seemed to be the boards everyone raved about.

The video card I'd like to have a 256 bit card over a 128 bit providing I can really tell the difference for the extra ££'s.

My system is mainly for browsing, downloading, burning, and playing CounterStrike Source.

I'd like a Venice as I think from what I've read it would overlock well and would last me a while. And if anyone knows of a great case then I'm all ears

I'm in desperate need of some good advice as I'm only a few weeks away from buying my new system but the suggestion from his for Prescott has really thrown me out. I'm in the UK so any need to be in the UK or a company that will ship over here. I've come up against a brick wall and I've done a lot of reading but I really really need some pointers.

[IluvIntel]

APOIIOUK,

I wouldn't pay attention to anyone on internet forums. Why?
because everyone is just going to confuse you with too many views, experiences and opinions. I'm not being disrespectful to this forum or any other for that matter in stating that observation.

Based on what you have said in the above reply, do you intend doing the above tasks simultaneously on your PC? or one at a time, that will be the deciding factor I would say. If your in the UK, heating issues inside the PC should not be a major concern, unless your a severe Overclocker - like 50% or more. So, either doing one task at the best speed and efficiency or many tasks with the computers resources shared amongst them, thats what you are looking at. ;)

Alternatively, you could wait untill dualcore desktop PC's from both AMD & Intel are on the market, which should not be long at all now, then your in a better position to have the best of both worlds as far as doing more on your PC is concerned. :fact: :)

[AP0ll0UK]

Thanks for your reply m8.

People seem to be coming back with mixed opinions for both and I think like you say, the main factor is whether I mulitask or stick to one task at a time. Tbh, if I'm playing CS:S then I shut pretty much everything else down (i.e. AV, Spyware, Msn Messenger, etc etc), I don't download when I'm playing as even though I'm on 4MB cable it still affects my ping.

Times like now I'm watching a trailer for a movie in Windows Media Player, I'm downloading some binaries from my news server, I've got a couple of folder windows open, and Firefox window open with about ten tabs. As soon as I start to unrar something or fix something with parity files then my system comes to a stand still pretty much until it's finished. This is something I really really want to avoid, I want the workstation to demonstrate consistent performance all round with minimal lag but I want it do CS:S in 1600x1200 at a decent fps.

I'd like to overclock whichever chip I go for just because I've never really done it and it will stretch my cpu rather than my wallet ;)

I was leaning more towards an AMD 64 because I thought that with the recent release of Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, I thought that once people start developing for the 64-Bit os then the AMD would be head above the rest but as that might be several months down the line, I want to see a strong return for my money now rather than later, as long as the system I purchase is going to be futureproofed.

If I did go AMD then is it likely that the dual core AMD's would be socket 939?

[Lithan]

No offense, but it'd just be plain foolish to go intel for you. I do twice the multitasking you mention and have no problems with an A64. Also, H2/CS is about the biggest Amd-favoring game out right now. Also you should upgrade to a gig of ram. Ram's dirt cheap right now and going from 512 to a gig should be noticable.

[AP0ll0UK]

Yeah I was thinking a 1GB of memory but I'm not sure what brand is cost effective enough to give me a decent overlock with an AMD 64, if I get a Venice what sort of memory do you think would be suitable?

Lithan, what does your system consist of?

[Lithan]

Giagabyte k8ns ultra 939
winchester 3000+
2x512 Generic pc2700 (with hynix pc3200 chips, runs ~ 500mhz @ cas 2.5 stock vdimm)
Maxtor 160gb
NEC DVDRW
Fortron 530
AGP 6800GT
Audigy 2
xp-120 with panaflo 120mm L1A (Dual ball bearing Japanese version)

I did some testing with timings a year or so ago and found that the difference between 2-2-2 and 2.5-3-2 with every other setting the same was rarely more than a single FPS at the graphical settings I game with. So I don't worry about top notch ram like some do. I HAD 2x512 bh5 @ 260 2-2-2 on my 754 rig and I can't tell a difference between that setup and this one. But I don't run benchmarks very often. I'm sure I lost a few hundred 3dmarks with the change.

[Donnie27]

neat! its in German! :confused: and where are the references to the kind of rigs they were tested on?

I want facts! facts! and more facts! :p: ;)

I'll keep on using my old Intel rig for Multimedia and then use a newer AMD rig mainly for games. I disagree with AMD and Intel Fans talking about better all-around. What matters is what you use your tool (Computer), entertainment system (computer), or etc for=P

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

Yeah I was thinking a 1GB of memory but I'm not sure what brand is cost effective enough to give me a decent overlock with an AMD 64, if I get a Venice what sort of memory do you think would be suitable?

Lithan, what does your system consist of?

Yes, but you'll run into that same dead end, obsolete hardware because AMD and Intel have already stated that Socket 771 and Socket M are on the way.
I multi-task too and would dare multi-task slower on AMD, just as I would run games slower on Intel CPUs. Folks aren't saying you can't multi-task, no more than others are saying Games don't run on P4's. If you multi-task and Game, then the P4's will run faster under those conditions most of the time.

Uless you're running SLI and play Doom3 more than anything else, the 6800GT might be the best video card. The $269, 256MB, 256bit, 16 pipe, X800XL will run more games faster and look good while doing so. nVidia has PS 3.0 and better OpenGL drivers.

I'm looking at getting an A64 Venice to overclock, Run games and other apps with very little multi-tasking. Why should I multi-task if I have more than one computer? BUT, if given the choice of one computer? I'd go Intel=P

Donnie27

[WannaOC]

I've been using AMD almost since I started building my PCs but I just ordered an Intel 6xx setup for my next pc. The main reason I did this is because I'm tired of the motherboard problems I've had with my AMD setups. In the past 6 boards I've bought 3 have actually not had problems either due to the chipset or the manufacturing. It seems Intel boards are built with a little more quality. I'm just tired of bad temp readings and chipset instability so AMD lost my purchase. If I find Intel has similar problems then I may come back to AMD but I sure hope not.

[AP0ll0UK]

Yes, but you'll run into that same dead end, obsolete hardware because AMD and Intel have already stated that Socket 771 and Socket M are on the way.


Is 771 Intel's next Socket line?

I toyed with the idea of building a Dual Xeon system but I think that may be overkill for my needs. That said I know less about Xeon's than I do about the Prescott's ;)

Lithan, do you overclock your system? I was just wondering if you do then what kind of results you get from the memory you use?

[PetNorth]

Oh, while we're talking Prices.

ZDNet (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=812975#post812975)

Expected pricing for the processors ranges from $851 for the Opteron 265 to $1,299 for the Opteron 275. For more powerful chips in the 800 series, prices range from $1,514 for the Opteron 865 to $2,649 for the Opteron 875.

$825 - Opteron 252
$610 - Opteron 250
$439 - Opteron 248

Never mind the 4/8-way systems and these are Opterons!

Current speculation projects that Opteron x65, x70, and x75 processors will run at 1.8, 2.0, and 2.2GHz, respectively. Given those clock speeds, a dual-core Opteron 265 could cost more than four times as much as a single-core Opteron 244, which also runs at 1.8GHz. However, there appears to be a chance that early adopters will get a bit of a price break.

So;

$439 - Opteron 248
$307 - Opteron 246
$203 - Opteron 244

Take your pick?

Now, will desktop models be that much cheaper?


Hehehe LORL! I don't know either way, but if prices are anything close to these, they suck hehehehe! If the market goes along with this, I'm sure Intel will like that a lot and follow right along in their footsteps. Hey, afterall, these are business' and not anyone's friend.


Here there is another story about expected prices for the whole Opteron DC family (8xx, 2xx and 1xx).

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050419A6028.html

Opteron 875 2,2GHz $2,649
Opteron 870 2,0Ghz $2,149
Opteron 865 1,8GHz $1,514

Opteron 275 2,2GHz $1,299
Opteron 270 2,0GHz $1,051
Opteron 265 1,8GHz $851

Opteron 175 2,2GHz $999
Opteron 170 2,0GHz $799
Opteron 165 1,8GHz $637


These prices are the same that zdnet indicates for Opteron DC 8xx and DC 2xx. Digitimes includes expected prices for DC Opteron 1xx series too.



OK, if I'm not missing something right now, we're not analyzing these DC expected prices properly. Initially, they seem crazy, isn't it? Well, really not, they aren't. The error is to compare them with same single core series (I mean: to compare DC 8xx price with SC 8xx price, DC 2xx prices with SC 2xx price, etc). This is incorrect. Let's see it, for example, to build a server systems at 2,0GHz (boards and SC Opteron, Monarch prices):


1. Right now, if we want to build an entry level 2-way server at 2,0GHz, we have to choose:

2x Opteron 246: $674;
Dual board (Tyan Tiger K8W): $259
Total: $933

With a DC CPU, we choose not a DC Opteron 270 (2,0GHz), but a DC Opteron 170. So:

1x Opteron 170: $799
Single board (Tyan Tomcat K8S): $159
Total: $958

Very close price.


Of course, we can choose to buy one DC Opteron 270 ($1,051) instead 170 model, and the same dual board for this DC system. Initially, this second DC option is $377 more expensive than 2x Opteron 246, but the VEEEEEERY important question: with this DC system, you can upgrade later to a 4-way server adding only another DC Opteron 270 ($1,051). On the other hand, if you have 2x Opteron 246 + Dual Board and you want to upgrade to a 4-way server, well, Optys 246 and Board to bin, and then buy a quad Opteron Board ($1,455, Monarch), and 4 Opteron 846 ($2,708) = $4,163 for upgrade :p: (remember, DC option, $1,051 for 4-way upgrade) ;)



2. Other. Right now, if we want to build a high 4-way server at 2,0GHz, we have to choose:

4x Opteron 846: $2,708
Quad board (Tyan Thunder K8QS Pro S4882UG2NR): $1,455
Total: $4,163

With a DC CPU, we choose not two DC Opteron 870 (2,0GHz), but two DC Opteron 270. So:

2x Opteron 270: $2,102 ($606 cheaper than 4x Opteron 846 :woot: ).
Dual board (Tyan Thunder K8S Pro S2882UG3NR): $492 :banana:
Total: $2,594

WOW we can build a 4-way server (2 DC 2xx + dual board) $1,569 cheaper than actually we can (4 8xx + quad board). :woot:



I hope I've not missed something, because with all these numbers I'm a little dizzy hehehe

[Donnie27]

Is 771 Intel's next Socket line?

I toyed with the idea of building a Dual Xeon system but I think that may be overkill for my needs. That said I know less about Xeon's than I do about the Prescott's ;)

Lithan, do you overclock your system? I was just wondering if you do then what kind of results you get from the memory you use?

Yes, 771 is the next socket and the Pin change is nothing more than to force folks to upgrade motherboard as well. AMD is doing the same thing with Socket-M.

I'm sitting here shocked folks are still talking about the next upgrade on Socket 939 and compatability. Do folks with nForce3 150 want to keep their Mobo? Evenyone who owns an nForce, doesn't own the newest nForce4. If I did, I would still want to upgrade anyway. I didn't buy an i925 because I knew about i925XE and i9xx long before either launched. nForce went through nForce3 150, 250, 250GB/Ultra, then nFOrce4, 4 ultra then SLI. Then Intel adds i955/945, i955 SLI and so on. This is not good for folks as whole but at least each has brought very good improvements for both Intel and AMD. For either side to say the others suck when they've done similar things is misleading.

Donnie27

[IluvIntel]

Donnie27,

You gota admit this is a FUN thread ! albeit interesting.

[Lithan]

Is 771 Intel's next Socket line?

I toyed with the idea of building a Dual Xeon system but I think that may be overkill for my needs. That said I know less about Xeon's than I do about the Prescott's ;)

Lithan, do you overclock your system? I was just wondering if you do then what kind of results you get from the memory you use?


I overclock, but I kick around. For several months I was running 9x296. If I remember correctly this ran my ram fairly slowly. Somewhere in the 210-220range with the ddr333 option. Recently I dropped down to 9x250 with ram @ ddr400 (1:1, 250). Timing was 2.5-3-2-7 both times, only downside of this ram is it cant enable cpc with both sticks in like some newer rams can.

And Donnie, I paid $420 for my 6800GT AGP, so I have zero desire to upgrade my motherboard for PCI-E. What else does Nforce4 have? I admit I haven't really looked. Way I figure it, there is absolutely no chance I'll be upgrading video for at least a year, possibly closer to two. Whereas a cpu upgrade, who knows. And with the lack of cheap, quality motherboards these days... future socket compatability is of some importance.

[Donnie27]

I overclock, but I kick around. For several months I was running 9x296. If I remember correctly this ran my ram fairly slowly. Somewhere in the 210-220range with the ddr333 option. Recently I dropped down to 9x250 with ram @ ddr400 (1:1, 250). Timing was 2.5-3-2-7 both times, only downside of this ram is it cant enable cpc with both sticks in like some newer rams can.

And Donnie, I paid $420 for my 6800GT AGP, so I have zero desire to upgrade my motherboard for PCI-E. What else does Nforce4 have? I admit I haven't really looked. Way I figure it, there is absolutely no chance I'll be upgrading video for at least a year, possibly closer to two. Whereas a cpu upgrade, who knows. And with the lack of cheap, quality motherboards these days... future socket compatability is of some importance.

You and many others have a very good reason to hold on to what you have. Yet, there are a lot of others who don't! I'm just saying there aren't many folks with 400+ dollar 6800's and even some of them with older nForce 3 150's or etc.. I'd want NCQ and nVidia newest RAID might be an option. SLI and two 6600 256MB GT's might fit the bill, who knows? I do know that not as many folks will stick with older boards as those upgrading anyway. That's always been the case. I do agree compatability is important but most certainly NOT a must.

Donnie

[Donnie27]

Here there is another story about expected prices for the whole Opteron DC family (8xx, 2xx and 1xx).

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050419A6028.html

Opteron 875 2,2GHz $2,649
Opteron 870 2,0Ghz $2,149
Opteron 865 1,8GHz $1,514

Opteron 275 2,2GHz $1,299
Opteron 270 2,0GHz $1,051
Opteron 265 1,8GHz $851

Opteron 175 2,2GHz $999
Opteron 170 2,0GHz $799
Opteron 165 1,8GHz $637


These prices are the same that zdnet indicates for Opteron DC 8xx and DC 2xx. Digitimes includes expected prices for DC Opteron 1xx series too.



OK, if I'm not missing something right now, we're not analyzing these DC expected prices properly. Initially, they seem crazy, isn't it? Well, really not, they aren't. The error is to compare them with same single core series (I mean: to compare DC 8xx price with SC 8xx price, DC 2xx prices with SC 2xx price, etc). This is incorrect. Let's see it, for example, to build a server systems at 2,0GHz (boards and SC Opteron, Monarch prices):


1. Right now, if we want to build an entry level 2-way server at 2,0GHz, we have to choose:

2x Opteron 246: $674;
Dual board (Tyan Tiger K8W): $259
Total: $933

With a DC CPU, we choose not a DC Opteron 270 (2,0GHz), but a DC Opteron 170. So:

1x Opteron 170: $799
Single board (Tyan Tomcat K8S): $159
Total: $958

Very close price.


Of course, we can choose to buy one DC Opteron 270 ($1,051) instead 170 model, and the same dual board for this DC system. Initially, this second DC option is $377 more expensive than 2x Opteron 246, but the VEEEEEERY important question: with this DC system, you can upgrade later to a 4-way server adding only another DC Opteron 270 ($1,051). On the other hand, if you have 2x Opteron 246 + Dual Board and you want to upgrade to a 4-way server, well, Optys 246 and Board to bin, and then buy a quad Opteron Board ($1,455, Monarch), and 4 Opteron 846 ($2,708) = $4,163 for upgrade :p: (remember, DC option, $1,051 for 4-way upgrade) ;)



2. Other. Right now, if we want to build a high 4-way server at 2,0GHz, we have to choose:

4x Opteron 846: $2,708
Quad board (Tyan Thunder K8QS Pro S4882UG2NR): $1,455
Total: $4,163

With a DC CPU, we choose not two DC Opteron 870 (2,0GHz), but two DC Opteron 270. So:

2x Opteron 270: $2,102 ($606 cheaper than 4x Opteron 846 :woot: ).
Dual board (Tyan Thunder K8S Pro S2882UG3NR): $492 :banana:
Total: $2,594

WOW we can build a 4-way server (2 DC 2xx + dual board) $1,569 cheaper than actually we can (4 8xx + quad board). :woot:



I hope I've not missed something, because with all these numbers I'm a little dizzy hehehe

Just the last one though. You loose some NUMA bandwidth of about 12.8GB since 4 processors (two Dual Core x70) can only use 8 banks/two 128 bit controllers of RAM instead of 16banks/four 128bit controllers. That's not better IMHO! We're not talking about Desktop uses here. :(

Donnie

[IluvIntel]

Donnie 27,

Where did you get info on the socket 771, I did some checking on Intel's website last night and could'nt find anthing relating to future products. But I did get a triffle side tracked with the dual core releases ! easy to understand flash video on it too ! for my simple mind... heheha !

[PetNorth]

Good read ;)

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/opteron-x75/index.x?pg=1

[perkam]

IluvIntel

OH my ... :eek: Interesting nick u have there. I wonder whose side you're on :rolleyes:

LOL

Perkam

[IluvIntel]

Well, I was sometimes wondering if anyone picked up on it and made a comment...lol. :D

It is an expression of happiness and satisfaction at what I can do on my PC in a busy multitasking day with single core cpu. The only bottleneck now is the slack timings on the RAM, money will fix this in time. ;) love to get higher FSB and efficient ram in harmony. :toast:

[Donnie27]

Good read ;)

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/opteron-x75/index.x?pg=1

I said it once and I've said it a hundred times, statements like this made me stop reading whatever they had to say.

As you can see, AMD didn't simply glue a pair of K8 cores together on a single piece of silicon. They've actually done some integration work at a very basic level, so that the two CPU cores can act together more effectively.

The damned Xrays show two Opterons + a Interface Controller, minus one of its memory controllers and that's it!

Donnie27