Intel P4 vs AMD

Here is an example of how AMD chips use memory better than Intel. You'll note that the Intel machine is using PC 5300 DDR2 memory while I'm using the older PC3200 DDR1 memory, and yet my machine is still running faster than the Intel machine.

 

i have a AMD 3700 what would that be compaired to an intel?

 

Which core do you have? The clawhammer or the San Diego?

Either way it should compare to a P4 that's running between 3.4 and 3.6 GHZ.

 

clawhammer or the San Diego?
I have no idea how do you check its still in the box

 

It should say on the box somewhere and if not on the box you can look on the chip.

 

wats better and whats the diff?

 

im lookin on my box, i cant see anything, i look at the top of my chip too (threw the plastic on the front) and it doesnt say anything eather

 

They're both pretty good but the San Diego has some advantages handling dual channel memory.

 

oh aight cool

 

Am Intel all the way, I tend to play games for hours at a time and the only thing that lets me down is my gfx card not the CPU or RAM, my encoding times are very good, no problems there. I have never used AMD and i don't plain to soon (due to the cost!!), people keep saying that AMD are cheaper than Intel well i don't know were there looking cause it's a fact Intel cost less now which is not really making a different coz Intel hold something like 80% of the CPU market and have done for a long time that's why AMD is taking them court. Some of you folks maybe thinking am a fan-boy, well with a user name like p4_tt i don't blame you but i can tell you for a fact that i would have no hesitations of using and/or owing an AMD system if it was not for the prices.

Also you cant really compare a 64bit CPU to a 32bit, kinda like comparing night to day. It should be fun when Intel get a true 64 out.

PS

My PCMark05 score

PCMark Score: 2920
CPU Score: 3849
Memory Score: 4000
Graphics Score: 1491
HDD Score: 4287

 

Actually you can compare them, because almost all of us are still using 32 bit operating systems with 32 bit softwares. The 64 bit advantages are not even in play yet, so AMD is in effect lowering its standards to accommodate Intel's 32 bit world, and still beating them at it.

 

Yes your right my bad.

EDIT: That's kinda the same with HT not a lot of applications yet support Hyper Threading.

 

How we use words... LOL I wouldn't call it a lowering of standards. AMD simply came out with a true 64 bit system before Intel. Let them compete with what they have. Very little need for the 64 bit as of now, but maybe in the future. When 64 bit becomes more important, I feel confident both Intel and AMD will have a product and be offering it to the consumers. As noted, AMD already has one available. Intel doesn't seem to be losing much of a market share over it though.

At different times both companies have come up with innovations before the other. For some strange reason, Intel seems to have the lion's share of the market. AMD is crying foul, but I don't see masses of consumers clamoring to jump aboard the AMD wagon.

 

And when Intel is ahead then I'll buy Intel again. Remember that VHS won the VCR war although it was inferior to the Beta system. The market is not always determined by the best product.

 

Notice the Current CPU being compared. It is a 2.8GHz P4. Included in the benchmark test is the AMD 2800, which is the comparable AMD processor. I threw in a couple of top line dual core processors from AMD and Intel. The SiSoft Sandra benchmarks are for arithmetic function and floating point computations. As you may note from this, AMD has an ever so slight advantage in arithmetic computations and Intel in turn has the best floating point figures. Also, the differences are so slight that in the real world, it makes little difference. AMD has an architectural advantage, memory on the chip, that helps it with things like extreme gaming. Gamers, be on notice, pay $4500 and get the EXtreme AMD from Alienware. For the rest of us, the choices just boil down to economics and preference.

I'm not against AMD and may someday own one. I'm in neither camp at this point. I'm much more familiar with working on and with the Intel PCs. Couple that with Intel supplying the best bang for the buck and you have why I still own my old mid level Intel. I don't see a lot of difference in comparable Intel and AMD processors on sites like Newegg. But when you go to buy a factory built PC, the prices seem staggeringly high for some of the AMDs compared to Intel. Is that why AMD is crying foul; manufacturers can sell Intel cheaper? Seems AMD needs to stop crying and lower some prices and get better entrenched with the consumers.

 

brobear

The Atholon 2800+ XP is using the Barton core. It's quite old and yet if you look at its actual clock speed it's only about two thirds that of the P4. Here's what missing from that tale. The XP 2800 sold for about 50% the price of the P4. It used slower RAM it only had a 400 MHZ front side buss. NOw here's the clincher! My sons machine is using an AMD XP 2500+ Barton core over clocked to an XP 3200+ which cost me at the time about $80 while my 2.8 GHZ P4 set me back $184.00. Trust me the over clocked XP would beat the P4 in floating point as well.

The Venice core which is what I'm using now is only 2.2 GHZ before over clocking. This is the score that I received when my CPU was hitting 2.5 GHZ, it's now at 2.64 and is scoring well over 12,000. You'll notice that the P4 3.8 GHZ is taking a sever beating in all areas.

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Dell-to-Give-AMD-Access-to-Its-Intel-Documents-8087.shtml

I think there trying to say Intel lower there prices to more companies so that they will go with Intel over AMD, which is stupid as there are more powerful companies out there than Intel (M$ which happens to use Intel for there consoles)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4629963.stm

And that shows they cant take it coz Intel have 82% of the market, i don't think that's to do with foul play as millions of people make there own computer and they have the choice to pick, again the main thing that puts me off AMD is the price and not Intel making me buy it.

 

p4_tt

Microsoft has over 90% of the Market but Windows isn't better than Linux, it just has more software support and it's easier to use. BTW, to get the same performance that I'm getting using an Intel processors I would have to had spent another $700 more than I did spend, and it would still be a bit slower.

 

The processor number can be tracked to the stepping and core type on the AMD website.

 

64026402

Now you pop in and respond to a question that was several posts back. LOL