Intel P4 vs AMD

Which is the best? Give supporting data as well as those horror stories. Supply the links to quoted materials and supply the juicy statements that support your cause. Lets observe this is a tech thread, the occasional rant is okay, just remember the technical aspects are what we're looking for and try to remain on topic.

 

AMD Or Intel?

Post your benchmarks here, using Sissoft or any other equivalent PC benching method, post it here! Provide graphic proof.

 

Well iv read in an APC magazine that AMD flogs Intel in gaming , but intel is still good non theless . its good for just plain computer user and about 2 hour gamers . but if your a hardcore gamer go with AMD since its got good cooling with a stock AMD fan and its also good for overclockers.. but i personaly chose Intel and i regret it hardcore. before i got a rocketfan for it and all this other cooling shit it would overheat like maybe 1 hour after playin HL2 but i found out this shit chip was heating the shit out of my powersupply so i had to buy to more fans and drill holes for the second fan and ended up wasting alot of money just too keep it stable.. while AMD is smarter and doesnt use powersupply much wen not gaming and comes with good cooling.

Overall
AMD=Gaming
Intel=old mans CPU ^_^

 

It just doesn't seem as important without the backdrop of CCE/Rebuilder. AMD vs Intel is mostly preference. But with CCE the technology improvements are given perspective. Anyway, Sophocles posted plenty of results. That is why I finally took the upgrade plunge.

 

One on One Intel loses to AMD in every category. Intel only has the illusion of clock speed over AMD but not genuine processing speed. (4 operations per clock cycle to 2 are on AMD's side)

brobear

Why would you take on a losing side?

CAS latency settings of 2-2-2-5 versus on an intel system is much slower than 3-3-3-7 on an AMD system. In fact DDR2 on an Intel system actually runs slower than DDR1 on an AMD system does and it cost less money. And then there's the memory divider and dual channel memory and T2 versus T1.

AMD is now faster in everything than intel is!

 

AMD chips do more work per ghz than an Intel would. basically an amd athlon 2800 will run close to a 2.8ghz p4

 

i have no cause ive had a p4 and now a AMD and so far AMD runs alot faster than p4's do exspecially when booting up the pc ive changed and im never going back to intel <not saying it sucks> its just what ive noticed by regular pc use games and net*

 

sagara

Some people don't understand that an Athlon 2800 has a much lower clock speed but competes one on one with an Intel 2.8 and beats it in gaming.

An AMD running with a clock speed of over 2.6 (mines at 2.64) will beat an Intel P4 extreme running at 3.7 GHZ, and that's their fastest single chip processor.

 

yeah, i should've also stated that the 2800 has a clock speed of 2.08ghz mines overclocked to 2.2 which is the equivilant of a 3200+

 

sagara

Thanks! I thought that needed to be said.

 

Architecture. Speed was an illusion used for sales purposes and both sides started to suffer from the same sales pitch. Notice Intel is getting away from selling by speed and giving their processors other designations. AMD was cashing in on designation when they labeled their 2800 (clock speed of 2.08ghz) which is the AMD comparing to the 2.8GHz P4. Due to architecture, the slower AMD processor did approximately the same amount of work as the faster Intel. Get it, AMD 2800, 2800MHz Intel, same amount of work? What AMD did with more computations per cycle, Intel did with more computations. As long as they're doing about the same work and do it dependably, I don't care if it's cycles x computations or vice versa. The job gets done. I look for dependability and so far Intel has delivered.

As for cost of building, there you get into individual builds as opposed to factory builds. Granted, there if one buys their own components, AMD will win. However, if one buys a prepackaged unit, such as Dell or Gateway, the field is suddenly lowered for the mid range units most consumers buy. There Intel is doing well and has the lion's share of the market today. P4s aren't the favorites of builders because they don't lend themselves to clocking experiments. I usually buy a package and then add my choice of drives and maybe some additional memory depending on what the manufacturer supplies.

On that memory issue, I was under the impression the lower the numbers the better. That is what Sophocles is constantly telling me. Now Donald tells me that a P4 runs quicker at higher numbers and then switches the type memory in the mix, DDR2 as opposed to DDR. I know the differences. However, if an experiment is going to be run, use the same type memory at the same speeds or the benchmark times will end up being suspect. That's all I was saying; keep the playing field level and keep out variables that we all know will affect the benchmark outcome. Surprised some of those big time testing forums didn't notice or didn't care.

I have a mid-range P4. I've left it on for days at a time without rebooting. I've left it with huge batch jobs with RB. That means the processor was loaded heavily for the extended period as encoding is highly processor intensive. The unit didn't overheat and works as well today as when I purchased it a couple of years ago. I didn't buy bragging rights then and it only gives me some bragging rights now because it's still a mid-range PC. Nothing to brag about though. LOL

For the average user, which I am one, Intel does just as well as the AMD. What minor differences there may be are negligible at mid level usage. It pretty much boils down to preference. I'm not particularly sold on AMD or Intel. I just looked over the market when I went to buy and chose average operation and price as a criteria and Intel won out at the time. When I get ready to buy again, I'll look to what's available. According to today's market for a factory built PC, price for an average PC with the best price, who is selling the most? AMD hasn't won yet. Now if I was into gaming, I'd go with an AMD. However, gaming isn't my forte. The biggest workout I give my PC is encoding. There it does as well as the 2800 AMD; that is, unless someone overclocked it.

I've heard the horror stories from both sides. There have been hot Intel and hot AMD processors for whatever reasons. "Enthusiasts" can cause anything to heat up at some point, that's why they have the more elaborate cooling systems and bigger power supplys for them (fluids anyone?). Nobody has a perfect run on anything yet. Most builders have a 90 day guarantee at least, AMD or Intel. As I've stated before, I like to see the competition, it does trickle down to better equipment and some lower prices for the consumer. As I said, I'm open when it comes to buying my next PC. It could be an AMD as easily as an Intel equipped unit. At mid-range, I don't think either has that much of an advantage over the other for the average user. How many people other than the "enthusiasts" actually overclock their processors?

 

Even with the fast encode times Sophocles has been postng, the processor is priced low to mid range. So mid range AMD must have a substantial advantage.
As for a 2.8 P4, it may still work fine but it is well below the true mid range of todays computers. We are talking 300 dollar Dells here. They rank with Athlon 2800s not Athlon 64 models.

I figured the Optetron/Athlon 64 was just another ho hum entry to go up against more ho hum Intels. I didn't want to upgrade.
Then Sophocles showed that a relatively low cost Athlon 64 could cut the CCE encode times in half or better.

Now there is no such thing as heavy work from DVDrebuilder. I can run multiple movies before bedtime. No encoding through the night anymore.

 

The light has come on and a revelation has been made. Now we have acolytes going forth on their missions to reveal a new truth...

That little ho hum AMD 64 has been clocked up to compete with approximately a 3.7GHZ processor according to Soph. 3500 Plus, that's AMD's way of saying the regular configuration of the 64 chip is meant to compete with a 3500 MHz plus Intel configuration. Not exactly box stock there. Then how about that memory he's running the processor with. Not exactly what one finds in a stock factory configuration. What's the cost on a couple gigs of that? Knowing Soph, I doubt if he settled for anything that was ho hum. Mid range okay.

I'm aware of where my 2.8 processor stands. You don't need to remind me. Also, you'll notice with Dell and Gateway, the 2 leaders of factory made PCs, that their mid range units are right at 3GHz which is very close to the 2.8GHz P4 I have. I consider anything in the 2.8-3.2GHz range as mid level. Above that you have the top end single processors and the new dual core units. That's talking about Intel. As we're all aware, AMD labels their processors differently. Architecture is the name of the game as I mentioned. I do like AMD's memory on the processor, which does give it something of an edge right now. However, with other aspects, you have a higher number of computations per cycle with AMD and a higher number of cycles with Intel. It sort of evens out when you look at the overall architecture instead of getting bogged down in speed. As I said before, the only advantage I can see with AMD is for gaming and being a bit more flexible for the "enthusiast" to play with. Little meaning for the average user.

 

[bold]Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
AMD 64 3500 Plus 2.2 GHZ
Venice core, currently@ 2.64 GHZ
2 Gigs dual channel Corsair XMS DDR 400
PC3200C2; Sapphire 256 meg X800 Pro ViVo
Seagate 250 gig SATA150 NCQ hard disk
Plex 712 and 716 DVD Roms
Creative Audigy2 platinum [/bold]

That's the machine being compared to the P4. Let's get real for a minute. There, with the Opteron you mention, you're looking at dual core technology and AMD has beat Intel in bringing a better one on the market first. That is not an average processor by any means. The dual core Intel has is currently overpriced and I wouldn't go there yet. Nor am I going to shell out the bucks for a top end AMD so I can shave some minutes off an encode time.

Alienware is known for it's high end gamer PCs. Here's a link to catch a peek at some of the prices. Sticker shock anyone? http://www.alienware.com/Product_Pages/desktop_all_gaming.aspx PCs with AMD 64 dual core technology aren't cheap, if you go to buy it factory built. How bout that $4500 dollar unit? How bout that Athlon 64 (not the Opteron) for about a $1000. Ho hum, cheap? When The Athlon 64 3800 + with Venice core on Newegg was near $300 dollars and the more expensive versions of the AMD processors with dual core ranged up to about $1000.

I'll give credit where it's due and AMD with the dual core is currently ahead of Intel. However, we're not talking the average processors, we're looking at high end. Also, it's about architecture, not just speed in GHz. I'm sure Intel will respond with something new as well, they normally do. Then AMD will come up with something new, they usually do as well. That's competition.

 

That was back when xeon's were running a 533 MHZ front side bus. AMD's hot item was the Barton core or the incredibly expensive AMD FX55 64, which was faster than any Intel at everything but encode speeds.

Then along came AMD's two new cores, the Venice and San Diego. At there native speeds they use a little more than half the power that a Prescott core does. Running idle AMD's Venice core hits about 32 degrees Celsius and under full load less than 45 degrees.

A P4 idles at around 48 to 50 degrees Celsius and under full load will hit 60 degrees Celsius. When I over clocked my P4 to 3.146 I had to buy an after market heat sink and fan to do it. My current settings have my 3500+ Venice core at 2.64 GHZ and it still idles at 34 to 35 degrees Celsius and at full load has never gone above 49 degrees.

Heat is a measure of a CPU's efficiency, the greater the heat the less the gain in processing power and the shorter the life of the processor.


I believe that you asked for proof and I believe that whatever proof is posted should be in graphic form, not text. I will await your results.

BTW, my Venice core @2.64 beats the Ho Hum Opteron in every category except dual use, and its current price is $219.00.

 

Interesting discussion on heat. The stock P4 doesn't seem to have any problems. It's when overclocking comes in that the problems with heat arise. Heat can be attributed to misuse as well as a measure of CPU efficiency. We've already agreed AMD is more friendly to overclocking. Glad you pointed out it's with the newer 64 processors that AMD has garnered an edge, and there I don't see the advantage except in high speed gaming.

 

The new AMD's have an edge across the board. My CPU running at 2.64 GHZ compresses video almost twice as fast as my Northwood at 3.146 GHZ.

If you had read my last post correctly you will note that I wasn't talking about over clocked P4's, the Prescott runs that hot natively. You could place Prescott in a highly air conditioned room, not over clocked, and sitting there doing nothing and it will hit temperatures of 48 to 50 degrees Celsius which is higher than my over clocked AMD under full load.

 

Well, us poor folks with the Intels will just have to suffer the heat wave I guess. Heat has never been an issue with my PC, nor has it been a problem for anyone I know or have heard of. So the heat ranges vary... Overheating has rarely been an issue unless something happens to the system to cause it. Same things happen with AMDs as well. There are acceptable ranges of operation for different processors. As long as the PCs operate within those ranges, no problem. There being a difference in temps has little to do with anything unless the Intel, or AMD for that matter, is running above it's temp range.

 

Well that AMD is comparable to a 3.5GHz processor or better in the Pentium line. You said your AMD 64 in the overclocked configuration is similar to an Intel running about 3.7GHz. I'd go along with a processor like that being twice as fast as a 3GHz Intel, especially with the superior RAM you have in use (which you often brag on). Again, we're not talking out of the box, nor are we talking about mid range PCs that most consumers have. So you built a speedwagon... How many people have a comparable unit?

 

Intel and AMD CPUS have about the same maximum operating temp. What the heat is telling you is that the processor is running into resistance which translates into slower processing. The idea processor would in theory encounter no resistance (super conductivity) but that's only in theory.