Intel P4 vs AMD

O well i seem to like the Intel but i have and AMD sempron and gonna see if i like that

 

To be honest, the Sempron (at least before) was one of AMD's weaker areas, which is partly why It didn't penetrate the market well, the budget end chip wasn't as good. However, now all Semprons are 64-bit Palermos they're quite good too. In my experience rival Celerons are really slow. Honestly.

 

sammorriss
The case looks good. Get the CPU cooler and cables with the LEDs so you can enjoy the light show through the case window. It appears to have plenty of cooling with quite technology utilized. It should be good for performance building, if you use a decent cooling system. The mobos with the cooling tubes, like Asus, will benefit from such good air circulation.

Looks like you've been doing your homework. Intel is improving, but they're still not getting to be king of the hill. The new Intel Pentium 955 Extreme falls short of the performance of the AMD Athlon 64 FX-60. Using the Worldbench 5 tests, the AMD performed 23% better than the Intel. That info came from the April issue of PC World. Intel seems to be consistent at 2nd place on the high end processors for a while. Top AMD systems are running around $3250 to $4500 for the "ultimate" retail machines. They have a bunch of "goodies" besides the processor though.

As has been noted, the discernible differences are on the performance level processors. The comparable manufactured mid-range PCs are good and I haven't noticed a lot of difference in pricing on HPs and Dells for comparable PCs (typical AMD and Intel manufacturers, I know... there are others). Dell with the Intel is usually a bit cheaper and Intel inside still sells a lot of PCs.

Intel hot, AMD not so hot. Wonder why folks can't keep that straight. Glad you pointed it out. Saved the rest of us the trouble.

@toocool4u

What are your sources, who did you hear that from?

 

Sammorriss
Maybe keeping the OC(ed) Presscotts may be a bit noisy, but the factory units are usually pretty quiet. One of my family members just equipped his entire clinic with new Dell PCs with a Dell server. It doesn't sound like a turbo prop factory. In fact they're pretty quiet.

So, you're calling my little P4 Northwoods old eh? For single core processors, they're the best Intel has offered the past few years for desktops. I'd like to have a couple of 3.4GHz Northwoods with the 2MB cache. Those are a bit too pricey for what one is buying into though. At those price ranges I'd go with an AMD dual core.

 

Well, with all respect they are, but yet they're better. Another classic case of Intel backwardsism, something they can't afford to repeat with AMD up their backside.

I was potentially touting an LED CPU cooler, but then thought, where can I get a quiet high performance one? I need this system to be quiet but with an X2 CPU you also need to take cooling seriously.

The only LED 939 cooler they seem to have is the Gigabyte 3DRocket, but the maximum noise level of 38dB is high...
Considering I'll have an open view case, noise matting isn't really an option either.
The noise level at low speed is 22dB which is fine, but I do wonder whether the cooling would be sufficient at that level. Hopefully yes but there's no easy way to tell until the system's been built, and then it would be too late to change. I'm rather hoping the case's inbuilt ventilation will take care of everything else.

 

LOL I was just yanken yer chain. I know the Northwoods are old tech. Intel should have stayed on track instead of going for speed with the hotter processors. "Backwardism" or a wrong leap forward applies to Intel's developments till recently. They seem to be on track, but still behind.

Can't you get a Zalman heatsink and fan in your neck of the world? They have big high performance coolers with LEDs. Theonejrs has been bragging on his. One like Sophocles has helps cool the chipset. As a plus they have a speed control that helps with the sound. At lighter loads the fan runs slower.

 

Ok.looks like I achieved my objective.Not a CRT or LCD in sight!
@ baltekmi,Firstly,I am not going to contribute with things like

Here are the specs on a dimension 9150: Intel® Pentium® D Processor with Dual Core technology - 900 Sequence - up to 950 (3.4GHz, 800MHz FSB, 2x2MB Cache),Intel® 945P Express chipset,Dual channel DDR2 533MHz SDRAM, up to 4 GB
Upgradeable to DDR2 667MHz SDRAM
4 DIMM slots
3 PCI slots
1 PCIe x 1 slot
1 PCIe x 4 slot
1 PCIe x 16 (graphics) slot:etc,etc.
Personally I wouldn't mind one of these pieces of crap
I think all computers today are fast enough for the average user whether its AMD or Intel.There will always be the speed freaks who need that extra 1mhz here or 10mhz there.Just like boats or cars some people have a need for speed.

 

Brobear,

That was my point the other day. They can't compete with customs that aren't "Tweaked"! Even with a lowley vidio card and stock DEll PC2700 memory like mine had originally.

e_coso & toocool4u,

I don't know where you have been for the last couple of years or so but since the prescott came out, heat has been it's main issue. Even "box stock", my Dell 3000 ran hot. Once it heated up the temperature controled fan sounded like an aeroplane! I have 6 fans running in my computer right now and I couldn't imagine what it would sound like if it was under my desk. While it's quieter since the Zalman, it's still pretty loud!

A few yers ago the Athlons' had some overheating problems, but with the arival of the Athlon 64 and the new Dual Cores, heat has become a non-issue with AMDs. My 3.0 Prescott used to get up to 68C during encoding. Now, thanks to a Zalman 9500LED CPU Cooler, it hits a max of 58C! I know for a fact that the newer AMDs easily run 10 to 15C or more cooler than my Intel.

AMDs are faster because of better architecture and superior "On-Chip" memory handling. They do more work in less clock cycles and run cooler in the process thanks in part to lower clock speeds. The first P4s were so poor that they weren't even as good as the P3s they replaced! Right now the fastest CPU on the planet is an AMD (FX-60 Duad-Core I believe). If you read some of the benchmark tests out there on line, you come away thinking that Intel is superior. Lots of times these benchmark tests are not quite honest. I could say that my 20% overclocked 3.0/800 Prescott is faster than a stock 3.8, which is true! This would lead someone to believe that they would have to go and buy something faster than a 3.8. All I had to do to prove my point is leave out the faster 3.6 in the benchmark comparisums. In other words to buy stock, something faster than what I have right now you would only have to buy a 3.6 which is cheaper than a 3.8! It's all in how you skew the comparisums.

While my computer is much quieter since I installed the Zalman, It will be a whole lot quieter with my next build, an AMD Dual core!

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

Crowy

You won't say anything about the factory PCs, but you don't mind taking a general swipe at enthusiasts who like working with custom PCs. It's not always about maximum speed. It's about getting the best out of a particular setup.

Sophocles has one of the better systems posted here performance wise. He got there by balancing the components and setting it for best efficiency. It's a good CPU, but not one of AMD's fastest. Factory PCs normally don't allow for optimum tuning.

As for myself, I'm currently working on an older piece of technology. It's a single core Northwood P4 with an Asus board. Not exactly a speed demon speciman by today's standards. However, the settings are adjustable so I can get the best performance from the package. Likening that to autos, we're more the technicians tuning for efficiency as compared to the "freak" trying to break his neck at high speeds. If we can go faster, we usually try to do it within the bounds of not frying the equipment. Most of us aren't wealthy enough to squander several hundred dollars, in some cases a thousand or more, on trying to bench race.

If I was rich, I might build something exotic with a top end AMD processor, liquid cooling, RAID drives, and twin GPUs. But, I don't have the money to waste on GPUs that cost more than some decent PCs.

Polywell has an interesting though expensive PC for sale: AMD 2.4-GHz Athlon 64 X2 4800+, ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard, two high-performance 74GB Western Digital Raptor hard drives striped in a RAID 0 array, and two SLI EVGA e-GeForce 7800 GTX graphics cards.

Intel's new dual-core 3.46-GHz chip, which sells for about $1000 doesn't match up to the X2 4800+.

I found it interesting that most of the description you gave for your dream Dell was for the mobo (which has a locked BIOS that isn't adjustable):
800MHz FSB,
Intel® 945P Express chipset,
up to 4 GB Upgradeable to DDR2 667MHz SDRAM
4 DIMM slots
3 PCI slots
1 PCIe x 1 slot
1 PCIe x 4 slot
1 PCIe x 16 (graphics) slot

If I was going to spend that kind of bucks for a Dell, I'd get the XPS. However, I'd save my money and build an AMD system using an Asus board and an Opteron processor and have a better system at lower cost. That's another advantage of being one of the group you call "speed freaks"; doing the work ourselves, we end up with more bang for the buck.

And we did have a few LEDs in there. Don't forget sammorriss' case. LOL

 

theonejrs
As I said, the emphasis I was putting on my statement was that AMD and Intel, both, make good working, "out of the box", PCs. If you want to enter into a discussion on customs versus stock components, it's sort of meaningless. Most of us agree, custom components are best for attaining optimum performance.

Don't kick strictly stock boards. I may have upgraded my PC, but the 3.4 GHz P4 Northwood was an available option on my PC and is still sold by Dell as a replacement part. Even the additional memory can't be considered a non stock addition; the PC could be maxed out with 4GB of PC3200 SDRAM. The benches I've posted so far with the system are with the OEM Dell board. If you notice, it has a good chipset. The drawback is that Dell uses a locked BIOS. However, the benches are respectable. In fact they're superior to some custom builds if the builder hasn't used a high end processor or OC(ed) their system (In some cases, even then).

Hey Guys,
Speaking of parts, I finally broke down and took the suggestion for an 800 series Radeon, since I'm partial to Radeon cards. Though not a speed demon it's not slow, and it's more than capable of doing what I want. It's an ATI Radeon X850 Pro. Here's the specs on it:
The Radeon X850 series is the most extreme gaming graphics card technology ever created by ATI, with up to 16 pipelines, the fastest frame rates and ATIs industry-leading 3D image enhancement technology. The Radeon X850 series delivers further on the promise of High-Definition Gaming.
Primary Information
Video Input Type Video capture adapter
Video Output Type Graphics adapter
Form Factor Plug-in card
Video Interface AGP 8x
Digital Video Standards ( Supported ) Digital Visual Interface (DVI)
Memory
Video Memory Technology GDDR3 SDRAM
Video Memory / Clock Speed 500 MHz
Video Memory Data Width 256-bit
Video Memory Installed Size 256 MB
Video
Analog Video Format S-Video; composite video
Digital Video Standards ( Supported ) Digital Visual Interface (DVI)
TV Interface Video in / video out
RAMDAC Clock Speed 400 MHz
API Supported OpenGL 2.0; DirectX 9.0
Max Resolution (external) 2048 x 1536
Max Monitors Supported 2
Dimensions&Miscellaneous
Compatibility PC
Processor
Graphics Controller Radeon X850 Pro
Graphics Processor / Core Clock Speed 500 MHz
Expansion
Interfaces & Connections 2 x DVI-I - 29 pin combined DVI ;2 x VGA - 15 pin HD D-Sub (HD-15) ( with adapter ) ;1 x VIVO
System Requirements
System Requirements / OS Required Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition, Microsoft Windows XP Professional, Microsoft Windows 2000 SP1 or later, Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition

Not bad for an old tech AGP card. Did they mention something about 16 pipelines and 256MB GDDR3 memory (better than DDR2)?

 

@Brobear,
Firstly I wasn't taking a swipe at anyone.Speed and power are a part of human nature.If it wasnt we would all be using a 286 with 4mb ram
Secondly I was referring to baltekmi's comment that Dells are crap.Why are they crap?Yes you can build your own system with better performance at a better price but why does that make a high end factory setup crap?Please understand I don't own a Dell. My system is one I built myself AMD1700+ thoroughbred, 384meg sdram, k7s5a mainboard running honeyx bios, 120gb 7200 rpm seagate barracuda,40gb seagate barracuda 7200 rpm and geforce4 mx440 64mb graphics.A slow system by todays standards but fast enough for most apps/games.
Good to see were back on topic though.

 

Though no malice was intended, freak isn't exactly an endearing term. I agree, Dell's aren't crap and [bold]I[/bold] do own one. There's an awful lot of crap going around if Dells are. LOL I suspect I'm partially responsible for a clinic full of Dell PCs. A lot of people I know are buying Dells as well. Some people follow my recommendations on equipment. For business needs, it's hard to beat Dell's sales department. If one isn't a custom builder and doesn't need the cutting edge technology, Dell makes a decent home unit at a good price.

 

Brobear,

An excellent choice! Not bad for $4269 (USD)! Check it out here:
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/gaming_xpsdt?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
Fully loaded, of course.

Dell makes quite a few really good computers but they are all high to higher in price and quality. I know for a fact that quite a lot of their's get returned for problems either real or imagined and are "Refurbished" and sold to various retail stores like Best Buys, Fry's and places like that! Even Dell sells them on line! But Dell wouldn't be in business without the $299 Celerons and $499 P4s. just add a few "Options" and watch the price fluff up!!!

By the way, when's the new build take place. I'm very anxious to see the performance with the 3.4 Northwood in it. It should ROCK!!!

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

crowy

I didn't know we needed a king to point his subjects in the right direction. And if that was your sole objective you seem to have too much time on your hands.
I guess if you wanted to contribute, maybe an educated question or opionion may be in order. The dell thing is my opinion (nothing to back it up with substansually). Just my opinion.

The Dell computer that you mentioned, may indeed be a good computer, but what do you have to back that up? And I am sure one can be built more economically with better internal equipment than the Dell you mentioned. Sounds like a great computer, but in MY OPINION I am willing to bet that the computer that theonejrs or Sophocles have in the real world smoke it.

 

@baltekmi,

Don't ever let your computer smoke,this can lead to cancer of the mainboard.

isn't really an informative contribution as you liked to remind me earlier

If we all go around saying this is crap or that is crap people who need to know what computer is going to suit their needs will think all computers are crap and go take up skydiving or something.We all know a computer can be built better/faster than an off the shelf item but not everyone can build a computer nor can be bothered so an off the shelf item will do fine.So as long as the computer does what they want how can it be crap?

 

Just noticed the Dell inspiron XPS Gen 2 was given by the highly respected tomshardware site.And here:
Here too!!
Thats a lot of awards for a crap computer.

 

crowy
your responce just justfied my responce to your responce and so forth and so on. let a dead dog lie and humiliate yourself no longer. If you have a ligit question I suggest you move on. Even though this is a AMD VS INTEL forum, there may be questions asked that have nothing to do with that. There are people here that know a lot about computering(theonejrs uses this phrase:computering). So as I see it as such it is not such and then it is... this is where you are going. Let it go and be constructive.

ANyone... does anyone here know how to send a exe. file to msn. it gets blocked on my end. (Ihave msn)

 

@baltekmi,
no worries.
Rename the .exe with a .zip file extension then rename back to .exe at the other end.

 

As a matter of interest in 1978 the 8086 intel cpu was the fastest chip available @ 10mhz.Today lets say 3.8ghz is the fastest.So in 28 years processor clock cycles are going 380 times faster.So if things stay the same,in 28 years time the fastest processor will be running at 1444000 gadillion Megahertz!!

 

you might try turning off your firewall

whats AMD top CPU ? the 64 bit 3700 ?