Intel P4 vs AMD

crowy

As you've guessed the top one is mine. Take notice of the P4-D 840 dual core. It's not even in the game.
Using RB CCE I can do a two pass encode of any movie in under 7 minutes with most coming in at just under minutes. With DVD Shrink using all high quality settings they come in around 7 minutes.

 

@Sophocles,
I know a few years ago Intel chips were overpriced compared to AMD as far as the Dollar-Performance ratio.Do you think the same holds true today or has the general public woken up?

 

Crowy

It's still true because of how overclockable the latest AMD chips are. I have an AMD 64 3500+ which overclocks stable to 2.753 ghz which sell for $215 and it will match or out bench a P4 extreme 3.7 ghz which sell for $1000.

 

Which makes the AMD the custom builder's darling. But for the average "Joe" (who doesn't open the case) just look at the prices unless you're buying a top end performance machine. If not buying top end processors and OC(ing), shop wisely. I've seen sales on both AMD and Intel processors.

Sophocles
I think I'd go with a 3.46GHz 955 (more cache and faster FSB capability). Still around a $1000 though. But as I mentioned, and you often tell us, the AMDs are better suited for highend and/or custom building. They're not cheap either. I conceded that AMD is king of the hill some time ago. LOL It's hard to refute all those benches for the top end processors.

Crowy
With the money iHoe pumps into his equipment, I'd think he'd get a bigger TV. As for the PC, he could have gotten more bang for the buck with one equipped with a FX-60 or whatever the top AMD processor was at the time (over the past 2-3 years). The drives and accessories can be had with either an AMD or Intel platform.

When was the last time Intel had the top CPU in stock configuration? My memory doesn't work too well past this morning? LOL

 

Crowy, you're welcome to the old PC if you want to pay for it to be shipped over to you from the UK!
It's not perfect though, there's an occasional bios loading issue, and it's had a bit of a troubled past, so no guarantees on reliability!

 

so bottom line is a 3800+x2 with 1GB dual chanel kingston hyper x ram will kick almost all intel's but's

 

Not likely, but an FX-60 will. The 955 dual core Intel isn't a total washout. Though not as friendly to OC(ing), those highend Intel processors can be OC(ed). Extreme gamers are still using Intel platforms, if that's a clue.

 

I think that my system can take it out and my processors costs a lot less.

 

Buy me an Intel 955 to build and we'll have a good bench race. LOL If I'm going to spend my money on top end chips, I'll put it on the proven "king of the hill" (AMD). The 955 is so new, I haven't seen any results on OC performance tests. Most of the tests that have been done, such as Worldbenches, have been done on test boards set up by those doing the testing. Results have varied. The 955 is better than it's predecessors and in stock configuration only surpassed by the highend AMD processors. At high end, AMD is still the best bang for the buck. So, my opinion is that the 955 isn't worth what's being charged when comparing it to the top end AMDs. But if you want to buy me one, I'm up for the race. LOL I'll be generous and spring for the next $1000 or so in parts, including the liquid nitrogen. LOL

 

Brobear,

I may have asked you this but forgoten your answer but, If you need a copy of the asus disk for your new MB, just let me know. I can send it as an attachment to IM. Truth is, I'm kinda lazy tonight or I would have gone back and looked. I can't remember whether your's was a refurbished or not. If it is then you are welcome to 2 SATA drive connectors and 1 power adapter for SATA that I don't need. If yours is a refurbished I'll also copy and scan the manuals (2). I know these things don't come with refurbished MBs.

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

Theonejrs
I appreciate your generosity. The care package isn't needed at present. Asus has a treasure trove of online documents and downloads. If I run into needing the parts, I'll get back to you. Thanks again.

 

Sophocles,

The offer to Brobear is for you as well. I forgot to put your name on it. Old age! Good wine (Matus)! A Good woman!!! That's why I forgot!!!

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

Haven't amd benchmarks always lean to AMD not Intel for the longest??
This is a real question I have only recently even thought about buying AMD. I personally think that Microsoft needs to make there os software better.?.? If you look at benchmarks for Gaming and encoding AMD looks so far ahead, yet a lot of gamers still go Intel.?
Ilooked at the athlon 64 fx 60 toledo. but the fx 57 sandiago comes in close. and the 955 Intel presler have a better memory float?
It is all so confusing. but at 1000.00 a shot.. I'll keep what i have for awhile.

 

theonejrs
The wine I believe. LOL

Baltekmi
Only over the past 2-3 years has AMD pulled away from Intel and then mostly on the higher end processors. AMDs are friendlier to customization, but it hasn't really been noted here that Intels can really be boosted if one wants to improve the cooling. Also, look to the GPUs in use as well as the CPUs. Then the supporting mobo and chipset. Note that the games are not yet developed for 64 bit and dual core systems. So, the high speed Intels can still compete in the game arena. As has been pointed out, some of the top gamers are still using Intel systems.

Benchmarks do favor AMDs because dual cores score better on them and AMD has the better dual core processors. When it comes to OC(ing), AMD is the friendliest. So, naturally they're going to win out. Even the later AMD top end single cores are going to put a hurt on most later Intels. It's interesting to note, as I pointed out earlier, the older Northwood processors actually compete better on bench tests than the newer Intel single core processors. Go figure.

 

brobear
Like I said before I think I will keep what i got. It looks like it will take a while before I upgrade. I can't go any further with what I have. Other than memory. But I have no problems. Thanks For the input.

 

Actually you could take a good step up without a large investment. A 3800+ or even one of the lower cost dual cores are reasonably priced. Most of the quality components on your current sytem are reusable. About all you would need is a mobo, and CPU, and possibly a case and power supply. The latter need not be the most expensive. You could use cheap components to rebuild your Prescott system as a backup or sell the parts. Selling the machine or the parts could help defray the cost of the better custom you build. Adding a better video card might be something to do later, but not a must right away.

 

Brobear,

Nope! It was most definately the woman!!!!!

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

theonejrs


My refurbished board came in a box with everything included. Except for convenience the CD isn't needed because it all can be downloaded from Asus' website.


baltekmi


When AMD and Intel chips are benched marked it is done with a cipset/CPU neutral testing soft. Some game manufacturers do optimize their games for some video cards but never for AMD or Intel. Intel's floating point operations aren't better than AMD's. The higher scores are usually seen on single core Intel's and they bench higher because of Hyper Threading. The problem here is that Hyper Threading only works on non CPU intensive applications. With application such as games and encoders Hyper Threading is not doing anything. When the CPU is under full load there are no extra CPU cycles for hyper threading and so goes the floating point unit.

If you look at my bench below you will note that here the AMD's have a higher floating point operation almost across the board. Hell the $500 X2 4400 is easily beating the $1000 Intel D840.





brobear

The Intel 955 sells for almost $1100 and in most test on the web the X2 4800 is still holding its own in many benchmarks and still beats it in gaming. Part of its problem is the 1066 Mhz frontside bus. Dual cores really make use of the frontside bus and AMD's 2000 Mhz is going to give it an advantage.

Now if you look at my benchmarks and compare them to the X2 4800, and by how much it is beating it I think that you clearly see that my system will but an Intel 955 system on a leash and walk it around the park like a little doggy looking for a fire hydrant.

With some good gear and being overclocked it might match or even beatmy system by a little bit which is specualtion, and I doubt. But if I had an Opteron 185 it wouldn't have chance. if I had an FX60 which sells for $60 less than the 955, then taking it to church on Sunday and having having Billy Graham and the entire parish pray for it would still find it closer to hell than heaven.

 

I think Sophocles realy has conclusive proof that with Intel vs AMD on dual cores, at least for the moment, there is no contest. You wonder how much people have 'wasted' on buying 9xx and 8xx CPUs as opposed to X2s just to see the "intel inside" logo.

 

I don't see why anyone needs to add proof at this time that AMD beats Intel on benchmarks. That's a given at this point in time. Sophocles is proud of his OC(ed) AMD as is evident. Not too long ago Sophocles had an Intel which he was equally proud of. I suspect if Intel ever gets off their duff and makes it back to the top, Sophocles may end up with another Intel and be equally as proud of it. That's really stretching a bit, since Intel seems to keep going the wrong way, except on the mobile systems.

Intel got the 955 up to 1066MHz FSB. This has the cores running at 1GHz now. So, they're not totally behind. Plus the 955 is carrying 2MB L2 cache per core, twice its predecessor's capacity. So, the newer Intels are showing more promise. Intel's R&D just isn't moving fast enough to catch up yet. If the 955 was OC(ed), I suspect it would walk the dog and kick some butt on a bunch of stock AMD processors. Sophocles keeps comparing his OC(ed) systems to stock Intels. That's back to the apples and oranges again. Soph has bought and built bragging rights. But I've seen some benches on some OC(ed) Intels that look good too. I don't need to be told, I'm aware that an OC(ed) FX-60 should beat an OC(ed) Intel 955 on the benches. Luckily in the real world, the differences in the sytems aren't so great as the benchmarks make out. Either those extreme gamers with the Intels are compensating by being far superior to their competitors, or the Intel extreme game machines aren't that much slower than their AMD counterparts. As things are now, I'd buy AMD. But I'm not going to say that Intel is as far off as some people like to say. Wonder why those extreme gamers are still using Intel. Could it be the sponsors or they just like them?