Intel P4 vs AMD

And just a few years back sources were saying 3GHz was "The Wall".

 

Meh, AMD have yet to go over it!

 

They're gradually getting there. AMD paid attention to the overall design which included memory usage and have beat out the faster Intels for the past couple of years. With Conroe, Intel seems to be following AMD's example; slower, but capable of more work with the duo core architecture.

As far as speed goes the Conroe is slower that the fast Presscotts. I wonder if you meant performance instead of speed. The tradeshow Conroe was running at 2.66GHz and those Prescotts are well over 3 (if we're talking about the same CPUs). What are those figures you're referring to? Remember, we like seeing the specs to go with those statements and a link to go with it when possible.

I read an article from AnandTech that previewed the Conroe and noticed the results were good, but not stellar. http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=4 The Conroe previewed by Intel at the tradeshow was a duo core running at 2.66GHz. What I saw from the benches was that AMD wins at encoding and Intel is a better gamer. That's hardly a walk away win, though it does put Intel back in the running, if AMD doesn't pull a surprise of their own.

As far as Conroe making a "monkey" out of the Presscott, look at what the AMD processors have been doing. From that perspective, it doesn't appear that incredible.

 

I think Intel hired the the top engineers from amd. so now intel is amd or is amd intell? well i am on second!lol intell will eventually come out on top again! By next year things should get interesting..looking past the conroe.......

 

I think Intel hired the the top engineers from amd. so now intel is amd or is amd intell? well i am on second!lol intell will eventually come out on top again! By next year things should get interesting..looking past the conroe.......

 

LOL We got it the first time. LOL And the race is on... Interestingly enough, Conroe is still the hardware equivalent of vaporware till it gets to the marketplace and we see what it can actually do. It just leaves people saying "If it works as claimed, ..." With an Extreme version of the Conroe (which we'll probably see later) in comparison to what is being claimed for the standard version (shown at a tradeshow), it's believable that the Conroe could be a viable answer from Intel to AMD's dual core supremacy. Even if AMD comes out with a surprise of their own to nullify the Conroe, Intel still has time for development of a Conroe "Extreme" that can up the ante.

 

I personally think beyond the conroe. look at all the chips in the last 12 months. mind bogoling. I think it should be named The BALTEK EXTREME EDITION! I think i'll start my e-mails to intel tonight!

 

Mort81 made an interesting post on PC performance on the RB thread. It's sort of a blast from the past, circa 2004. A Northwood 3.4GHz P4 was $418 at Newegg and Intel had just introduced the Prescott as the Northwood's replacement.

 

brobear, Yes that is very interesting...like looking back in time. still it seems that this quote seems to hold true?

or did AMD closed the gap as far as "working"

 

Seems things are changing again. For the longest, Intel had it all. Then AMD crept into the gaming arena. Then, for the past couple of years top AMD processors have been beating the top Intel processors across the board. The tests of the new Conroe showed the Intel having a significant advantage in gaming and the AMD a marginal advantage in encoding. Anandtech favored the Intel over the AMD. Read the Anandtech article from the link I supplied in the previous post.

 

what page was it on?
I know i think, that you will agree with me on this statment.
I belieave that the cpu performance is directly related to:
#1 motherboard selection
#2 memory and of course keeping the temps down.
So everything is subjetive to the hardware. now saying this, I also admit that the hardware helps the CPU to a certain level. So picking out the right combination somtimes is a crap shoot even with all the reviews and benchmarks.

 

I'll go along in part. For optimum performance, the chipset needs to properly support the CPU. With major board makers working on that problem, the consumer merely needs to make an informed decision for his needs. If you know how to build, then you should know how to do the homework. Quality memory goes without saying. Companies like Corsair and OCZ are constantly at work in that arena. (I mentioned those 2, but there are others.) Heat means inefficiency or pushing things toward their limit, as in Prescotts and overclocking. Either way, it needs to be kept down. Good thermal paste and a good FHS go a long way, along with good case ventilation. The goal is to have a system where all the parts complement each other to attain peak performance. The key is parts working together efficiently, but a person does want the best CPU they can afford and the parts to complement it.

There I disagree. If a person pays attention, asks good questions, and does their "homework", then they should be able to make good decisions on purchasing parts for a good custom PC. The biggest thing is watching out for hype and checking to be sure that data is confirmed by more than one reputable source.

Here's the link to that AnandTech article again. http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=4 Naturally Intel was putting their best foot forward, they wouldn't have brought the worst test results they've gotten in the Conroe development, would they? AnandTech gave a bye on the tests they ran, as far as them not being overly biased in favor of a particular platform. The proof will be in a few months when the processors are ready for prime time (when they're available to the public).

 

The Intel Conroe does look promising but rumors have it that they no may not be avalable until 2007. So why take an engineers model and pit against a current version of an AMD chip? It's because Intel is up to their old game of smoke and mirrors. If one were to purchase a PC in the next 6 and even more months AMD will most likely still be the best choice and Intel knows that. So what are they doing? They're confusing the consumer by trying to convince them to wait until Conroe is released.

Here is an honest spin that spells it out like it is and it's really neither for Intel or AMD.

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1830/

 

Actually AMD started with a bunch of workers who used to work for intel.

If the smoke and mirrors tactic story is true, along with the date, AMD have nothing to fear from the Conroe launch, their CPUs will be way ahead of those benches come the launch. They may even be up to a 3Ghz FX-64.

 

I'm betting that AMD is at the end of the socket939 CPU's. AMD has know that Intel will be seriously damaged if they can come up with somthing to upstage Conroe when it is finally released and I don't think that AMD pushing its current cores will do it. Rumor has it that when Intel finally does release Conroe, some of them are going to be clocked at 3.2 Ghz or higher. But the fact that none are availble now or even in the next couple of months suggests that Intel is experiencing some manufacturing difficulties. Otherwise there would be no point in Intel releasing a new Dual core extreme edition.

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=796&cid=1


It's pretty fast but after testing it Tomshardware.com still recommends AMD for all around performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/22/pentium_extreme_edition_965/

 

No, that'll be socket AM2, not 939. The FX-62 will be AM2.

 

sammorris

Unfortunately the AM2's aren't really showing any performance gains over socket 939 either, but they do move AMD into DDR2 compliancy.

 

Neither are "Best". I prefer Intel but it all comes down to preference.

 

No, there isn't much performance gain to be had, but it will harbour new CPUs which will be faster.

 

I try not to get trapped into preferences. My Computer build of 3 years ago was an Intel P4 Northwood overclocked to 3.2 Ghz and it did a pretty good job. I also thought that it was generally better than the AMD Barton cores were and since I also built one of those for my wife at the same time my point is well founded. My current PC is based on AMD's Opteron 175 and it's faster than anything that Intel has available and I'm betting that it will match or even beat their latest Dual core release the 965 for better than $500 less than its cost. When it comes time to do a new build then I'll go with the fastest available at the time whether it's Intel or AMD. I owe neither of them my allegiance but I will support the one that is moving forward to the edge of the technology curve. To buy one or the other as a fan is to lose sight of what's important, dollar versus performance.