Intel P4 vs AMD

@donald

i really wasn't expecting to get my asking price for the EEs, after some convincing by you and brobear, i've decided to keep my chips~ thanks for the advice...

as to the ebay seller for $340, while he may be totally legit, his feedback alone, of 3 @100%, would warrant ME personally not to risk buying from him, but that's just me ...

docTY

edit:

i'm very much in the same boat as you LOL, whenever i go looking for stuff, it's just MY luck as well that prices get jacked up~! it's good to know we have such a "google-master" amongst us to find THE best prices for components...thanks donald~

 

LOL Pay with a US postal money order. If the vendor doesn't deliver as stated, you have eBay and then you can turn the US Postal Inspector's office loose on him. I initiated two cases and they grilled the culprits. They cursed and then refunded my money. The PIs take anything messing with the postal service as a major offense (which it is). That's one protection people seem to overlook. I took it as one of eBay's suggestions.

 

Brobear,

In this part of the world AMD rules. Even in Hollywood, most computer graphics houses use AMD. Check out "Spy Kids 3" in the 2D version. AMD even gets a nice plug along the way as you blast under the AMD logo! Not the best movie in the world but it's the best 3D graphics I've ever seen in 2D, period!!! The dimentionality is beyond belief. It looked great on my old monitor but on my Sceptre widescreen, it's mind boggling!

It's true that Alienware does make a top line Intel Gamer but most of what they sell is AMD. Considering what they charge for front line stuff, it's not their price either that makes them popular. Here in So Cal, it's the "Gamers Dream Machine"! I've seen many Alienware AMD computers at lan parties but I've never seen their Intel version at all other than in their adds. Since I don't have a spare $10,000 plus, I guess I won't buy one of each to find out which is better! He He!



Happy Computering,
theonejrs

 

theonejrs
I didn't take it personaly.
Again I must say The kentsfield quad core is gong to be somthing.
Check these prices coming up for amd. You all probaly know already though. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30738

 

baltekmi,

It wasn't meant to be personal. As Joe Friday used to say, "just the facts"! By the way, there are a few more options available for the Alienware AMDs than for the Intel. Their top line game machines are roughly $5700 for the full bore AMD and $4700 for the Intel. I would gather that either one of them would get a gamer's undies wet!!!

Happy Computering,
theonejrs

 

theonejrs

LOL What can I say, California is California after all and Hollywood has it's own spin on the world. Hate Republicans, vote in radicals, try to change the constitution and love AMDs as they're fighting the monopolistic Intel. We need Babs and her TV Prez in the White House. Don't we love all the causes? LOL (I avoided the good causes so I don't offend anyone's feelings. I'm trying to be a more gentle and caring Brobear these days. LOL)

 

I can't imagine spending 4000.00 for a gaming machine when my 1200.00 setup plays them all at full graphics... lowly p-4 3.2?

 

Lol go on then baltekmi, Play Age of Empires 3 at high detail on that system.... Two 7900GTXs, SLi, 28 frames per second. This is why graphics technology is going out of control, so are games producers!!!

Much though I'd like to see Intel's ass kicked for all time due to their real unfair business practices, I can't see it amounting to anything really major, although there's no doubt in my mind that the Conroe core won't match up to the Windsor. As for the Kentsfield, I've no idea what AMD is planning to do about an "X4" CPU, but you'd be pretty safe in the assumption that they're not sitting on their backsides about it. I'm all in favour of competition and lower prices, but at the end of the day I support the AMD case. Intel have just abused their previous dominant market position and putting out inferior CPUs because 90% of the population don't know any better. When people go into PC stores and get told "we'd recommend the Athlon64 processor since it's faster and more efficient" we might finally start getting somewhere. I really don't see what the fascination with intel is and their damned Prescott/Smithfield cores.
Northwood/Gallatin Intel fans, fine I can see that, but these people who think that a Prescott running at 65C on a powerful heatsink whilst being trounced by a Sempron64 need to tighten up their screws methinks.

Couldn't help but notice the "produced by HP labs with AMD opteron processor" logo at the bottom of the Shrek 2 credits a few months back... Pixar known their place!

I really do miss a lot when sleeping since I do it 5+ hours earlier than you lot!

 

@sammorris

i likes the way you think...LOL i would have to agree with you on that one completely...

i just got an AMD 4400+ this past month, everything on my system is completely "stock" thus far, no OC'in or modification yet, but it ALREADY blows away the Prescott core my friend has in an almost identical setup (ie. ram, gpu card, heatsink/fan, powersupply), the only thing different is naturally the chipset (mobo) and the cpu itself~ i've built a prescott system in the past, but i sold it shortly after the build once i saw my gallatin's run circles around it in everyday applications that i used the computer for...

docTY~

p.s. i am neither a fan of any particular Intel or AMD chips on a whole, since i have both, they each serve their own purposes well...but i am definitely NOT a fan of Prescott cores by Intel, that's for sure...

 

For the record bechmarks aren't why I purchased my first Venice core. I got it because it would encode CCE twice as fast as the fastest P4. Ask Sophocles. He started it. P4 is dead.

 

Let's say the grave has been dug and the P4 is on a banana peel. P4s are still kicking and not quite in the grave yet. I lot of people haven't caught on to the new dual core technology yet and are still buying P4s. As far as office environments, the Celerons and P4s are still adequate for workstations. I'm not forgetting, AMD makes good single cores for the same environment. Lower cost mass merchandising places Intel products in the lead for that market though.

 

64026402
How long did it take you to backup Narnia and/or King Kong? How many passes and the time for just the encode segment.

 

So smithfields aren't P4s then? Are they pentium Ds?
I noticed the Pentium 4 logo has been changed to a "Pentium" logo, so maybe so. A bit confusing since there are celeron Ds which are a completely different thing.
How do 64-bit celerons compare to sempron 64s? I ask since despite our systems, the vast majority of users would seem to use the basic systems without fancy processors and graphics, and consequently it's the area where improvements are most important in the AMD vs intel case.

 

I don't deny the P4 segment still functions well but you keep on saying that it keeps up with the single core AMDs. If that was the case then why did Sophcles buy a Venice core. Why did his times go from 150-180 minutes per encode to 70-80 minutes per encode going from a 3.2 Northwood to the single core Venice.

We have done enough testing to verify this some time ago and this was also the start of the arguement which got this thread going.

DVDshrink is favored toward the P4 but CCE is clearly AMD oriented, at least for the newer cores. This was my sole reason for going single Venice instead of a dual core Pentium D. In other areas the advantage wasn't that much.

I do not have those movies in my collection.
Do you have Bad Girls or White Noise? Those are to that were tested with the single cores.

 

You might think it is bragging or fanboy stuff but it isn't. I have nine Dual Athlon MP systems that made up my main computing for quite a while. They would encode CCE as fast as a single fast P4. it was good enough for me. Me and most of the P4 owners were at the top of the encoding heap speed wise. Old Athlons coudn't compete. Only dual Xeons would have been faster.

I wasn't going to upgrade to the Athlon 64 series. I couldn't imagine them being much faster if any. Then Sophocles had his hardware failure and did some research. He got his first Venice core.
His times were embarrassing all my machines and the other P4s badly.

I admitted defeat and started looking for alternatives. I could have had a 2.8 Pent D for the same price but by all accounts it still wouldn't have beat Sophocles times.
I broke down and got a Venice core. It made things fast enough that I could play with editing more with the extra time.
Then I got the dual core 3800+.

Now my expensive Dual MP systems are all but inactive. Minor server duty only. Old useless collectors items. Sitting next to my old dual P3s and Dual 500 celerons. To much junk.

 

Neither of those movies.

As for Sophocles, he is good at OCing his systems. Also, if you notice, Sophocles moved up to the AMD from a 2.8GHz Northwood. Granted the 2.8 can be OC(ed) by a higher percentage than a higher end CPU of the same model, but it has fewer transistors and doesn't beat them at top end. In fact I've noticed when one starts pushing the Northwoods too far, the benches may pick up a bit on Arithmetic, but the memory utilization suffers. That kills some of the advantages of the extra speed. As far as saying the processor I'm using compares to the faster AMDs, that's because the benches show it. Granted I'm running at a slight OC (3.4GHz @ 3.6GHz), but the results are comparable to the stock FX55 and 57. Surprisingly, the Multi Media is where the Northwood outperforms the AMDs. Granted, the AMDs can still be OC(ed). I got a noticeable boost in performance using CCE with the slight OC of the P4. An encoding pass takes about 40 to 50 minutes. Most RB/CCE backups are done between 1 1/2 and 2 hours. Not a lot of AMDs beating those times by much, especially those priced less than $265. Then of course there are those that are OC(ed). For those who like to tweak, the AMDs do hold that advantage.

Don't worry, my next build will be dual core AMD, unless the Conroe makes a good showing. I'll go with whatever has the best bang for the buck.

 

The 3.4GHz Northwood running at 3.66GHz.



---------------------------



---------------------------



---------------------------

I threw those benches in due to the thread rules of "showing it if you state it".

Note the Whetstone SSE2 figures, the Northwood walked away with those as well while holding close on the Arithmetic scores. Note how poor in comparison the 3.8GHz P4 shows. Goes to show, not all P4s were created equal.

 

Hmm! Let me see where to begin.

My Northwood has never been clocked below 3.2 ghz and those are the specs that I run with when I compared it to my Venice core since I also compare its over clocked values. The truth is that my Venice core when clocked to 2.7 Ghz is faster than even a Galitin over clocked to 3.7 Ghz.

Next: The Galitin and the 2.8 Ghz Northwood have exactly the same number of transistors, they only differ by binning and onboard cache. It's the Prescott cores that have a different transistor count.

I wouldn't even pay $340 for a Galatin today because P4's of any core are history and besides one can get a boxed Opteron 165 for $325. and they're overclocking to 2.45-2.50 Ghz which would make it nearly twice as fast as an overclocked Galatin.


The point is, that until Intel releases Conroe they're out of the game. We all know that in a recent test the Conroe beat an FX60 by about 20%. It would have done worse if they had used a better board and chipset or if it was tested against an AM2. Rumors now have it that Conroe may not be released until 2007. Intel had better hurry it up a bit because other rumors have it that AMD has been successfully manufacturering .65nm core in Germany. Smaller cores mean shorter pipes, lower voltage requirements, faster speeds, and faster clock speeds. I have a feeling that AM2 chips are going to be short lived and that when Conroe hits the market it's going to miss the coronation.

Brobear

Add another 29000 1t/s to that multi media score and then you'll catch mine.

 

Sophocles
I already gave you credit for OCing. I also gave the dual cores credit for speed and both the AMD single cores and dual cores the advantage for being friendliest to custom settings. I own both a 3.4 and 2.8 Northwood and there are different physical attributes one can see externally. What is the significance of those little blocks on the pin side of processor?

I noticed something that kivory 666 was stating about the Gallatin. There's the Gallatin (XeonMP) and then there is the Northwood with the 2MB L3 Cache introduced in 2003. Intel specifically introduced it as a Northwood. http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_p4ee/ I don't know if they changed that later. However, there was both a Northwood and Gallatin with the 2MB L3 Cache. In fact they were so similar, the biggest difference was the name. 55 million transistors for the regular version and 178 mil for the 2MB cache version. As for what difference Intel made between the 2.8 and 3.4 I'm sort of in the dark. I'm still curious about the physical differences I noted.

By the way, don't worry. The next PC I build will definitely be a dual core and it should be intersting.

 

Hmmm. The way I see it, there's been a 6-month ish period in each major tech advancement with processors, roughly. Hence there will have been at least one more after AM2's launch before 2007 and the touted Conroe launch. AMD may not be first to true 65nm, but I doubt they'll be far behind.