Intel P4 vs AMD

Am not saying Intel are better than AMD, each have there pros & cons. Maybe if AMD & Intel joined up then we would have a really good processor

 

If they joined together we'd all still be using a PIII or T-bred for three times as much as we're currently paying. It's the battle between them lets us be the winners. LOL

 

LOL From the man who said play with what you brung. You're saying it isn't speed that counts and then interject it when it suits you. I'm talking about chip architecture and how it relates to work done. AMD does more computations per cycle and Intel does more cycles. Plus, as relates to the AMD 2800 and the 2.8GHz Intel processor, those are the two that are comparable. It was AMD who was using the number configuration to show which of their processors compare to which Intel product. My 2.8 P4 is just as old as a 2800 AMD, so the comparison is feasible. Costs are so low on the mid level and low end processors, the dollar difference for the single component is negligible. [bold]As I pointed out, the prices of similar processors, Intel and AMD, are close. It's the factory costs for AMD equipped PCs that keep them from having more of a market impact. You can build one, but how many consumers build their PC from scratch.[/bold]

When I bought my PC, it was not overly expensive. Comparable AMDs that are factory built are usually as expensive or more so. Seems we can both find benchmarks to support what we're saying. I doubt I can sway you from your new mission. Just there are a lot of people that won't go along. The popular vote still goes with the Intel. Maybe AMD can do something about their image. If they're smart enough to figure out a better "mouse trap", it looks like they should be able to figure out a way of selling it.

I'm sure you will find something to refute any statement I make; but I'm tiring of your game. I've given the benchmark you asked for and you responded with one using your overclocked AMD. So? How many people are going to build one. I'm looking at the overall architecture as one should. You pointed out on numerous occasions it's not all about speed. My comparison was for processors AMD considered comparable to Intel counterparts (stock), not what the "enthusiast" can build from them.

 

LOL The man said a mouth full. I agree wholeheartedly. LOL

 

LOL P2 and Windows 95 with a dial-up. LOL

How bout them Sophists.

 

Can I piss a bear off or what? LOL

brobear, you're not going to win this debate by siding up with me.LOL

From the beginning I stated that encoding is clock speed related although somewhat less now than it once was. A 3.8 GHZ P4 is still going to encode a bit faster than my Venice is, but only by 2 or 3 minutes and at a cost of an extra $700.

 

Brobear,
You should know Sophocles better by now. He changed to AMD simply because they had a better processor at the time. Intel didn't have anything that would be substantially faster than his Northwood but AMD did. For less money to boot.

I was wanting to get a dual core Pentium because they were pretty cheap but the tests weren't too positive and the 140 watts was a lot of heat to dissipate. So I went AMD also.
I found that the encode times for rebuilder were as fast as Sophocles was posting.

The real news is there is a budget alternative for those who want to cut their encode times in half. Everyone should be happy, except maybe Intel.

 

"Now you pop in and respond to a question that was several posts back. LOL"

I just noticed nobody bothered to tell the way to find the core type.

 

[bold]So I went Intel also.[/bold]

You meant AMD of course.

 

I feel I know Sophocles fairly well by now. Also, I think part of what I'm saying is being missed. It's not just the price of a processor. Look to the cost of the entire package. Comparable PCs are more expensive when AMD equipped. That has a significant effect on consumers.

I never doubted the ability to improve encode times. That was never in question. However, I don't have a top end Intel equipped PC to do personal comparisons. Using the SiSoft benchmarks, which many are fond of doing, I find for comparable processors, there isn't that much difference. Comparable in work done, not just the speeds that keep getting put back in the discussion when it's opportune. I also realize that AMD has some edges over Intel, but not for the average consumer. As I asked before, how many people build from scratch and how many have the expertise to overclock properly. Intel doesn't lend itself to overclocking which I stated earlier. Also, I pointed out in certain circumstances that the onboard memory gives AMD some minor advantages. For the "enthusiast" that builds him own machine, AMD definitely looks good. [bold]But back to the point I was making, for the average consumer that doesn't build his own PC, Intel has been and continues to be a good choice and is mirrored by the consumers purchase of them.[/bold]

 

I wasn't going to say anything. LOL

 

I will accept your concession modestly. LOL LMAO LOL


Ok maybe not.

Actually AMD is less expensive in a fast system than Intel is for a few reasons. First a fast P4 system using a prescott must also use DDR2 which is more expensive than DDR1. AMD has faster memory scores than Intel does using cheaper memory. Onnoard memory isn't a modest increase in speed, it's a major one since because it's on the die, it runs at the same speed as the CPU does. Intel memory controllers are on the mainboard and everything gets slowed down with its use, even faster DDR2, which costs more. Because the memory controller is on the die my frontside bus speeds are almost double that of an Intel system 2X 1000.

Intel has just recently announced that their new line of CPU's will include on die memory controllers. Hmm! I wonder why?

 

People buy Dell because they are cheap. Dell uses Intel only because they are in bed together not because Intel procs are good.
AMD systems are sold for the same or better prices in all the major chains.
AMD is increasing market share but they can only increase manufacturing so fast. Intel is to massive to compete with volume wise.

 

As for pissing me off; you didn't get up early enough or work hard enough this time. LOL I'm not about to side up with you. I only acknowledge what is obvious and I have said from the beginning. AMD tends to be more the "enthusiast's" processor than for mainstream consumers with factory built PCs. Your cost estimates still amaze me. So you are able to overclock an AMD with a Venice core. My same old question, how many average consumers are going to do it? Let's talk some average stock configurations and the picture will be different. Hate to rain on your parade, but what you're doing isn't everyday for most people. The discussion is growing old; so far the only thing you've shown me is that you can build a "speedwagon" PC using an overclocked AMD. Benchmarks of top end and comparable [bold]stock[/bold] computers using Intel and AMD don't show that big a difference and the factory built Intel PCs are less expensive. Nice discussion, but so far, that's all I see: "enthusiasts" like AMD and the average consumer prefers Intel. Go figure. LOL

 

Does this mean that we're not going to kiss and make up? LOL

You did a wonderful job of trying to defend an indefensible position. If you would have had something actually worth defending then you would have done a wonderful job. But you got stuck with defending the current Intel products and they just aren't good enough to be easily defended.

 

If memory on a chip is so exclusive to AMD, why doesn't AMD have a patent on it? A person or a company is foolish not to use something that works, even if someone else came up with the idea first. I'm just happy AMD and Intel are competing, the consumer wins. If AMD is that great, they need to put some of their profits back into manufacturing facilities and grow. Or, are they already meeting their market forecasts as most consumers are going Intel?

 

Actually I don't really qualify as an enthusiast with a 200 dollar Athlon64 proc. My mother boards were 50 bucks each and 60 dollars for memory.
35 dollars for an X300 pcie card. 2 50 dollar sata drives in raid. At 2600mhz there are no P4s that encode CCE as fast.

 

Kissing a Sophocles, what a repugnant thought. Urrr... LOL I never got upset or harbored any ill will. Just a discussion... We all have our points of view. Sometimes we are biased by our perspective. Take a look in the mirror. LOL

One could say the same since your predominant examples come from the perspective of an "enthusiast" builder and not a regular consumer.

 

brobear, brobear, brobear, Sigh!!!!


On chip memory controllers aren't patentable, just innovative, and Intel's P5 will have an on board memory controller, it's a fact, they've already announced it. And for a good reason, they're losing market share at a very fast rate.

The biggest and wealthiest companies aren't always the best, but they do often win because of their superior marketing campaigns and the average American isn't smart enough decide for themselves. You're excluded from that group of course, you're just stubborn as mule and willing to take any side of an argument (A true Sophist LOL)even if it's wrong.

 

You win, I'll run out and break the bank and buy this little $5,000 AMD.

When LOL

Seriously though, that Alienware AMD is one hot puppy. Notice the liquid cooling. Ouch...

Was that point a bit extreme?