Intel P4 vs AMD

It would seem so, well not really including myself, I've lost count of how many times i've noticed the discussion being off-topic, but never really participated in them, except for the last one. Helps if you actually know anything about the subject to contribute anything... 1970s ECUs wouldn't be one of my fortes!

 

sammorris

We do eventually get back on topic and everything becomes refreshed.

 

LAN is much better... if only they would hurry up the the "Internet Mrk 2" project. but that will most likly be in development for a while. i think its around 10 differnet cables on the same network and each cable can handle around 100 gb/s or faster. i really dont remember i read about it a while ago but it seems promising except for the task sharing. its just unfair that people who spend almost nothing on their computer should benifit from people who sped over $1000 a year on keeping their computer up to date.

 

sammorris,

In your situation a console game is quite reasonable.
Cost and age can limit what you buy. The new Xbox and Playstation should also improve gameplay substantially.

Lan party guys often have additional computer experience(Geeks)and enjoy the extra effort of building their own high end machines.

 

Well, the price of 7800 video cards is falling again. Newegg has 2 (Jayton & PNY) for $299 (USD). The one I want (XFX) is down to $319! Maybe they will drop to about $279 by Christmas. Here's hoping!

theonejrs

 

If I took my PC to a LAN party I would need a forklift truck to lift the damn thing! She weighs a ton! Not only that, you always run the risk of upsetting your PC. I just have to look at my No2 PC and the RAM needs reseating! Not only that, you need all the bumf that goes with it - monitor (19" viewsonic monster!), mouse & keyboard, headphones etc! Unless it was a game I REALLY enjoyed, I would not bother.
I still love my DC & my PS2 hardly gets a look in now!

 

Pulsar,
The capture I showed was a typical portable gamer for LAN party setups. I wouldn't unhook my home PC for it either, but then it was never intended to be portable. Enthusiasts who are into custom building have no problem shaving off the weight to have a high powered PC that is still light enough to carry. The flat screen monitors have made it easier to transport monitors as well.

LOL Just to keep us on track, the custom build right now should be with AMD. All kidding aside, for the custom scene, the AMD is outshining the Intel with the new dual core and high performance chips. I'll still take the Intel for the everyday mule though.

 

If anybody needed any proof on which was better, look at tomshardware.com's ultimate CPU charts (the latest one). I think it's pretty conclusive.

 

I don't think I'd go as far as believing tomshardware.com is the definitive expert on all things PC. Everyone knows Intel has some catching up to do, and that from an old Intel fan. Intel has been pushing old tech about as far as they can go. Their R&D has seen the light, but the new processors won't be out until later in 06. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with. Will it be more of the similar Intel architecture, something along the lines of the AMD design, or something different? Rumor has it the new Intel design utilizes the architecture of the more energy efficient Pentium M mobile processor. Look out for Conroe, Merom, and Woodcrest, the code-names for the new desktop, mobile, and server processors.

 

sammorris

I read the report starting with Part1 and then Part II. There's no question that the AMD's are beating Intel in just about every area. It used to be that the AMD's were faster with pushing video game frames and Intel was faster with video compression. But now AMD is mataching or beating Intel even in Video compression and none of the CPU's in the final list were overclocked which is another AMD advantage. For instance I have the Venice core 3500+ which is clocked at 2.2 GHZ and it did pretty well at stock speeds. But, I've over clocked it it to 2.64 GHZ running super stable which would now put my speeds above the FX55 which scored high on the list of single cores in fact second place. But the real winners were the AMD X2's on multi threaded applications. They blew the Intel's right out of the water.

 

It should be interesting to see where CPU technolgy is headed. Everytime AMD trumps Intel they come back swinging. When AMD was the first to crack a 1 GHz clock speed Intel responded by pumping up the clock on the PIII to 1 ghz and even a little above. Then shortly after Intel released their first batch of P4's which got their butt whipped by the P3. It was until Intel released the Northwood core that they got back in back game. The problem with Intel is that it's been playing catchup to AMD for some time now. Everytime Intel seems to get back into the game AMD comes along a trumps them. AMD's on chip memory controller used the cheaper and older DDR1 memory and matched the speeds of the Intel chips using DDR2.

When Intel upped its frontside bus speeds to 533 mhz and then 800 mhz, AMD came along and pushed theirs effectively to 2000 MHZ. On a single core chip such as mine that's probably more than my CPU can effectively use but then throw the X2 processors into the mix and now the wider front side bus really shows its stuff. Intel's dual core chips on the other hand are still stuck with the 800-1000 mhz front side bus and on motherboard memory controller. This results in a sizeable bottleneck that has left Intel stuck in the mud spinning their tires.

Now AMD has a new design that is going to use DDR2 in their new socket M2 processors and if you think that the FX57 is one mean single core chip then imagine what their new 64 FX-62/64 using DDR2 is going to be like. It's due to be released sometime in the second quarter of 2006. And for dual core AMD is releasing at the same time the AMD X2 5200 at the same time. which will also make use of DDR2. Both new chips are built using the Windsor core. Unfortuantely AMD is also introducing a new socket M2 to with them.


http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2587

 

You all gave me a lot of help to source my new system and all is well. Thanks
However the new system Asus A8N-SLI/Premium will not read my Maxtor 300 gb SATA but happily reads both the new Hitachi 500 Gb SATA drives

I have taken out both the Hitachi and used the same leads to fire up the Maxtor but the BIOS does not see it
Am I missing something?
Cheers
PS Sophocles - I bought the system as per the info from you last month. Thanks again

 

tophawk

I could be wrong but I think that problem is that both of your Hitachi drives are SATA II and your Maxtor is just SATA 150. If they're on the same controller then that could cause a problem. The Upside is that the Asus-A8N SLI has two separate SATA controllers.

So here's my advice.

1.First update your bios because that can really help.

2. Place your Hitachis on one SATA controller and then your Maxtor on the other.

3. If it's still not being recognized then go to bios to see if it's listed. You may have to setup manually, but I doubt it.

 

Speaking of all the new chips and building custom PCs, are we Vista ready yet? If not, you'd best be doing your homework. Longhorn appears to have been named and it's looking like a CPU intensive, memory sucking hog. If your new PC and monitor are going to handle the new high definition technology, then look to Vista. XP isn't slated to handle the upgrades. So, when building, do it with the intent to have it Vista capable. Some of the new top end PCs and custom builds aren't prepared and the owners will be in for some unpleasant surprises. How would you like to have one of those new high priced widescreen monitors and find out it won't work with Vista on high definition applications? That goes down the line to graphics cards and other paraphenalia. Just a nice little look ahead for both the AMD and Intel enthusiasts.

 

brobear

Yes I've looked at Vista (longhorn) and it bothered me because it includes software that works with a chip that will soon be embedded in your DVD/CD Roms to prevent backing up movies and music. I was first interested in its 64 bit capability since 64 bit but XP has it too, only the apps are lacking. Its worth noting that Microsoft worked with AMD to develop their 64 bit versions. I see no benefits of Vista for me over XP. As far as High Definiton is concerned PC technology has had it for some time and is already ahead of it. The best you can hope for in a TV is 1080P and my system is already capable of almost double that. 2048 by 1536 at 75 HZ refresh rate, all that I'm lacking is wide screen and those are already available in 24 inc models.

 

To Sophocles,

You said:
"Now AMD has a new design that is going to use DDR2 in their new socket M2 processors and if you think that the FX57 is one mean single core chip then imagine what their new 64 FX-62/64 using DDR2 is going to be like. It's due to be released sometime in the second quarter of 2006. And for dual core AMD is releasing at the same time the AMD X2 5200 at the same time. which will also make use of DDR2. Both new chips are built using the Windsor core. Unfortuantely AMD is also introducing a new socket M2 to with them".

I Think that I have my target date for my new machine! I think I'll wait and see how things develop. The "Winsor Core" sounds very very interesting! I meant it when I said I wanted to build the BADDEST computer on the block. Since this will probably be the last computer I'll ever build for myself. It's gonna be an Army model. "BE, ALL THAT YOU CAN BE". By the time Winsor comes out I'll have saved enough to buy everything anyway!

He He HE!!! & YEE HAA!!!

theonejrs

 

My next system is going to be one designed with Vista in mind, meaning plenty of what will probably be DDR2 RAM, a dual core 64-bit CPU and a bang-up-to-date GPU, something like, well, if R580 is out by then then probably one of those.

 

sammorris

I can't say what I'll do with the coming technology, common sense would tell me to get an AMD X24400 and wait until I see what comes out at the end of next year. Remember dual core is still in its infancy.

The R480 is still untested but it could hold promise.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051121/index.html

 

For myself, I'm going to wait and see what 06 brings before making any major purchases. As I mentioned, if one wants to enjoy the new high definition technology, then there's some changes coming. I'm talking about the high def movie DVDs (blue ray and such), not just high def as far as pixel counts go. The way the tech is designed to shut down in the presence of non system approved components is going to take some work to circumvent. It's going to take more than just a simple decrypter app on this one. Microsoft is in a position where they have to go along with the development or get left out. That's one of the reasons why just staying with XP won't work. XP won't be supporting the new technology.

 

All this talk of new stuff to buy and I haven't recovered from paying for the stuff I just purchased.

I'll probably do the Vista thing on one computer and XP on the rest.
I am getting tired of the recording crapanies taking the fun out of computing.