Intel P4 vs AMD

id still use AMDs even for an office PC

just slap a sempron 2500 in a cheap board with onboard grfx and sound with 256Meg of memory and hey presto you have an efficient little word processor that didnt cost you as much as a dell

 

I agree totally AMD system would be alot better, and cheaper than the Dell.

But...

With Dell you get a monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, mouse mat, XP license

And most importantly you get Dells Warranty.

So yea a Sempron is a great choice but Dell still is a better choice then a prebuilt for a simple office.

 

Yeah maybe so but i dont make a whole lot of money from selling dells to my customers...lol

Besides if you just buy the serial for xp and not the software it works out cheap specially if you buy a multiple user licence pack

and ive not had a complaint about my sempron office systems yet (fingers crossed) and ive flogged off quite a few now

All my waranties come down to the individual parts aswell which means if something does go wrong i jus replace the part quick and easy with bits i have lying around and send the faulty one off to be replaced

i say SCREW DELL BUY FROM ME!!!

lol

 

Lol

But im guessing your customers pay you for you to come out and fix there problems?

And also pay you to sort out there RMA's ect?

And if you like us charge £85 an hour... it could become quite expensive for your customers!

And For a normal office computer I'd say it takes around 2hours yo get it up and running. I mean built, XP installed, Windows Updates, Office, Anti Virus blah blah blah... £85 x 2 (£170 saved by getting a dell already)

 

im only a small buisness that supplies for other small buisnesses (its mainly during my spare time as i have another job) i dont charge £85 an hour and besides they only have to pay me to fix something if something goes wrong... which it rarely does... although somedays i wish it would lol

 

Same for us really.
2 man company, i've been working here for a year now, so im sure you know alot more than i do im only 17.

Im sure your way suits you and your customers fine.
And until we have complaints or find somewhere cheaper, Where gonna keep buying from Dell.

:O) Thanks for an Intelligant Discussion lol

 

Interesting article here:

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-10442_16-6389077-1.html?tag=promo2

I have a P4 now , I am 99.9% sure the next machine I build for myself in the next month or so will be a 64 bit AMD !!!!!

 

bitchplz


AMD's used to be better for gaming and Intel with video compression but now AMD is beating them there too. Recent bench marks comparing AMD's and Intel's has Intel losing in all categories, and this was without overclocking. Since AMD's overclock so much better than Intel, their performance gap widens even more.

Triock

6402's advice is right on, there is a lot of good overclocking info on this thread, but even if there wasn't without knowing the make of your motherboard and memory it would be almost impossible to give any real advice.

 

So, if one suspends a "Baby Ben" from the ceiling, they've accomplished the maximum in overclocking? Or would they have to mount it on the roof?

 

If they mounted it on the roof then you'd really have to make an effort to get it over the clock.

 

I just upgraded from a P4 2.8GHz HT 800MHz FSB Northwood to an AMD A64 3500+ 939 2.2GHz and here are my findings:

1. My system boots faster.
2. MAME plays faster and smoother.
3. itunes no longer lags when scrolling down playlists.
4. A64 has idled as low as 25c versus P4 that typically idle at 30-35c.
5. System feels more responsive as a whole.

Both systems have 1gig of Dual channel DDR400.

The only downside to AMD that I see is that AMD doesn't design/manufacture there own chipsets and motherboards. There are alot of novice system builders like me that have no interest in overclocking and are looking for a nice stable system. Any good motherboard made for AMD these days is all about the tweaker/overclocker. The bios in these boards can be confusing to a novice. VIA is mostly crap from what I understand, Nvidia makes a quality chipset, but its been known to have glitches and driver issues.

Despite my few gripes, all my new system builds will be AMD.

 

Note to 72morgan

www.google.com Type in AMD Versus Intel. And you will see more than 1 set of benchmarks. Going on one set of results really shows a AMD fan boy!

Sophocles: AMD Chips are great chips i never said anything about that they are built for gaming chips due to there short pipelines. But Intel still lead on media, video editing ect as there chips currently have longer piplines which help with muilti tasking.... Xeons would still oWn Opteron's

denzilla: Pentium 4 2.8Ghz - AMD 3500+ 2.2Ghz

Amd 3500+ is equivelent to a Pentium 3.4Ghz Processor already a big difference there.

And before you judge, whats the other specs? Motherboard, Gcard, Was it a fresh Install Of Xp?

 

Old rig:

Asus P4P800MX MicroATX MB
P4 2.8Ghz HT 800MHz FSB (Northwood)
1gig (4x256)Kingston ValueRam DDR400 in Dual Channel mode
Integrated Intel Extreme gfx2
Integrated Soundmax audio
Seagate 80gig SATA
WinXP Pro SP2 (32-bit)

New Rig:

Asus A8N5X ATX MB
Athlon64 3500+ 2.2GHz Socket 939 (Venice)
1gig (2x512) Corsair Value Select DDR400 in Dual Channel Mode
Radeon x700Pro 128meg GDDR3 PCI-E
Integrated Realtek audio
Seagate 160gig SATA II (partitioned into two 80gig drives)
WinXP Pro SP2 (32-bit)

I based my judgement on what I was getting at 2.8GHz on my Intel Rig vs. my new AMD 2.2GHz rig. MAME doesn't benefit from gfx cards as its all software, so that rules out the Radeon having an effect. Yes, I compared with fresh installs in both and it made no difference in the outcome. I am not biased to either company and will go where the perfomance is and now its with AMD.

 

bitchplz

Benchmarks are always done on a fresh install of XP. And as far as encoding goes, encoding is largely clock speed dependent which explains Intel's previous advantages over AMD's in that arena. The 3500+ is a PR rating and not an actual clock speed measure equivalent because an AMD at the same clock speed as an Intel would be an Intel killer.

I've overclocked my venice core to 2.64 GHZ and in most benchmarks it surpasses even the P4 3.7 extreme edition although not in encoding. But then my CPU is about $600 less to buy. There are no P4s within its price range that even remotely comptetes with its encode speeds. Most of the test done take the chips at their stock ratings but overclocking is AMD's benefit over the P4.














There's more where this came from now all you have to do is compare the right cores with each other. You'll note that the Intel dual cores are almost completely out of the running against AMD's dual cores. My machine is faster than the FX55 in the test and almost as fast as the FX57. It's about price and performance and Intel is left out in every category.

 

We've already discussed the advantages AMD currently enjoys. So, a slower AMD is similar to a higher speed Intel processor. As discussed previously, it's really about architecture. Until recently the AMD chips were named according to the comparable Intel chip's speed, not the speed of the AMD chip. The 3500 would be the equivalent of a 3.5GHz Pentium, even though the AMD has a lower clock speed. So, just thinking in the lines of Intel, you're making quite a jump when going from 2.8GHz up to 3.5GHz. Speaking in AMD terms, that's like moving up from a 2800 to the 3500, covers a lot of improvement in just the processor. So that alone explains a large part of the system improvement.

 

Sounds like a thread revival. Optetrons wipe the floor with any Xeon setup. The 3 HyperTransport links per chip alone leaves Xeon out of any serious comparisons. Multiple procs need more bandwidth.

The P4 Netburst architecture is flawed and on its way out. Everyone knows it. The only real competition Intel has is based upon the old P3. The Pentium M far outclasses the P4 in power per mhz and watt.

 

P3s were workhorses. Wonder why they went with the flawed architecture of the P4? Surely someone at Intel spotted its shortcomings?

 

denzilla

Intel went with the P4's to up the transistor count and to add SSE2 intructions along with the ability to punish the crap out of them with voltage increases that matched clock speed increases. The Pentium M was perfect for laptops because of its raw speed compared to its low power requirements. The P3 actually outperformed the first P4s. IF Intel didn't recognize the short comings of the P4 against the P3 architecture then, they certainly do now.

Here's an interesting article about where Intel's headed. They won't be down for long.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051203/index.html

 

P4 was just a sales tool. Mhz at any cost. You might notice that businesses got The Itanium at under 1 ghz. It would kill a P4. Tells you what they thought of the actual performance of the P4.

 

Well as everyone says, thank goodness for the competition. AMD is keeping Intel honest it seems. The R&D at Intel is already hard at work trying to catch up, if not forge ahead. The architecture for the new processors appear to be on the Pentium M type architecture. So Intel already knows which piece of hardware is the better suited for the new processors. They know it isn't the P4. The P4 Northwood seemed to be a good advancement over the P3. However, when Intel developed the Pentium M, they should have gone with it then instead of waiting till this late date.