Intel P4 vs AMD

I applaud their good judgment. If someone has a better "mousetrap", the easiest way to pull abreast or ahead is to borrow it. No foul; as you said, it's only innovation, not a patented product.

 

What, a $2000 Alien gamer with a Pentium 830 processor? Can I have 2 for less than a top end $5000 AMD gamer? Why sure little bear. LOL

 

brobear

Look at the specs fo the PC's that you just posted. They didn't use AMD chps to make them more expensive, they did it because they're better and they bring down the price.

Please note that PC's that advertise SLI do so because they're more expensive motherboards because they have to be able to use 2 video cards as one. There are Intel based systems that also have SLI requirements but they're more expensive and slower.

 

Interesting as both the PCs I showed use the SLI technology. The Intel is less than half the price of the AMD. Plus to make the super gamer AMD, they had to up the processor performance to the point liquid cooling was necessary.

We can go on all day, but as of yet, you haven't shown any real documentation as to AMD being superior for the average user. Stock benchmarks show little difference. The one edge you noted for AMD, the onboard memory, you also mentioned Intel intends to nullify by adding the same on their new processors.

I'm not in the market right now, but if I were, I think I'd wait until Intel gets the new processors out to see how they stack up. AMD's and Intel's competition has them seesawing back and forth with their products. Until AMD becomes more competitive on the factory built market, I don't see them becoming favorites of the average user.

Interesting move, if you can't win the discussion, attack the person doing the discussing. Hmmm... Sophists?

 

AMD's are less expensive than Intel chips period. They not only cost less but use cheaper memory better than Intel uses more expensive memory.

My chip:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103533

Comparable Intel chip although still slower even when overclocked.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116195


Memory my chip uses two gigs of.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820145574

Memory prescott uses two gigs of.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820145590

And after all that there is nothing that the Intel chip can do to catch up to my AMD. I repeat nothing.

 

My 2 cents: Specifically Dual Core CPU's & AMD versus Intel:
AMD has Dual cores , so does Intel,BOTH are 64 bit. AMD is over double the price. By the way, the Intel Dual Core CPUs are known to be better & faster at encoding video. Compared to single core chips. And, Intel already has on chip memory controllers. AMD was first though, acknowleged. Average user, matter of preference! I built 2 PCs. One is an Intel P4 3.0 GHz. Prescott. The other, AMD Athlon 64 3200+. Winchester core 2 GHz.. BOTH units have the SAME Memory, Kingston PC3200 DDR 400 Mhz, 1 Gig each (2x512), BOTH run the memory at Dual Channel. Application launches, AMD is faster, Video Encoding & Burning, NO DIFFERENCE. Both machines encode & burn the same DVD Video with the same media, same application and it comes out to the second as SAME SPEED on both.

 

bunnyrip

At the beginning of this thread it was stated that some form of proof was required. I would be interested in seeing a comparison between your two systems.

AMD is only more expensive with its dual core chips, a historical first since usually Intel costs more for anything. But if measured by performance AMD can justify its costs.

Video encoding has a unique processor requirement, all of it, and one of the few that relies almost solely on clock speed. The other Intel benefit is hyper threading which only has marginal benefits but excellent in an office environment. Useless for CPU intensive operations and it can in fact slow down anything that requires 100% of CPU resources. For most of us AMD passes the test that we write for it.

 

Sophocles, I realize there has been a historical difference in price (until recently)and currently a slight difference in the highend processors in favor of the AMD. However, lets not lose sight of the end product. The alienware PCs were actually a good example for one thing, cost. The AMD was more than twice the retail of the Intel based PC. Granted there were some extra bells and whistles on the AMD super gamer. However, there wasn't anything near $3000 dollars worth of extras. For factory built PCs, AMD just hasn't got it yet.

 

bunnyrip
SiSoft Sandra is something of a standard and you can get a copy for free. You can submit your screen captures of the benchmarks for your PCs along with any of the PCs in the benchmark list that you may think handy for comparison. If you need screen capture software, let me suggest CaptureWizPro trial from http://www.downloads.com . Some of the other members may suggest a freeware alternative that is good. Host the images somewhere like imageshack and link them here using the [bold]img[/bold] tags shown on the message page.

 

brobear


Would you get off the Alienware PC's already? I'm quite familiar with them. One of our members on

www.dvdhounds.com

had an issue with one, that's Intel based, not AMD. They're designer PCs! As you've observed they make use of technology to the benefit of the consumer. They selected AMD because not only does it make them cheaper, but also because they're noticeably faster. They're not catering to the consumer by price but by performance.

 

I realize they're designer PCs. But where in the world were you looking when you said AMD had the better price. The dual core Intel was about $2000 and the dual core AMD $5000. I don't see $3000 worth of performance between the two. I'm not likely to buy either unless I win a lottery huge enough that money no longer matters. I was just pointing toward where factory prices can escalate using AMD. There may have been a slight price difference in the past for the processor alone, but when it came to the PC as a package, the AMD units have been historically more expensive than the Intel for a comparable unit.

 

You have to include all of the hardware in a system. You're trying make it comparable or different based on the CPU. The Intel machines won't have the same graphics cards. I'm telling you that the CPU is not making the difference in cost except for its potential. No serious gamer would buy an Intel based system and PC builders know that. They save on the CPU and cooling with AMD, but they raise the latter on all the other CPU intensive components. SLI in an Intel system is a waste of time, P4's can't make effective use of them. But an AMD system and two expensive graphics cards that costs about $600 to $800 alone makes for a hot gaming system. Remember that AMD's run fastest with Nvidia chip sets and Nvidia chip sets make SLI possible. Intel has completely lost the gaming populations.

 

I LoVe Speed.. .. . .

 

Sophocles,
Sure wasn't looking there were you? The Alienware super gamer AMD is overclocked and strained to the point of needing liquid cooling for their spectacular performance gain. Again I ask, $3000 worth? Not for me, I'd take up checkers first. I'm aware you've done a better job than Alien with your AMD, but as I've stated all along, AMD is more for the builder "enthusiast" than the average consumer. You can brag on your custom built AMD PC as much as you like, but that will not make AMD any more palatable to the regular user.

 

I've been looking into a new case and liquid cooling so you're preaching to the choir. Liquid cooling has rendered some fabulous results but my heart is really set on a vapochill. And I repeat and agree that they're more expensive but because they have more expensive stuff in them. They wouldn't have bothered with an Intel chip.

 

Glad you finally agree, you have to throw money at an AMD like a wild man to get those spectacular results over an Intel PC. I'm waiting for those new Intel dual core processors with the onboard memory. Hope they're all Intel chalks them up to be. Bang for the buck, give me Intel until AMD learns the meaning of marketing in concern with the factory builders.

 

Actually you'll see results with an AMD even in low dollar systems.

They didn't make AMD systems more expensive because of AMD's needs, they did it because an AMD system can go where no Intel has gone before, AMD's can actually challenge high end hardware. They did it because at the high end it makes no sense to use fast hardware if Intel CPUs can't make use of them so only AMDs qualify.

 

You can say that again... .. .. .. .

 

You'll also see comparable Intel computers at a lower cost on those low end PCs. What you save for a single component, the processor, is vastly outweighed by the cost of the entire PC. So, unless one is a builder, or PC tech, there is no advantage to AMD. The average user is going to get more bang for the buck from Intel. Only recently has AMD garnered an edge with a newer innovation over Intel with the newer AMD dual core chips. Guess what, they started charging more to make up for development costs. Go figure.

We're starting to get repetitive. Let me know when you come up with something new. As it is, we're just rehashing what we've already said.

 

TO add my comments (I'm an AMD fan, but i try to stay objective)

I think where AMD lose out is in their Sempron budget core, which no-one has mentioned so far, amazingly.

In the commonplace market, where MOST PCs are sold, manufacturers and system builders alike go for an Intel Celeron D as opposed to an AMD Sempron because there, cost-effectiveness is what AMD has not got.

The Sempron64 is a better offering, and when 64-bit becomes available, should win AMD a few more points, but until then, Celerons are the main deal.

Despite being an enthusiast PC user, my CPU is relatively low down on the scale - and I haven't overclocked it. OC'ing a 130nm CPU seems to generate too much heat. As I'm typing, despite Silicone paste and a good heatsink i run 58ºC (136ºF). Gaming increases this 3-4ºC further. That's quite hot enough.

I will say for anything other than a budget PC, AMD has the better system. The second you hit the 2800 zone, you can have an Athlon 64, and therefore have a better CPU than a Pentium 4. Below 2800, however, the Sempron just can't do the job.

I think you'll find that at the top end, Intel are JUST AS EXPENSIVE AS AMD!!!
Manufacturers choose AMD in ridiculously high priced systems, because if they chose Intel, the system would not only be slower, for the same excessive price, but need to run watercooling just to run the processor STOCK.

A study carried out (I believe toms hardware did it) on the Intel Dual Core extreme 840 led to the result of an ASUS Star Ice Cooler (a very large, high powered cooler with silicone paste) cooling that CPU to WELL IN EXCESS of 70ºC (158ºF). Now tell me Intel doesn't have a heat problem.

People seem more than capable of overclocking even the Athlon 64 FX series. This tends to suggest that heat is nowhere near as much of an issue.

Where i get some of my components from:

AMD Sempron 2500+: £59
AMD Sempron64 2800+: £52 (Yes, weird)
AMD Sempron64 3400+: £99
AMD Athlon64 3200+: £82
AMD Athlon64 3700+: £176
AMD AthlonX2 3800+: £264
AMD Athlon64 4000+: £270
AMD Athlon64 FX55: £558
AMD AthlonX2 4800+: £634
AMD Athlon64 FX57: £705

Right. That's my AMD lineup. Now I will list Intel processors that I BELIEVE EQUIVALENT to them. I'll SiSoftSandra them to check that later...

Intel Celeron D325: £56 (£3 less and faster)
Intel Celeron D330: £59 (£7 more)
<intel doesnt have anything that rivals the Sempron64 3400>
Intel Pentium 4 540J 3200: £147 (£65 more... oh dear)
Intel Pentium 4 660J 3600: £294 (£118 more...)
Intel Pentium 4 670J 3800: £441 (£171 more...)
<nothing to rival the FX55>
Intel Pentium 4 3.73Ghz Extreme £705 (£71 more...)
<nothing to rival the FX57>

So that would make AMD mostly the winner, barring the Sempron.

I vote AMD. Yourself?

Post edited in 2006: Hypertransport is NOT the same as HyperThreading! LOL what a dumbass!