Intel P4 vs AMD

True,True,True, I agree with yall, I just want to belive yall, thats why i was telling yall what my dad was saying, cause i wanted to know what yall thought... No, it is not 2 sticks, but my system will run fine until i get a nother gig or ram. I am not as advanced as yall, But i am trying... My dad does have anger problembs as stated in quotes, So i don't want to fight.

So now I can go to reading yalls threads, Not knowing some of the stuff but learning...

BTW: I wanted to get battlefield 2 for the computer, but i have battlefield 1942 with the expansion packs. What should i do?

Thanx,
Triock

 

edited by ddp because of slow server!!

 

Battlefield 2 is a relatively demanding game and does not support GeForce 6200 graphics cards, so if this is what's in your system that could be a potential problem. It might run the game, but not very well.
And you managed to say yall six times. Not bad!
Lol, friendly jab
peace.

 

I noticed that, sorry, and i dont know why it is sending it soo many thimes...

Thanx,
Triock

 

Yep, the increased adware is getting to be a pain. When it starts acting up, I take a powder. I caught what was happening a few times and IE timed out on those ad windows and told me the page was no longer available. Normally the popup comes in on a separate window, but there appears to be the occasional conflict. Anybody think the ads are getting a bit too aggressive?

 

brobear

He said server, not adware, or suds! LOL

I haven't had a server or suds ad all night! LOL

Or at least not here!

Maybe here.

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7141.cfm

 

I'm saying I suspect the adware is tied into the problem, since it's being directed at us by the server. I've seen a similar occurrence where several people are trying to post at the same time. Similar effect on the server. Add it all up and you have increased situations of the server slowing down. Now as far as suds, why not? LOL

 

I'm now using firefox so problems are far less, but the amount of spyware at AD was really getting on my nerves.

 

No need to post benchies of my own, since I do not own anything Intel anymore...however, Maximum PC and ZDNet are just a few that have proven AMD is spanking Intel like a red headed step child.

 

Oooohhh, that's so wrong... lol
And I am adament that the spyware came from this site. Pop-ups a-go-go.

 

Morph416

I'm also using AMD, I just thought it would be nice to see the results of your settings. I've posted mine earlier in this thread. It might help someone else make a decision and provide some tweak hints.

 

i dont get any spyware here...get a better anti virus like avast....the problem could be that your pc was infected and now its going into full blown virus.....the thing i would do is get it out or do a fresh windows install.....i cant tell you ,i have avast antivirus and love it,it updates everyday and runs a back up.since i got this software i havent been bothered at all by any spyware which i dont think afterdawn has any but you never know....peace

 

I currently run AVG which has sorted all my major incidents out (and believe me I've seen a few) but popups are the responsibility of the browser to sort out, and MF does.

 

Morph416
Sophocles is right. Making statements as to interesting results look better when confirmed by benchmarks. With liquid nitrogen I OCed my old 2.8 Northwood to 4.8GHz, one helluva AMD beater, not... I'd have fun supplying the benchmarks for that one. Since this is supposed to be a technical thread, when results are claimed, they should be accompanied by benchmarks or links to them. As Sophocles pointed out to me, jumping around the net and quoting sites doing cutting edge experiments can lead to misunderstandings. If you're referencing info from a site, such as benchmarks, supply the link so we can look at the info in context. Also, it's best to refrain from personal claims without supporting benchmarks.

Until recently AMD had been trailing in Intel's dust. With the improvements, AMD is cutting into the Intel market share, but Intel still leads. Now Intel has found they have to do some R&D or lose the top seat. As for Intel being knocked out of the ring, not yet. They're hard at work on the memory used in the Intel systems and new processors are in the works. So, I just think Intel lost the last round, the fight continues... It will be interesting to see what the new year brings.

I love the competition and think it keeps the companies working at bringing us better computer equipment. I owe no allegiance to either brand. If I were building a custom PC, I'd probably opt for an AMD at the present time. For a working, off the shelf PC, I'd probably go with Intel. Of course, others have their preferences. That's what the free market is all about and as long as there is no wide gap, the competition works to everyone's benefit.

 

I'll do some posts here shortly, as I'll need to find a site to host the pics.

Trying to prove that my system does well over an equivalent P4 system would be useless, as I stated, I have no P4 running at 2Ghz to compare to.

Intel may have the lead in market share, but it's been well known that MHZ to MHZ, AMD has almost always topped Intel in benchmark performance. And, on top of that, lead the market in price vs performance comparison.

I'll install my benchies and give them a run. Though the system is not a clean install, and those performance marks will take a hit because of that.

I'll look up ZDNet's AMD vs Intel article as well...and edit this post.

Ok, first edit:

If you look on the first graph, you'll see a P4 2.5, as well as mine XP3000+ FPS on Quake III.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2003q2/pentium4-c/index.x?pg=7

In fact, most of the graphs on that site indicate that an XP3000+ leads the P4 2.5. (please look at only the 3000+ and the P4 2.5 results)

Keep in mind also, that recent benchmarks are pitting AMD procs stuck using PC3200, while P4's get to use the newer DDR2 memory...and still taking the lead. What happened in the past, is in the past...

I'll be posting scores from 3DMark2001, 2003, and PCMark2004. If you guys want posts from SiSandra, let me know. All stock speeds, I don't OC anything.


@brobear: Agreed. However, let's keep the playing field even as much as possible. No overclocking. Post results using the same software if you have it available to you.

Mine:
XP3000+ @ 2.167Ghz 333FSB
1.5Gb XMS Ram @ 333FSB
5700U video card (4:1 pixel engine) 2D - 300mhz, 3D 525mhz Memory set at stock 925mhz.

This is no contest, I'd love to see equivalent scores to matching systems. No 5Ghz procs running 800mhz ram compared to a 800mhz duron on a 200mhz bus...

Until then, this might be of some good reading for those that like reviews:

http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?page=processor

 

Morph
Until the recent past, Intels faster processors had AMD beat across the board. With AMD's improvements, they started to split the tests with better graphics, but Intel was still beating them in flat out mathmatical processing (work like we do with video processing). Only with the newer processors has AMD started beating Intel in all categories. You're speaking of months, not years. With Intel hard at work, the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned.

I am aware AMD has long been the darling of custom builders due to it's adaptability toward OCing. That hasn't endeared it to the mainstream public though.

I find fault with this assertion. No one compares Intel and AMD on a MHz to MHz basis. In the past AMD labeled their processors according to the MHz of the comparable Intel CPU. For instance an Athlon 64 3000 is comparable to the Intel 3GHz, though the 3000 AMD is only running at 2GHz. The difference is architecture. Speeds were more a marketing ploy that the retailers got caught up in and the consumers bought in. As for bang for the buck, the major suppliers have gone with Intel with AMD only recently making more inroads into the market. Dell and Gateway have been the 2 largest with a strictly Intel line in the past. So, the majority of the PCs out there are Intel based and that's because the consumers have been going for economy with the best performance. If your assertions are true, then supply us with the data proving it.

And don't worry about those benchmarks, we allow for working systems. SiSoft benchmarks are reliable on Memory as well as the CPU working benchmarks. You can even select the comparable Intel processors for comparison. Note though that it isn't done on a MHz to MHz standard, AMD 3000 is comparable to Intel 3.0GHz and so on until the more recent releases. It's in the architecture, not just the speed. That's why Intel is working on the memory as well as the new CPUs. I'm sure Intel realizes the edge onboard memory has given the AMD processors.

 

@brobear

True. The way the procs have been labeled has been misleading...however, as gurus ourselves, we look at the real picture. I don't follow the beaten path in regards to saying this proc is equivalent to that proc because of it's perfomance rating. I want to see the benchies of a 2ghz AMD chip compared to a 2Ghz Intel chip.

Intel makes great processors, no doubts there my friend, I've owned several of them and have no complaints. However, I am also practical, and like more bang for the buck. I am no 'fanboy' as most would define it.....I use what works for the money spent.