Intel P4 vs AMD

There is the hole in the comparisons. A P4 2.5 is more comparable to an AMD 2500, not a 3000. You should be doing a comparison to the P4 3.0GHz processors. Try comparing your 3000 to something like a Sempron 2500 or Athlon 2600 and you'll see a difference there as well.

It has been common knowledge that there is a difference between architecture used by AMD and Intel. Don't try to confuse things by doing comparisons of similar clock speeds. AMD went the way of lower speeds and more onboard memory while Intel went the way of more clockspeed. Until the limits got higher, Intel had no problem. With the increase in processing required from newer systems, Intel can't generate the speed to compensate, so they're going to have to redo some work on architecture of their systems. So kindly don't insult the intelligence of the members here. At most you may confuse some newbies.

 

By the way, if you want to create some legitimate benchmarks of your own, try using SiSoft Sandra. As you're doing the benchmark of your system, you can choose a 3.0GHz Intel for comparison as well as a couple of others. The benches are of stock units that Sandra has stored. You could select a stock AMD 3000 and a stock 3GHz Intel and have them to compare against yours. Now that is the type benchmark we want to see.

As for storing captures of your benchmarks, use an app like Capturewiz. Sophocles tells me there are some free apps that will do the job. You can get free hosting at http://www.ImageShack.us/ So, showing us those benchmarks instead of just stating claims shouldn't be a problem.

 

First comparison to equivalent P4 procs using Sisoft Sandra




No insults intended.

That is a very valid point. It's the key to system performance. Giving Intel something to look at.

 

Morph416

I'm really looking forward to your CPU-Z screen shots.

 

BIOS version is actually, F11. CPU-Z didn't detect the new version.







Three memory slots full, all XMS 512 sticks.

 

I might add that Dell and gateway are strictly-intel because Intel force them to only use intel to allow for cut-throat low prices, which AMD think is unfair and are trying to disallow. I don't know what the outcome of that suit will be.

 

Below are some benchmarks that I ran with a stock 2.8 GHz Northwood P4. It is naturally just a bit better than the average P4 because of the difference in architecture. At least that was the way it was explained to me. The scores are better than the average P4 and I have a well used system.

As for doing benchmarks, I selected the stock P4 of the same speed and the comparable 2800 AMD. Then I went up a step to show how it compares to a 3GHz P4 and the AMD 3000. There was some interesting results. Note I scrolled down to show the current processor specs so it is evident what is being compared. When doing a CPU benchmark with SiSoft Sandra it is best to show both the Arithmetic and Multi Media scores.





As far as the stock processors, there's little difference on the older processors' scores. In fact the 2.8 Northwood had some scores superior to the AMD 3000 and Intel 3.0GHz P4.

 

Sam
I'm sure there was a lot of arm twisting to get Gateway and Dell to sell those lower cost chips. LOL I think that is AMD yelling foul because they weren't able to compete. I suspect if AMD had been in place to make similar demands, they would have. I don't see a monopoly as AMD is now cutting into Intel sales. If Gateway and Dell want to continue to do business solely with Intel, that's their business. I don't see a company like AMD forcing a builder to buy their product.

 

Yeah that's what I thought.

 

rugripper


Could you post screenshots of CPU-Z and sisSoft math benchmarks and memory bandwidth benchmarks? I would love to review your settings.


Morph416

Thanks for posting your info. I would prefer that the CPU math benchmarks be posted and not multi media.

 

I'd like to see the same, along with comparable processors from both AMD and Intel (Not similar clockspeeds). It's a lot of work digging in and reading all those little numbers when they have the easy graphs for comparisons.

 

I request graphics online because they're harder to doctor but I prefer numbers. LOL

Lao Tsu (perhaps the Author of the Tao Te Ching) the true father of that "Picture Paints a thousand words."

 

LOL You said a mouthful. Now if we can get those benches set up the way I showed them, along with the CPU specs in the window so we know what we're seeing compared.

I'd like to point out to everyone that I'm not taking sides now on AMD or Intel. AMD is the current leader in architectural development of processors. Until Intel does something significant, AMD has the upper hand with the newer processors. There's a lot of PCs out there that don't have the newer processors, so the overall PC market isn't reflected by just the leading edge processors. In the past 2 years we've seen AMD come abreast of Intel. Over the past year Intel got caught napping and got nailed. Hopefully nap time will be over soon and we'll see some interesting developments from Intel.

 

Man... that Intel sure blew the pants off those AMDs. LOL I could as easily skew things the other way. Without comparable CPUs being compared and the Processor info in the Sandra window, we have no idea of what's going on.

 

Edit

 

Nice bar graph. LOL Now can we see it large enough to where we can read the print? Not to question, but would you include the Processor info in the Sandra window so we know what Current CPU we're seeing compared.

 

LOL Coming right up!

 

One more!! This is what I ask for when looking at simple benchmarks.






And with a command rate of 1T!!!

 

Next to get those Processor specs under the Item window so we can read the current CPU that's being used in the benchmark.