Intel P4 vs AMD

@brobear

Sandra 2005 Lite SR3 (SR1 added 64bit support)

The software's not to blame, as there are millions of boards out there, can't expect the program to be able to decipher everything a board has to throw at it unless that info's already in it's user database. This board has a lot of temperature probes due to the fact all of it's BIOS settings are manual by default (exception of the drive settings) instead of Auto like others are. You can OC any part of this system with a mere touch of a button. I manually configured the BIOS settings for the 333 bus, 13x1, set the CPU voltage to 1.65, mem to 2.6. The AGP/PCI bus settings are separate in the BIOS, and can be modded as well....though I leave them at 66/33 respectively. Don't care to OC those!

 

Morph
I was just going by what was on the website at Jagged Online showing the different program comparisons. I'm using the Pro, so I've not been keeping up with any of the Lite updates. Looks like they'd change the comparison graph to reflect the change in the Lite app.

 

Yeah, I only use them after a fresh installation, or a new board to see if things are what they're supposed to be. Do a quick burn in test to check temps and fan settings...otherwise I don't usually keep bench tests installed.

 

With the storage I have, a program like Sandra is just a drop in the bucket. I keep it around for "just in case". Plus it's a handy conversation piece here on the forums. LOL When we're talking comparisons and performance, it lets us measure with the same ruler. Having the free Lite version takes the cost factor out as well. With Lite being much the same as the retail, minus some bells and whistles, it's a good tool for most users.

 

brobear


I'm using the new lite version as well, it seems to have all the function that I need, and it's free.

 

Intel will multitask (Hyperthreading)
Amd sux at multitasking (HyperTransport)

 

edward2

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Hyper threading involves a single CPU core emulating and acting as if it were two CPU's. Two CPU's doing CPU non intensive multi tasking/threading. But when an application is CPU intensive, hyper threading is worthless because it can't divide up what it doesn't have.

An AMD 64 bit blows Intel out of the water for 95% of real uses. Hyper threading is largely effective in an office word processing environment, but that's just about it.


hyper transport is something entirely different, It's about memory control or memory controller to be more exact. On the chip memory controllers are hot, AMD's got it but Intel does Not! They're two completely different things but for most functions Hyper Transport offers more speed.

 

Yea I dont know that much I use to run a p4 3.2 I could game, listen to music. and burn a dvd at the same time My amd I have now does not seem to do that that well.

I know that amd is better for gaming not at multitasking

System

AMD Athlon 64 3700+ Processor S939 San Diego 2.2GHZ 1MB L2 Cache 90NM OC 2.65GHz

DFI LANParty UT NF4 ULTRA-D Motherboard

OCZ Gold EL PC4000 2GB 2X1GB DDR500 CL3-4-4-8 184PIN DIMM Dual Channel Memory Kit

ANTEC NEOPOWER 480W POWER SUPPLY ATX12V PS/2 DUAL 12V RAILS ACTIVE PFC

BFG GeForce 7800GTX OC PCI-E 256MB 256BIT GDDR3

SONY 16X DVD / 40X CD-ROM DDU1621 INT IDE W/O SW

SONY DW-U10A DVD+R/RW DVD-R/RW 4X2.4X8 CDRW 24X10X32 INT IDE

2-SEAGATE 120GB 7200RPM IDE 8.5MS 8MB ATA100

LEADTEK WINFAST TV2000 XP DELUXE TV CAPTURE CARD

BENQ FP937 19INCH LCD MONITOR 12MS

NEC ACCUSYNC 95F 19" CRT 1600X1200 76HZ

 

That's no longer true, Amd is winning in just about everything.

I'm sure your system is fine and AMD's really are better for gaming, and just about everything else too.

 

Do you think if I went for a Dual core amd my multitasking would improve.I read that Intels dual core was not that good

Tks ed

 

In all capital letters, YES!!!

That's true for now, they will catch up. Intel came upon dual-core as an after thought.

AMD built their current core designs with dual-core in mind.

 

Tks for the help Sophocles sounds like you no your stuff

Here is a screen shot of my amd aqua score

http://www.cc.keyboardmoving.com/AquaMark388441.JPG

I dont have a My p4 Screen but it was about 66,000

Amd sure wins here

 

edward2

You could use the usual Sisoft lite scores. That's what we all used. I have a preference for screen shots.

 

K will dl free version

 

Keep On!!

 

Hey great program

SIS screen shot

http://www.cc.keyboardmoving.com/sis.JPG

dont know what most means of it does but the burn in part looks interesting

tks ed

 

WHAT ABOUT THE AMD 64 X57?? IS IT NOT THE FASTEST?
MILES

 

Typing in all caps is about one of the rudest things a member can do. Not very appropriate in a tech thread. It's like shouting and all caps is more difficult to read as well.

I wish they would ban that word, fastest, from the PC lexicon. Computing capabilities and capacity are dependent on the architecture of the CPU. The X57 isn't necessarily faster, it does more over the same period of time. You could liken that to 2 men doing more work in an hour than one faster worker or in comparison between AMD and Intel dual cores, 2 efficient workers as compared to a couple of slackers that just scurry around looking busy.

The AMD Processor with efficient memory handles data access much better than Intel. While Intel is scurrying around accessing data, AMD is already at work. It's all about architecture and efficiency, not speed. Where speed comes into play is that is how Intel built their CPUs, architecture again. Until the current exaggerated requirements for computing capacity, it was more simple to have a CPU that ran fast. There weren't the demands for graphics, gaming, and other processor intensive programs as recent as a few years ago. AMD was better at foresight, and built a CPU more capable of handling the demands placed on it. Simply put, even with a faster CPU, Intel's CPU architecture isn't as good as the more efficient AMD. Intel will no doubt get back in the game, at least they have stayed in it in the past. A lot of Intel chips are slated to come on he market this year. That's why I'm waiting until late 06 or into 07 before committing to a new system.

 

MESMD

At stock speeds the FX57 is the fastest single core CPU in the aMD line up. Throw out stock speeds and get into over clocking and the results can be rather surprising. An online friend recently told me that my $233 Venice core would never reach the speed of a FX57 that's selling for $1011.

Here's the results. Note that only my machine and the FX57 are single core machines.

 

I too saved a bunch with my Northwood P4 and a mild O/C of 10% not to mention the heat issues with the Prescott.