Intel P4 vs AMD

Brobear,

I'm glad you got it and I'm sure you will be very happy as well once it's setup as I am with mine. If they did have an extra one laying around I was toying with the idea of getting it, just for a backup or possible upgrade for one of my other systems. My new fresh build will be an AMD system and I will want it to be near the fastest available for a single processor. I'm waiting to see the results from Sophocles new system when it’s complete. Do I need it that fast… No Do I need another system… NO Do I want a new toy… YES!

 

lofty2x2

The L2 cache is 512 they're adding the L1 cache on top of it which is L2 512 +64+64= 640.

 

? ? ? ? ?
Hello
? ? ? ? ?
:/

O.K. Where can i get a version of sandra for the 64 bit for free.. Cause i dont know... LOL..
BTW: Why is nvidia a better card if it only has half of the power of a ATI? I guess it's another Amd VS> INTEL..
LOL..
hit me up:
Triock

 

Triock

Are you using WinXP 64? AMD's work just fine on the 32 bit version.

Go here and download, it's what I use.

http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/index.html?dir=dload&location=sware_dl_3264&langx=en&a=

 

ScubaBud
In the last few hours a Dell Forum member said he ordered one of the 3.4 Northwoods online at StarMicro and his order went through. I had mentioned your saying they might be out. The StarMicro price on the 3.4 Northwood was the best I've seen. Since I already had my order in, I thought I'd pass along the good prices.

I'd asked about my "situation" on the Dell Forum last week. No one answered my question there either. I told the forum what I found out when other people came on saying they were wanting to upgrade or had run into a similar problem. I have to say, Dell finally came through with the info, but it was like trying to find chicken's teeth to finally get what I needed.

Just a bit of a change of subject... I noticed your Asus board. On the Asus website it says the board supports various 478 pin processors. I was just wondering, since it isn't printed out clearly, does that mean it supports both the Prescott and Northwood high end processors? I was just wondering what you know on the subject while I wait for info I requested from Asus.

Sophocles,
Just in case, do you know?

 

brobear

If you're talking about my P$P800-SE, yes it's compatible with both Northwoods and Prescotts (the term is Prescott ready).


http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=179&l1=3&l2=12&l3=31

 

I was looking at the write up on the Deluxe version. The Prescott support wasn't as obvious, or at least on the page I looked at. Thanks for the info. Just to have an extra PC to toy with, I may later take your advice on a cheap 2.8 Northwood build. Sort of a shame to leave a good processor setting in a box.

 

This is what it is saying...

\ The server has reported the following error:

Could not initialise database! Check database file, database server, or MDAC.


What do i do???

Thanx, Triock

 

No problem. Hey let me ask you a question. Ok Opteron equivilant to the San Diego Core "3700+" is a bit more expensive then the 3700+. I know that AMD is coming out with a "quad core" cpu late this year around November or December-so dual core isn't as important to me since I can't currently afford anyway. I have read many that have overclocked the 3700+ as high as 2.6 with only air cooling and maybe a slight bump in voltage.

Some say you can get up to 2.7 or higher air cooled if you have good board and great memory. My question do you think getting 3700+ is a good choice or should I wait to see if the dual core's will come down in price? I am not looking to build my computer until Febuary anyway.

 

novicebb

I have a Venice core overclocked to 2.753 and other than its 512 cache it's essentially the same processor as the San Diego core. The dual opteron 175 is regularly hitting 2.8-2.9 ghz with each core. It will be at least 5 years before a quad core is supported by software that is consumer usable. They'll probably work great in a server.

 

about competition? Have you guys read about the antitrust stuff from Intel? It doesn't make sense that an industry with so many computers that one company can hold over 80% of the marketshare without there being incentives that Intel has used that creates the 'restraint of trade'. I dont overclock my pc and it is faster than any that I have ever seen with my AMD 3500+. I bench my computer with various benches and have exceeded pentium extreme cpus at 3.2ghz. pcmark i have compared and defeated 3.4 p4 extreme. I was wondering as well if AMD had a patent on the memory on die. Can the person who stated Intel is going to do that to provide a link? I am pretty sure that somethign like that would be patented. Intel as the chair for the memory conference barred AMD from joining it. hypertransport direct connect archetecture is pretty awesome and allows for more bandwidth than Intel and is both ways efffective 2000. I have used 3ghz pentiums and have not been impressed and actually if i had to keep the computer that i built that was Intel's i would be upset to tell you the truth. Intel does an injustice to themselves when they have their 'onboard video' it destroys their name because it is slow, laggish like helll lol you click on somethign and you click again because it just takes so long and this doesnt happen iwth the AMD cpus, I can run stuff and click on a program and have it react pretty quickly unlike Intel's famous "oh i might not hvae clicked the shortcut, let me click again, oh, i deid click it" that has occured so many times lol and it is not a positive. Plus, by what I read, Intel is making stovetop cpus lol. I read on Newegg that Intel's stock heatsinks do not cut the gravy that youw ill have to buy another heatsink to deal with the heat. Idling at 70C is nuts!!!! My cpu has never gone over 58C and i am always running multiple things and have had it full. I just dont get how Intel can lower their or shrink their die and get hotter lol. Read the review on the Intel 65nanometer, it went up to 95C!!!!! maybe intel is coming up with an idea on how to fry eggs while using your computer! (joking, but boiling point is 100C)

 

mrpsych

And well you should as the 3500+ is comparable to an Intel P4 running at about 3.5GHz or better. I'll supply the info once again, you don't compare AMD and Intel by the speeds. Until just recently AMD named their chips by the comparable Intel processor's speed. A 3400 AMD is comparable to a 3400MHz Intel (or 3.4GHz). What you've been doing would be similar to comparing a 3500+ to a 3200 or 3400; in the Intel line that would be similar to comparing a 3.6GHz P4 to a 3.2 or 3.4GHz processor.

One thing we've asked from those citing benchmark results is to supply screenshots of those benches and the CPU-Z shots as well. I'd suggest your selecting the 3.4 and 3.6GHz Intels as comparisons since one is a little below your processor and the other should be about the equivalent. Also, it wouldn't hurt to include the AMD 3500+ to show how your unit is comparing to the one used for benching comparisons.

Just so you know I'm not supporting either, I have an Intel and if I was building right now, it would be an AMD. You were talking about Intel onboard graphics. I use a graphics card, not something built into a board, as most people do and few builders would use such a mobo on a custom build. Intel doesn't match AMD for graphics and video, but they're not that far off. A lot depends on the users choice of cards and RAM as well as the mobo, chipset, and processor. I'm sure someone could build an AMD that's a flop if they used poor hardware to build the system. If you want to call a particular Intel system a flop, supply the specs and a bench screenshot to support the statement. This is supposedly a tech thread, not just a "air your gripe" or preference thread.

Other than some of the youngsters, I doubt many of us haven't heard about the sour grapes over Intel having the huge marketshare. I'm glad AMD is giving Intel trouble as it makes for better offerings for the consumer. We've seen what's happened in the past with Microsoft. If that was any indication, the only real change was that a bunch of lawyers got richer. As far as the status quo, little changed. AMD is getting a larger marketshare now, but it's because of better offerings, not something they're winning in court. In the end I suspect it will come down to user preference of the consumers. Even if Intel were to have to pay some kind of fine like Microsoft, I don't think it would have much of an impact on the market.

 

mrpsych

Hey new blood! LOL

OK guys my new dual core Opteron 175 up and running and I'm already tolerance testing it. I didn't wast any time fooling around with a bit here and there, I know my set so I went for 2.6 GHz right off the bat and believe it or not it's idling at 30 degrees Celsius. I purchased a retail version and it came with a very respectable heat sink and fan. It's a four copper heat pipe setup, I can't wait to throw RB at it.

 

My Jaw is on the floor. 30 Celsius for a 2600mhz core speed on and AMD. Those things are incredible, they might as well be 45nm for the heat they put out, which is more than we can say for intel, eh?
No cpu should ever run at 95C though, as thermal trip-out should occur at 80, well it does for modern Socket A, so i'd assume 754, 939, 940 and therefore 775.

 

Well, it is a big difference, and I dont think it is a coincidence that after the lawsuit that Dell is picking up and selling AMD PIB and I have heard will build systems on it as well. Read the lawsuit that was filed by AMD. AMD offered HP 1,000,000 free cpus and hp only took 100,000 of them!!! 25 million dollar penalties from Intel becauase of the ratio that wasnt obided by. This has huyge implications for free trade. As well, Gateway stated they were 'retaliated into guakamole'. This is the precise point of 'restraint of trade' imposed by Intel's quarterly incentives and penalties by holding rivals hardware, which is worse than what Microsoft has done. and is why Japan has imposed orders against Intel prior. And is the reason why Intel has not that much worry because of these 'constraints' they apply to their customers. It has devastating effects on the consumer. Especially with Intel not allowing AMD to be a member of the memory conference it was chair of. The funny thing is, Apple advertised its superiority over Intel lol. Well, why would apple go with Intel? well, tactics have it Apple really didnt have a choice in many aspects and you can see how 'predatory pricing and practices' has had its influence. Apple really think it is going to improve when it gives up hypertransport? AMD developed hypertransport and Intel didnt pay to get in, so i dont really see how Intel can third party in to get to use hypertransport with Apple. This going from direct connect archecture to now on the front side bus will slow apple's performance even if the rumor is true that Intel will be able to use memory controller on die. Instead of 4 way it will be two way now, their bandwidth will go down.

 

mrpsych

Right on!

Update. I'm now at 2.712.3 Ghz and still climbing (current idle CPU temp is 33 degrees Celsius}.

My goal of satisfaction has been reached and now I'm aspiring. LOL

I want 2.8 Ghz but I dream of 2.9.

Update: I encoded a DVD (Serenity) and the temps never exceeded 49 degrees celsius under full load, while I surfed the net.

 

mrpsych
I'd be careful using Japan as an example for trade practices. The country is notorious for curtailing foreign trade for any reason. The US has had an open problem with them on unfair trade practices. The Japanese will take advantage of any situation to try to eliminate foreign competition in their country.

Apple going with Intel is old news. Sour grapes and rumors of unfair trade had little to do with that one. [bold]IBM[/bold] just wasn't keeping up with their R&D according to Apple. Take a look at this old press release in the Washington Post from June 05, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601748.html . Other than AMD not being chosen by Apple, AMD has little to do with the situation. AMD uses Microsoft as well as Intel and a lot of Mac users like their Apples because they're not tied to the Windows systems (Wintel). Apple has voiced no intention of offering a Windows setup. But how hard is it to add a second boot OS? One of the reasons I'm not building a PC now is because I'm waiting to see what Intel is going to give us in 06. I have a good Intel system at present that doesn't fry eggs or boil water. If Intel doesn't come up with something good, I'm still leaning toward the AMD myself.

LOL It's called advertising. Are you going to say your competitor is better than you are? It's been a long time since I've heard anyone saying IBM is superior to Intel. Apple isn't making their own chips that I'm aware of. Now that Apple isn't exclusively IBM, I doubt you'll hear them taking digs at hardware they've adopted for use. That's called business. Take a look at the article I mentioned before. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601748.html

That one left me a bit confused. Apple is dropping IBM to use Intel. How did Intel getting to use AMD's Hypertransport get into that one? There are technological break throughs that a company has. Unless it can be patented, there is nothing wrong with another company adapting the technology to their use. We all know that AMD would sue the pants off Intel for illegally using something of theirs. I don't see using tech break throughs as pirating as long as it isn't a patented item; that's accepted business practice, go with what works. I caught your spin on Intel using unfair business practices to gather and control contracts. So, I'm assuming you're saying that is why AMD wasn't chosen as Apple's choice. As I said, other than this indirect connection, I don't see AMD in that picture. Out of curiosity, what article are you referencing for Intel's intent to use hypertransport and how does that connect to Apple (other than those unfair business practices, we don't need a rehash of that)?

We like hearing people's take on issues, but the open forum is more the place for political views on the business aspect. As I said before, most of us are aware of the issues going on in the business world. We would much prefer to see the screenshots of those benches you were referring to. Most of the regulars around here have already posted theirs. So, when they make a claim, we can refer back to their posted benches. Even the best of us sometimes make posting errors, that would require nitrogen and some that wouldn't. I heard this rumor... LOL We're looking forward to those benches. The Sandra benches have been what we've been posting along with the CPU-Z screenshots.

 

I too disagree with the Japan model for business practices, especially after the Sony & Lik-Sang fiasco, but I do wholeheartedly agree that companies like HP suffering huge penalties for accepting free AMD processors is detrimental to the consumer. Ever since the modern Athlon XP (about after the 2000 mark) I have been with AMD and this is only becoming stronger with the promising benchmarks of the Athlon64, Athlon64 FX, Athlon64 X2 and Opteron series chips, and after seeing just how bad the top-end intels are at heat production (I mention top end as really it is only the dual cores and the extreme editions that have that problem) I'm even more convinced. This is why I am going not for an off-the-shelf PC but for a "built to your specification" PC. Not a "would you like a bigger hard drive" option but "which this, which that?" selecting from huge drop down boxes. It ends up with me getting what I want, fewer post-construction squabbles, and above all, it's cheaper.
If only AMD could establish it's postition better (heck, maybe even come up with its own 5-beat jingle) the competition would become much fairer, with companies like Dell, HP and gateway selling Intels and AMDs. Unfortunately Intel's products are obviously of reasonable competence and to reverse the current inconsistency they would need to be hopeless in comparison to AMD to warrant the change. With the 2006 lineup of various new developments, I can see this being pretty unlikely.

 

You took what i was saying as too literal. They were just links to a point. Apple fully advertised how they were 90% faster than Intel, it was a major focus in their marketing in which I was refering to. The original point, in such a huge industry it is weird to have 80% or more marketshare unless there are other means behind it like 'restraint of trade' Intel's use of incentives to coerce its customers to only hold a certrain ratio of competitor's chips DOES HAVE ITS EFFECTS LOL no matter how blind Intel's followers are lol. HP turning down 900,000 free cpus and Intel still screwed em over the incentive. What i was referring to was the point of Japan's orders, I was not referring to Japan as a role model. One thing I have noticed about Intel is their genius in marketing and how many people who like Intel blind themselves, almost like Intel is their God lol. and yeah, boiling water that was a joke- Maybe I shoujld have put in parenthesis (it is a joke do not take literal please) I will do that for now on, often implicit jokes are not taken in writing, especially my careless writing online as they are verbally in person. But, that is the nice thing, how Apple used graphs and in detail marketed Intel as so slow and has gone to them that is just huge, to make a huge point on Intel's lack of efficiency to turn around and use them is pretty interesting.

 

One thing that I have thought about, I read somewhere that AMD had like 50% of the sales from retailers in one quarter. Well, maybe Dell's decision to sell them could be the thinking "jeeze how much of that 50% could we have had? And would that have amounted to more money than the incentives?" I think AMD's lawsuit helped pave the way for that because of the public nature of their filing (you can get hte lawsuit off of AMD's site they filed).
It is good to read what people have to say, that is why i think computers and the Internet is such a great tool. I do respect all of your ideas. Just (and this does not exclude myself) that many people bias their judgement based on who they like which is human nature and Intel gets a huge margin on this. Personally, I kind of like the underdog, and sometimes it is a goldmine becauase in this case with my experiences AMD has performed really well, it is pretty cool when i have had this computer for more than a year now and still think it is really fast and dont think I need an upgrade. IBM's idea of needing two suppliers when they took Intel sa a supplier was a good idea. It is just amazing at how small the suppliers are for such a huge industry. Look at cars, wouldy ou ever think one brand would have 80% even if it was the best? It is jujst weird to have such a gigantic industry with such a skew of numbers to one end esecially with how close AMD and INtel actually do perform. Even if AMD and Intel may be 10% off each other, that is not even that big a deal. It is not like you are trying to match a jaquar to a volkswagan bug on the market.