Intel P4 vs AMD

Hey Guy's, I am very thankfull for you all... Um im only 14, but i know a behemoth about computers, My dad is a DBA, And i kinda branched from him... I agree with the 64 bit athlon, but i dont think I need a 120 gig hd.... and yeah my motherboard does suck..
I am trying to do school and this, By the way i have 2 honors and a'ssing all of my classes... But my dad is telling me not to get the water cooling system, one mistake or leak, and bamm no computer..
\
And i am not a big fan of intel either but the prices are lower, and i forgot to add, my cpu is already overclocked.. !! Right know i need to get a new case for my computer, im going to get one that can handle the atx mobo...
And compared to yall guys computer my computer is ssllooww.....

But i am a big xb fan.... 70 games and everything
Thanks guys,
Triock

 

Hey Guy's, I am very thankfull for you all... Um im only 14, but i know a behemoth about computers, My dad is a DBA, And i kinda branched from him... I agree with the 64 bit athlon, but i dont think I need a 120 gig hd.... and yeah my motherboard does suck..
I am trying to do school and this, By the way i have 2 honors and a'ssing all of my classes... But my dad is telling me not to get the water cooling system, one mistake or leak, and bamm no computer..
\
And i am not a big fan of intel either but the prices are lower, and i forgot to add, my cpu is already overclocked.. !! Right know i need to get a new case for my computer, im going to get one that can handle the atx mobo...
And compared to yall guys computer my computer is ssllooww.....

But i am a big xb fan.... 70 games and everything
Thanks guys,
Triock

 

Triock

Intel prices are higher by performance. Example, my 3500+ Venice core costs about $219 but it competes with an Intel P4 extreme edition at 3.7 GHZ which costs a good $700 more. It's all about specification and capability.

BTW, I'm a school teacher so keep up the good grades.

 

If you ever follow the stock market figures for AMD and Intel, you'll find AMD trades at a higher value ($28 vs $24) and has a bigger gain (60% vs 40% in the last year). The market reflects the companies integrity and reliaibility

 

Thanks guys, And I will keep up the work cause then my parents will let me get a working lisence. and then i can work at Publix... :-/

 

fOOdl3

baloney, Intel used to be better and they made huge profits but they've become just like Microsoft, a "status quo." Ever since the introduction of the Athlon AMD has held the price performance lead. With games they've been a solo flight for several years now. Intel hoped to stay out front with people who can count but not understand results so they went with clock speed over functional processing. AMD chips perform 4 times in a clock cycle when Intel does only twice.

But clock speed has benefits too, and that's usually where raw timing speeds do a bit better than truly versatile processors do. Video encoding is just such an Intel advantage but usually only by seconds and rarely into minutes. On the other hand AMD chips do everything else better such as gaming. Now AMD has reduced it's voltage requirements which allows for a sizable increase in clock speeds and the encoding differences in seconds begin to melt away and every previous advantages Intel had decreases proportionally.

Intel is the loser right now in a big way. We can talk about frontside bus and memory controllers and AMD leads. AMD runs DDR1 memory faster than Intel chips run DDR2 memory, which is yet another area where you save money.


Think Again!

 

Guess I can go along with part of that. AMD and Intel have been seesawing back and forth with chip advancements. I have no doubt Intel will spring back. They can't afford not to. If one still looks at sales, the Intel equipped factory PCs are doing excellent on the retail market and still have the largest share.

As Sophocles pointed out, the newer Intels are slated to have the integrated memory controls similar to what AMD is using. The name of the game has always been architecture, though people got into the game of "fastest clockspeed". Intel made theirs do more cycles while AMD made theirs to do more computations per cycle. As long as comparable items are doing the same amount of work, I look to end cost for a factory unit. So far Intel has been the winner in that market.

AMD is coming on strong and has done especially well in the notebook categories of late. With the new chips, AMD is currently the pride of the "enthusiast" market. One has to remember though, the majority of users aren't capable of doing the necessary work to overclock their systems. One good mistake and you get to start over, sometimes some expensive errors are involved.

If one doesn't have the technical expertise or a close friend with it, then they're sort of at a loss on designer PCs. Did I mention Intel does the most out of the box; stock that is? Let me qualify that, except for the top end dual cores; there AMD has the advantage. However, as I noted before, I think the top end chips for both AMD and Intel are ridiculous at this point. Unless one is an ultra gamer or just trying to buy bragging rights, that market is best left alone until the prices come down.

Sophocles is right though, for the "enthusiast", the mid level AMDs can be overclocked to outperform the comparable Intels for gaming. For those who aren't into extreme gaming and use their PCs for normal pursuits, the Intel can be a good choice though. A lot of people tend to think so, or at least their wallets are saying so in the marketplace.

I do find it strange that with all the "savings" features of the lower cost AMD components, one can still find comparable Intel equipped PCs from the factory at a very competitive price. Price drives the market and to date Intel is still the market leader. In the end both appear to be reliable in stock form. In a lot of instances it boils down to preference. Currently "enthusiasts", that can overclock, like playing with the AMDs; not so with the average buyer.

 

Soph and Donald



I did a bit of checking on Intel's high end processors and chipsets and came up with some interesting equipment I hadn't paid attention to. Seems there were some nice toys released earlier this year.

Using the 955 Express Chipset and P4 EE processor delivers over 79% performance increase over the 3.6GHz P4 with Hyper-Threading using the 925X Express Chipset (according to Intel). Talking about an AMD stomper, I think Intel is working on it.

Below are the main components for the set up. The mobo has integrated RAID 0, 1, 5, or 10 abilities, so the raptors I listed are a must to utilize the speedy drive handling capabilities. Of course there needs to be drives, modems and the like added along with the case and power supply. I wasn't trying to list all the parts for a complete system. For comparisons's sake on the processors, here's a listing from NewEgg on the big AMD processor, it's not cheap either: AMD Athlon 64 FX57 San Diego 1GHz FSB Socket 939 Processor Model ADAFX57BNBOX - Retail $1,011.00. So there's not much difference in price on the high end processors. Did I mention before both AMD and Intel are ridiculously high on these processors? New tech though. Pricey, but look at what you have when finished. Plus the system can be overclocked, and as long as one stays within voltage limits, the OCZ memory has a lifetime guarantee. Notice the FSB and RAM are fast enough that they don't limit the processor on this one.

A person could build this super computer for less than $3000 which is far less than comparable factory and designer PCs.

Some of the links I supplied are product analysis and some are more or less product evaluations.


Asus P5DW2 Premium Motherboard With Intel 955X Express Chipset (System Bus 1,066/800MHz), up to 8GB RAM support
($205.00 + , Premium has WiFi and TV)

CPU (Intel) ($1,000.00 +)
LGA775 P4 EE with Hyper-Threading
3.73GHz, (FSB 1,066MHz), L2 Cache 2MB
or 840 EE (dual core) 3.2 GHz

OCZ RAM
2GB DDR2 PC2-8000 (1GHz)
or Corsair

73GB 10,000 rpm Western Digital Raptor SATA 150 (x2)



Benchmarks (Not with fastest P4 EE or fastest memory)
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?sitesize=yes&i=2412&p=5

Asus
http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=3&l2=11&l3=184&model=493&modelmenu=1

OCZ RAM (1GHz)
http://www.ocztechnology.com/produc...2_8000_platinum_enhanced_latency_dual_channel
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/ed...=articles/archive/u0904/12r04/12r04.asp&guid=


Intel P4 EE
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/ed...r04.asp&guid=9DD310BA15B542A69BD92E8FCE799B66

Intel 955X Chipset
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/ed...r04.asp&guid=9DD310BA15B542A69BD92E8FCE799B66

Hmmm... Dreaming of a P4 Extreme Edition or even better the 840 EE dual core. Yeah, Intel Rocks and AMD blows. LOL

 

The Intel 955 chipset is the same or slower than the Intel NF4 chipset.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2394&p=8

The Pentium D EE is old news and slower than the AMD4800x2 by a substantial margin in most tests.

 

brobear

Sorry but you had better go back and check my specs again, my system benched using Sisoft beats that system in both CPU and memory handling by a sizeble margin. I'll setup the comparison. On the memory bandwidth alone my system wins by almost a 1000B/s.

 

For myself at equal price I would go AMD not because Intel is not good it is very good but as I am 42 and have a tendecy to remember it was AMD and forced Intel to give us more then their 25 mhz increase a year that they were used too.

I remember IBM made a chip that was in a lab 20 year ago doing stellar result computation per cycle.

So for me if you all buy Intel for custom built you just kill the competition that make the average computer built at Dell using Intel and now very good a might thing of the past. Let me explain further if all the custom builder decided to support Intel you would not see many improvement in the "Retail Market" and no competition what so ever in the Sever side if it wasn't for AMD we will all be stuck with Dell at much higher price and lower speed and result.

For me if I know the result will be the same and price are almost the same the answer are easy I must support AMD because without them we are doom.

How many Hollywood and Intel alike would like to see this web site disapears it is because you have a major impact on the after market the "upgrade market".

How many would know about AMD performance and how many would know about CCE without some rebell like us here and to be honest you had to be rebell at the beginning to buy AMD but it is changing, it just I can't understand why someone would not foster that comptetiton in the after market, look at your place of work what do you see Dell and Intel and Microsoft what do you see everywhere Dell and Intel so to be honest if it wasn't for AMD we would not enjoy the speed and choice we have today including the falling price I did not see on the CD audio side lol I know it is a streth to say that but never the less it is certainly making sens to me at least.

So keep buying Intel and make the competition weeker and let Intel bullies us or take a stand .

Have a great day

PS this was not spell check and as I am French would not know anyway when I am inverting the subject and verbe

 

brobear

You missed the whole point and removed your images. The Venice core and the San Diego core's only differences are their L2 cache but they are otherwise the same. A smart enthusiasts buys the Venice core for around $200 and then pumps it up to perform like the $1000 chip. Why not their cores are identical the FX57's are just binned a bit better.

 

Regrettably Sophocles, it is you who keeps moving the point. My first point still holds true. The mid level (Stock) Intel processors give more bang for the buck in factory built PCs. AMD is making inroads, but currently the market share shows Intel to be in the forefront.

You point out that for overclocking, an enthusiast can take an AMD for less cost and overclock it to get good results. On that I can agree. However, if you look to many of the tests being run on overclocked PCs, both Intel and AMD, the Intel wins the benchmarks for computing and AMD wins for handling extra frames in the game environment. It just comes down to whether a person wants a computer or a game machine. XBox and PS2 would be cheaper.

The listing I showed here at AD (somewhere, this discussion is now on about 3 or 4 threads) is from recent benchmarks done by Computer Power Users. The FX 57 which you compare your Venice core CPU to isn't in the same league as the X2 and the EE dual cores. Look at the results for the FX 57 and the X2 in stock formation. I doubt the FX 57 would come close to the Stock X2 specs even when overclocked, much less the overclocked figures. That is AMD against AMD. The Intel still appears to be king of computing and the AMD has put in some competition to the gaming department. I think I still prefer my PC for computing and doing things like encoding. The comparable Intels have always and still are better at that aspect of computing. My son beats the crap out of me on PS2, so why would I want to waste so much money on a gamer so I could lose. LOL

[bold]Note: Here's those bench results from "Computer Power Users".[/bold] Brought it over from the other thread; just in case you missed it there. I'll be interested to see your results when you get through overclocking your Venice core AMD. Hope you don't end up frying it It'll be something if you can get close to the stock FX 57 specs and you'll have to "buy in" to enjoy the level of those dual cores.

 

Here's a simple question for you Sophocles: Why would the average user want to spend time and money to buy or build (or have built) a PC whose only apparent edge is being able to pick up extra frames in a game environment? For the enthusiast, the answer is often, "because I can". The average consumer is often left still wondering about that "why". I'd suspect most of us here on this forum, and most users for that matter, use their PCs mostly for things other than gaming. I do a lot of encoding, where Intel still wins out. What do you use your PC for most of the time?

 

WhatUp
Appreciate your viewpoint. Guess someone needs to buy those AMDs. I'm glad to see the environment of competition now present. As you pointed out it keeps both sides working and the consumer benefits. Nobody in business is going to spend a fortune on R&D if they don't need to. There's a bunch of bean counters in the back room as well as PC enthusiasts.

As far as the discussion we're having here, similar ones take place on various forums and in different publications. If one looks closely, some of those forums skew things by how they set up tests. Benchmark results also depend on chipsets and RAM in use. Very important to the Intels so the CPU isn't limited. The architecture of the AMD chips with the integrated memory control isn't hampered as much by bus and memory speeds. Enthusiasts know this, but still set up tests with mobos leaving the Intel at a disadvantage (in some cases because the mobo is better for gaming). The more honest ones show AMD (currently) having an advantage with frame renderings in the video area and Intel leading as far as computations being done in the work environment. Suffice to say the discussion will continue as long as we have AMD and Intel being competitive. Sort of like the Hatfields and McCoys, The Federation and the Klingons, UK and TN (basketball), MI and Ohio State (football); as long as there is rivalry. LOL

 

You get more than just a few extra frames in gaming, multi tasking benefits, encoding benefits, in fact just about everything benefits from superior processing.

AMD processor give more bang for the buck than Intel does at every level, the differences in price depends on what the manufacturer uses to house the processor with.

I'd still like that link.

 

Sophocles,
You ask for benchmarks, you got benchmarks. I'm still waiting for your new ones where you say your Venice core can meet the specs of an FX 57. I'll really be surprised if you can get anywhere near the specs of an overclocked FX 57.

What link?

We've bandied about test results, innovations, how "tests" can be skewed, any number of tangents. We've analyzed benchmarks. Those usually render a split decision on current top end CPUs. In boxing when the champ fights to a draw, he keeps the belt.

As I said before, as long as we have competition there will be disagreements over who has the best "mousetrap". You've done well in presenting AMD as a viable option for the enthusiast builder. That wasn't the point, at least not the one I was trying to make. The healthy competition between companies benefits the consumer. [bold]For most consumers, Intel supplies a more cost effective package that delivers good results.[/bold]

As for the high end "who has the best chip" war, they both have a good product and currently they have different things they do well. It's all about what one wants, user choice. We've now covered about 7 pages with this discussion. All we've accomplished so far is to show that we disagree. ...and this discussion is getting a bit old until either AMD or Intel comes out with something new that consumers and enthusiasts can disagree over.

Love that new Corsair DDR2 PC-8000 RAM... Really gives those 840 EE PCUs a boost. LOL

 

I don’t need to redo my bench marks my system is still comparable to an FX57 system. If you look at the specs that you posted you will see that they sacrificed memory speed for processor speed, a choice I’m not willing to make. I can’t beat every over clocked system unless I know what they’ve used to build it with, and [bold]since you were reluctant[/bold] to post the link to the site where that spec was obtained I can’t determine what memory was used or how the system was cooled, or many other factors. If they’re using water cooling or more expensive memory then the comparison isn’t fair since I use stock cooling all around. My memory is PC400 but I could spend more on PC 6300 and really pump the clock.


So let me submit this for your inspection. I compared my system to that of another FX57 at 2.8 GHZ that was among the reference systems included with SiSoft I’ve actually slowed my CPU speed to maintain a higher memory speed. The FX57 CPU speed was 5.2% faster than mine, I can only match it by clock speed and nothing more. I couldn’t find an FX57 memory bench with SiSoft so I’ll use the one you posted and my memory bench is 16% faster than it. I could sacrifice memory performance and gain a higher CPU score, but that would be a waste, but I submit that my system is still all around as fast and using a slower clock speed than the one you posted because of my memory speed gains.

Now for the bite, store bought Intel machines are always cheaper in the beginning, lower performing, no more reliable than AMD machines, and actually cost more for performance than AMD machines do, and they’re more expensive before the first year is out. They come with slower low bandwidth CAS3 memory, cheap graphic cards which most often can’t be upgraded, limited memory capacity, slower motherboards slow chipset response, no freedom to tweak them, and limited upgradeability, or in other words, obsolete the moment you unpack them. Home built AMD PC’s has whatever you put into them. Such as better quality memory, fast motherboards with faster chipsets that allow for all kinds of tweaking, very upgradeable which makes them slow to become obsolete and less likely to need replacing for a few years?

The problem with this debate is that you’ve never built a machine, over clocked a machine, tweaked its memory with different timings, adjusted its front side bus, or in other words you’ve never been under its hood. But you’re asking me to compete with internet results? I’m not going to try and beat every posted spec that you find on a tech site on the web, there are a lot of variables unaccounted for. I can tell you this; the new AMD’s do more than just make games run faster, they do it all (including encoding) faster than or comparable to an equally priced Intel, a claim that Intel can’t make no mater who builds the machine.


My current CPU speed compared to an FX57 that I can show where it came from.
http://www.zentarium.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40


My memory speed compared to your posted AMD57 which was 5769.

http://www.zentarium.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35

 

Wasn't reluctant, just didn't know which link you were referring to. No problem, but you already had it. It was in the same site as the evaluations on the Intel CPUs and chipsets. They only give you part of the story though and you can't access the whole site unless you have a subscription. http://www.computerpoweruser.com/ed...typeid=12&Itype=CPU SPECIAL ISSUE&vol=9&iss=4

You might like it though, it's a publication that caters mostly to enthusiasts who like to overclock systems and build designer PCs. BTW, when they overclocked, they stated in the articles where speed no longer helped and processing began to fail. The benches reflected the best processing speeds, not just the max speeds attainable. They use liquid cooling systems in the tests to help keep overheating out of the picture. They used liquid cooling on both the AMDs and the Intels when overclocking.

 

I'd say I got near wouldn't you? My next project is to get a dual Toledo core (basically an over clocked dual FX57) core to 3.0 GHZ, now that's an Intel killer. Intel always encoded faster in the past because of its clock speed advantage and then only marginally. But as AMD's clock speeds rose so did Intel's advantage. Because of the voltage requirements and heat created by a dual Prescott 3.2 GHZ is all that Intel's dual cores can effectively muster. An AMD at 3 GHZ will utterly slaughter an Intel CPU no matter who or what tech site tries to tweak and over clock it.