AMD or INTEL ?

[Codemutant]

AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
aspect.
Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
ill-configured??

 

[Post Replies Here Please]

Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
Codemutant> ill-configured??

Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
really give a serious answer.

Thanks

Alan

 

[JK]

AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
counterpart.
What?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

and almost always its the intel that wins in every
aspect.

Not quite.

Why is the bench mark different from the true story??

What components are you using?

and if its the
case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
ill-configured??

Why? Many people are either cheap or ill informed, and choose a low quality
motherboard and/or other low quality components. A computer isn't just a cpu.

 

[Never anonymous Bud]

Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
Codemutant> ill-configured??

Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
really give a serious answer.

He has observed EXACTLY the opposite of what I've seen.

I have an XP2500 system, an XP2800,and an Intel P4 2.6C system.

The AMDs are MUCH more responsive in most things,
but the P4 is MUCH faster in Seti and a few other
programs, where little human intervention or
interference is necessary.

 

[Never anonymous Bud]

Why? Many people are either cheap or ill informed, and choose a low quality
motherboard and/or other low quality components. A computer isn't just a cpu.

My AMD systems both have nForce2 MBs, the Intel has an MSI 865PE chipset MB.
All 3 systems each have a gig of DDR400 memory, and 7200rpm 8 meg cache IDE HDs.

 

[JK]

He has observed EXACTLY the opposite of what I've seen.

I have an XP2500 system, an XP2800,and an Intel P4 2.6C system.

The AMDs are MUCH more responsive in most things,
but the P4 is MUCH faster in Seti and a few other
programs, where little human intervention or
interference is necessary.

The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip. Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon XP2500+
is a $70 chip. What $70 Intel chip
should we compare its performance to? a Pentium 4 1.8 ghz, or a Celeron
2.4 ghz?

 

[Yousuf Khan]

AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
aspect.
Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
ill-configured??

Well, give some examples of where you find the AMDs not performing as well
as the Intels. Perhaps your expectations are unrealistic? AMDs do not always
perform better than Intels in the benchmarks. There are various categories
of programs where it's been demonstrated that the Intels almost always
perform better. While other categories, AMDs almost always perform better.

Perhaps your workload is more suited to where the Intels perform better.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Never anonymous Bud]

The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip.

Not when I bought it.

Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+.

Again, NOT when I bought it.

 

[JK]

When you bought those chips and what you paid for them is irrelevant to our
discussion about relative performance. What counts is the performance
at each price level based on current prices.

 

[Judd]

AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
aspect.
Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
ill-configured??

Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
on.

 

[JK]

Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

No one forces those who buy an AMD processor to buy a junky power supply
or to overclock. Those who do so are inviting trouble. An AMD based system
will be reliable if it is properly build and not overclocked.

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

Bitstring <[email protected]>, from
the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen

Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

You are desperately confused. I hang out there perpetually (and have for
several years) and there are very few AMD user with problems, given the
fact that 99% of the people there =only= build AMD systems these days.
The 'three people**' with home built Intel systems seem to ahve their
share of problems too.
8>.

** I exaggerate, there may actually be as many as 6.

 

[Johannes H Andersen]

Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
on.

Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

 

[G]

The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip. Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon XP2500+
is a $70 chip. What $70 Intel chip
should we compare its performance to? a Pentium 4 1.8 ghz, or a Celeron
2.4 ghz?

Actually, don't you mean Chip + Motherboard ?

All the other componants are the same in both systems.

So, using newegg's numbers it's:

XP2800+ Barton ($113) + Abit AN7 nForce2-400 ($93) = $206
P4 2.4C ($146) + Abit IS7-E ($82) = $228
A64 3000+ ($175) + Abit KV8-K8T800 ($91) = $266

I picked as identical MB's as possible, not bottom of the barrel or
top of the line. Basically what I'd get if I was building either
system. And of course if we're talking performace/price the end
results should be divided by the whole system cost which would be
anywhere between $700 - $1500.

Bottom Line: The P4 2.4C is closer to the XP2800 in price in a real
system than the A64 3000+. The P4 is also by far the most
overclockable CPU on the market. I don't know anyone who isn't getting
3.0ghz with stock cooling easily.

The A64 still performs better and is undeniably a bestter deal, but
the P4 still blows away the XP at a very similar price.

 

[Johannes H Andersen]

Bitstring <[email protected]>, from
the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen


You are desperately confused. I hang out there perpetually (and have for
several years) and there are very few AMD user with problems, given the
fact that 99% of the people there =only= build AMD systems these days.
The 'three people**' with home built Intel systems seem to ahve their
share of problems too.
8>.

** I exaggerate, there may actually be as many as 6.

Confused? Both chip makers go through peaks and troughs, there has been some
blind alleys now and then. I have picked Intel the few times I've build
a computer or bought a laptop, but think I've been fairly lucky at times, e.g.
avoiding the Pentium II slot 1, and the early pentium 3 version with half speed
(or less) L2 cache, and of course now the Prescott. Intel used to be an expensive
choice, but recently the prices have dropped dramatically. Both Pentiums and
AMDs have had the speed forged at times, but retail versions are a safer bet.
I was quite surprised over past discussions in the other group, where some
people didn't seem to mind because the processor in question was 'capable' of
overclocking. Other posters would buy selected processors that had been tested
OK for overclocking and even pay a premium for those! Doh!

 

[JK]

Actually, don't you mean Chip + Motherboard ?

All the other componants are the same in both systems.

So, using newegg's numbers it's:

XP2800+ Barton ($113) + Abit AN7 nForce2-400 ($93) = $206

$113 for an XP2800+? www.pricewatch.com has the XP3000+
listed at $99, and the P4 2.4 C at $143. Both are oem with a heatsink.
The Athlon 64 3000+ retail box is listed at $164.

P4 2.4C ($146) + Abit IS7-E ($82) = $228
A64 3000+ ($175) + Abit KV8-K8T800 ($91) = $266

I picked as identical MB's as possible, not bottom of the barrel or
top of the line. Basically what I'd get if I was building either
system. And of course if we're talking performace/price the end
results should be divided by the whole system cost which would be
anywhere between $700 - $1500.

Bottom Line: The P4 2.4C is closer to the XP2800 in price in a real
system than the A64 3000+.

Not really. Add to the OEM Athlon XP and P$ prices the cost of a
heatsink. One could also order an Athlon 64 2800+ retail box
at $147(although this would be silly since the A64 3000+ is so
close in price). So using an A64 2800+ would cost you the same
as the P4 2.4C , and the 3000+ around $20 more.

The P4 is also by far the most
overclockable CPU on the market. I don't know anyone who isn't getting
3.0ghz with stock cooling easily.

That is irrelevant for most people, and is probably debatable for
those interested in overclocking.

The A64 still performs better and is undeniably a bestter deal, but
the P4 still blows away the XP at a very similar price.

Not quite.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

AMD's tended to be more homebuilt than bought as complete systems. Whatcha
gonna do when Intel had you locked out of most major OEMs, until recently?
And obviously since they are being built at home, all of the debugging is
done at home rather than in a lab. So when you're on your own, you tend to
ask around the Internet for solutions to your problems from other homebuilt
users.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Intel used to be an expensive choice, but recently the
prices have dropped dramatically.

Which is probably the reason you will begin to see more people asking
questions about Intels in homebuilt newsgroups, it may now be the economical
choice for chips. The really desirable AMD64s are still too expensive.

Yousuf Khan

 

[JK]

Not nearly enough. To get similar performance in Business Winstone 2004,
one can buy a $100 Athlon XP3000+ or a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz at around $260.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

Many business users are only interested in performance running business
applications.Let us know when Intel intends to drop the price of the P4 3.2
ghz to $100.

Which is probably the reason you will begin to see more people asking
questions about Intels in homebuilt newsgroups

You are dreaming

, it may now be the economical
choice for chips.

Not quite.

The really desirable AMD64s are still too expensive.

A $160 Athlon 64 3000+ beats an $825 P4 3.2 EE in Doom 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

The $160 Athlon 64 3000+ also beats a $260 P4 3.2 ghz in Business
Winstone 2004.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

 

[JK]

AMD's tended to be more homebuilt than bought as complete systems.

That may be true in the US, but not in many other parts of the world.
AMD has 80% of its sales outside the US.

Whatcha
gonna do when Intel had you locked out of most major OEMs, until recently?

Sell to OEMs outside the US.