Price difference between Intel & AMD systems

  • Thread starter Thread starter Franklin
  • Start date Start date
F

Franklin

Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
(I don't think memory depends on processor type)

Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
equivalent AMD system"?
 
Franklin said:
Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

Same power for what? In Doom 3 for example, an Athlon 64 3500+ beats
anything that Intel makes, even chips at almost 3x the price.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
(I don't think memory depends on processor type)

Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
equivalent AMD system"?

No. How do you determine which chips are equivalent? By benchmarks?
If so, then you need to figure out what applications you run , and how often
you run each, then come up with a weighted average performance level
for each chip based on your usage patterns. Then you can make a
comparison.
 
JK said:
Same power for what? In Doom 3 for example, an Athlon 64 3500+ beats
anything that Intel makes, even chips at almost 3x the price.

But nobody in their right mind would spend money on the Intel Extreme
Edition version. It was made for a particular purpose at a particular
time, and I understand that it is now discontinued. Hence it's ludicrous
to keep referring to "AMD beats Intel at 3x the price", but that's the
sort of arguments being used by AMD fanatics.
 
Johannes said:
But nobody in their right mind would spend money on the Intel Extreme
Edition version. It was made for a particular purpose at a particular
time

To compete against the Athlon 64 FX-53. It didn't do a good job at that though.
However since it is the best gaming chip Intel sells, a number of them
probably sold anyway.
, and I understand that it is now discontinued.

It is? I heard that the 3.2 ghz was discontinued. I doubt Intel would discontinue
the 3.4 ghz one unless they came out with a replacement for it(perhaps a
3.6 ghz one?).
Hence it's ludicrous
to keep referring to "AMD beats Intel at 3x the price"

Not really. For those who love playing Doom 3 it is important.
, but that's the
sort of arguments being used by AMD fanatics.

Fanatics? LOL!
 
-- snip --
No. How do you determine which chips are equivalent? By
benchmarks? If so, then you need to figure out what
applications you run , and how often you run each, then come up
with a weighted average performance level for each chip based
on your usage patterns. Then you can make a comparison.

I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
No games. No video or sound editing. No movie playing. No power use.

That is the sort of thing I would like to compare between AMD and Intel.

The final system may be something like a AMD Barton 2500+ with 1GB memory,
sound integrated on mobo and a very modest VIA-based graphics and 80 GN HDD.

But all I want to get anidea of is the relative cost on an AMD mobo &
porceesor compared to Intel.

Hope that helps.
 
But nobody in their right mind would spend money on the Intel Extreme
Edition version. It was made for a particular purpose at a particular
time, and I understand that it is now discontinued. Hence it's ludicrous
to keep referring to "AMD beats Intel at 3x the price", but that's the
sort of arguments being used by AMD fanatics.

ya and nobody in their right mind should of bought a P4 when the P4
first came out (slower then P3) but Intel sold millions of them.

EE is discontinued?, last I read Intel is doing the same thing AMD is on
the high end, when a new faster EE/FX is released the previous version
is discontinued.

Ed
 
JK said:
To compete against the Athlon 64 FX-53. It didn't do a good job at that though.
However since it is the best gaming chip Intel sells, a number of them
probably sold anyway.


It is? I heard that the 3.2 ghz was discontinued. I doubt Intel would discontinue
the 3.4 ghz one unless they came out with a replacement for it(perhaps a
3.6 ghz one?).

They are changing the Extreme range to the LGA775 processors and moving the
FSB to 1066. nd to the prescott core I assume. They will be expensive
still tho.......
 
Franklin said:
-- snip --


I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
No games. No video or sound editing. No movie playing. No power use.

That is the sort of thing I would like to compare between AMD and Intel.

The final system may be something like a AMD Barton 2500+ with 1GB memory,
sound integrated on mobo and a very modest VIA-based graphics and 80 GN HDD.

But all I want to get anidea of is the relative cost on an AMD mobo &
porceesor compared to Intel.

Hope that helps.

AMD will be a cheaper version and will do everything you need.
 
-- snip --


I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
No games. No video or sound editing. No movie playing. No power use.

That is the sort of thing I would like to compare between AMD and Intel.

The final system may be something like a AMD Barton 2500+ with 1GB memory,
sound integrated on mobo and a very modest VIA-based graphics and 80 GN HDD.

But all I want to get anidea of is the relative cost on an AMD mobo &
porceesor compared to Intel.
Hope that helps.

Might want to take a look here to get some ideas...
http://www.pricewatch.com/
see combos...
Motherboard/CPU Combos
Mother Combos w/Memory

No games. No video etc..., then what are you going to do with it? If
you just want a PC to surf/email then you probably don't even need 1GB
of ram, 512MB would be enough, a 2500+ may even be overkill, AMD's
Durons are pretty impressive for their price too.

Ed
 
I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
No games. No video or sound editing. No movie playing. No power use.
Then you really don't need much power.
That is the sort of thing I would like to compare between AMD and
Intel.

The final system may be something like a AMD Barton 2500+ with 1GB
memory, sound integrated on mobo and a very modest VIA-based graphics
and 80 GN HDD.

But all I want to get anidea of is the relative cost on an AMD mobo &
porceesor compared to Intel.
Then compare an AMD 2500+ MB combo to a P4 2.6GHz MB combo. A quick
comparison on pricewatch puts the cheapest AMD 2500+combo at $93 and the
cheapest 2.6GHz P4 combo at $190, or $171 for a 2.53GHz P4 combo.
 
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:20:36 +0100, Franklin wrote:

[snipped]

Then compare an AMD 2500+ MB combo to a P4 2.6GHz MB combo. A quick
comparison on pricewatch puts the cheapest AMD 2500+combo at $93 and
the cheapest 2.6GHz P4 combo at $190, or $171 for a 2.53GHz P4 combo.

Where do you find items in the UK priced in USD - or is your pound sign
broken?
 
Franklin said:
-- snip --


I use my PC for home and "small office" use.

In that case an Athlon XP system would give you the best value.
An Athlon XP3000+ at around $100 beats a $220 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
in Business Winstone 2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6
No games. No video or sound editing. No movie playing. No power use.

That is the sort of thing I would like to compare between AMD and Intel.

The final system may be something like a AMD Barton 2500+ with 1GB memory,
sound integrated on mobo and a very modest VIA-based graphics and 80 GN HDD.

But all I want to get anidea of is the relative cost on an AMD mobo &
porceesor compared to Intel.

A good basic motherboard for an Athlon XP is cheap. Only around $50-60.
 
JK said:
In that case an Athlon XP system would give you the best value.
An Athlon XP3000+ at around $100 beats a $220 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
in Business Winstone 2004.

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

And on the same link, the Pentium 4 3.0 GHz Northwood beats the
Athlon XP3000+ in Content Creation Winstone 2004. Where do you get
those prices from? The Athlon XP are being replaced by less performing
Semprons for same PR numbers.
 
Johannes said:
And on the same link, the Pentium 4 3.0 GHz Northwood beats the
Athlon XP3000+ in Content Creation Winstone 2004. Where do you get
those prices from?
www.pricewatch.com

The Athlon XP are being replaced by less performing
Semprons for same PR numbers.

The Sempron model number are meant to compare it to the Celeron.
Athlon XP chips are still available. It is not certain how much longer
they will still be available.
 
Johannes said:
Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz 800 MHz dual channel OEM ............$177

A Pentium 4 3.2 ghz performs worse than an Athlon XP 3000+
running Business Winstone 2004. Perhaps you should compare a
Pentium 4 3ghz to an Athlon XP 2500+ or 2800+ for running business
applications. One could choose an Athlon 64 3000+ for less than
the cost of a Pentium 4 3ghz.
AMD Athlon XP 3000+ 2.16 GHz 400 MHz single channel OEM ..... $98

Not really much difference considering the total price of the PC.

Very funny. An Athlon XP 2500+ is only around $65. An XP 2500+ 333
is around $75. Why should someone pay around $100 more than they need to?

"Not really much difference considering the total price of the PC."

That excuse doesn't make sense. Using that type of excuse one could
say that spending $10,000 on a couch doesn't make much of difference
than buying a $2,000 one, since the cost of the house with the couch won't
be so different in percentage terms with each alternative.

An extra $100 could buy a DVD writer or a second hard drive. It could be
saved for future upgrades.
 
JK said:
That excuse doesn't make sense. Using that type of excuse one could
say that spending $10,000 on a couch doesn't make much of difference
than buying a $2,000 one, since the cost of the house with the couch won't
be so different in percentage terms with each alternative.

We're neither talking about an item with a £8000 price difference (is
your pound key broken?) or one which has an value in it's own right;
it's simply a component of the overall system.

Few people would disagree that an Intel-based PC costs a little more
than a comparable AMD-based system but it's hardly unaffordable in the
context of the overall cost. Some people prefer not to pay the
premium whereas others do not.

The same people who buy AMD because they're cheaper might conceivably
pay twice as much for, say, a high-end RAM or a top of the range
graphics card when parts priced at half the price would give very
similar performance, or pay a premium for OCZ or TwinMOS memory or
Hercules or Sapphire graphics cards over a cheaper functionally
similar equivalents. Fact is any reason for choosing any component
over another might seem no less whimsical to some people than the
reasons some people prefer one chip manufacturer over another.

One of the *few* reasons for building your own PC is to have this
degree of choice and flexibility so I find it incredible that
essentially like-minded people can get so hung-up about other peoples
choices!

--
 
Paul said:
We're neither talking about an item with a £8000 price difference (is
your pound key broken?)

Not everyone lives in the UK. Most of Europe has adopted to the Euro.
Why hasn't the UK adopted the Euro?
or one which has an value in it's own right;
it's simply a component of the overall system.

A couch is a component of a furnished house.
Few people would disagree that an Intel-based PC costs a little more
than a comparable AMD-based system but it's hardly unaffordable in the
context of the overall cost.

Neither is a $10,000 couch compared to a $2,000 one, but is the extra
expense justified?
Some people prefer not to pay the
premium whereas others do not.

The same people who buy AMD because they're cheaper

Many buy AMD for better performance.
might conceivably
pay twice as much for, say, a high-end RAM or a top of the range
graphics card when parts priced at half the price would give very
similar performance, or pay a premium for OCZ or TwinMOS memory or
Hercules or Sapphire graphics cards over a cheaper functionally
similar equivalents. Fact is any reason for choosing any component
over another might seem no less whimsical to some people than the
reasons some people prefer one chip manufacturer over another.

One of the *few* reasons for building your own PC is to have this
degree of choice and flexibility so I find it incredible that
essentially like-minded people can get so hung-up about other peoples
choices!

The worst part about choosing a Pentium 4 is that the vast majority of Pentium
4
processors out there are 32 bit chips. How will people feel if they buy a
32 bit processor in '04, then see great 64 bit software for sale in '05.
Will they buy a 64 bit processor and new motherboard then, and be
cursing that they were talked into buying a high priced 32 bit processor
in 2004?
 
Not everyone lives in the UK. Most of Europe has adopted to the Euro.
Why hasn't the UK adopted the Euro?

I read the posting in uk.comp.homebuilt, which is a UK-based group. I
must presume therefore the OP is in the UK or the posting would be
off-topic.
A couch is a component of a furnished house.

On it's own couch has no value and the house will not function without
it?
The worst part about choosing a Pentium 4 is that the vast majority of Pentium
4
processors out there are 32 bit chips. How will people feel if they buy a
32 bit processor in '04, then see great 64 bit software for sale in '05.
Will they buy a 64 bit processor and new motherboard then, and be
cursing that they were talked into buying a high priced 32 bit processor
in 2004?

I could get drawn into a P4/AMD or 32-bit vs 64-bit argument but you
seem to missing the point somewhat.

You evidently have your reasons for liking AMD Athlon-64s while other
people have different reasons for preferring alternative products,
all of which are valid and people choose how to spend their own money
as they see fit. Isn't that what PC building is all about, namely
choice?

--
 
Not everyone lives in the UK. Most of Europe has adopted to the Euro.
Why hasn't the UK adopted the Euro?

This is OT..

His ISP, rcn.com , is in the USA.... 105 Carnegie Center, Princeton, NJ
08540
 
Back
Top