K
Karolus des Reyches197
What is the real life significance if an AMD 1100 computer gets around 4000
Dry stones and a IntelP4 3.0 GHZ gets 9000?
Dry stones and a IntelP4 3.0 GHZ gets 9000?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
C
Carey Frisch [MVP]
The Intel P4 3.0GHz rates 5000 Dry Stones greater.
H
Hank
Carey Frisch said:The Intel P4 3.0GHz rates 5000 Dry Stones greater.
WRONG!
OP states the AMD gets "around" 4000 drystones so therefore your answer is
incorrect. The correct answer would be the Intel P4 3.0GHz rates 5000 Dry
Stones greater, give or take a few pebbles.
Hank
J
Jim Macklin
The Intel is 125% faster
message | What is the real life significance if an AMD 1100 computer
gets around 4000
| Dry stones and a IntelP4 3.0 GHZ gets 9000?
|
|
message | What is the real life significance if an AMD 1100 computer
gets around 4000
| Dry stones and a IntelP4 3.0 GHZ gets 9000?
|
|
K
Karolus des Reyches197
INTEL 3.0 is only 125 % faster than an AMD 1100???
Do I read that right?
Do I read that right?
K
Karolus des Reyches197
Intel 3.0 GHZ only 125 % faster than a AMD 1100???
K
Karolus des Reyches197
What is the real life significance if an AMD 1100 computer gets around 4000
Dry stones and a IntelP4 3.0 GHZ gets 9000?
Only 125 % faster for the INTEL???
Dry stones and a IntelP4 3.0 GHZ gets 9000?
Only 125 % faster for the INTEL???
J
Jim Macklin
Maybe I should have said 225% faster.
message | INTEL 3.0 is only 125 % faster than an AMD 1100???
|
| Do I read that right?
|
|
in message
| | > The Intel is 125% faster
| >
| >
in
| > message | > | What is the real life significance if an AMD 1100
computer
| > gets around 4000
| > | Dry stones and a IntelP4 3.0 GHZ gets 9000?
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
message | INTEL 3.0 is only 125 % faster than an AMD 1100???
|
| Do I read that right?
|
|
in message
| | > The Intel is 125% faster
| >
| >
in
| > message | > | What is the real life significance if an AMD 1100
computer
| > gets around 4000
| > | Dry stones and a IntelP4 3.0 GHZ gets 9000?
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
G
Guest
P4 is a lot less efficient than athlon.
i would guess that 125% is correct. that would say a 2.4
athlon and 3.0P4 are equal. in that test, i would believe
it.
i would guess that 125% is correct. that would say a 2.4
athlon and 3.0P4 are equal. in that test, i would believe
it.
K
Karolus des Reyches197
What test are you using?
I have done tests and they always show INTEL higher, but I am most
interested, because I want to upgrade.
I have done tests and they always show INTEL higher, but I am most
interested, because I want to upgrade.
J
Jim Macklin
AMD uses more power, makes more heat and has fewer built-in
safety features to prevent frying the CPU. AMD runs more
operations per clock cycle because it does less internal
housekeeping.
Any processor at 2.5 or there about, is faster than the
FSB/RAM and probably your graphics card unless you have the
latest $400 card.
AMD costs less until you get to the very top line 64 bit
processor.
message | What test are you using?
|
| I have done tests and they always show INTEL higher, but I
am most
| interested, because I want to upgrade.
|
|
| | > P4 is a lot less efficient than athlon.
| >
| > i would guess that 125% is correct. that would say a
2.4
| > athlon and 3.0P4 are equal. in that test, i would
believe
| > it.
|
|
safety features to prevent frying the CPU. AMD runs more
operations per clock cycle because it does less internal
housekeeping.
Any processor at 2.5 or there about, is faster than the
FSB/RAM and probably your graphics card unless you have the
latest $400 card.
AMD costs less until you get to the very top line 64 bit
processor.
message | What test are you using?
|
| I have done tests and they always show INTEL higher, but I
am most
| interested, because I want to upgrade.
|
|
| | > P4 is a lot less efficient than athlon.
| >
| > i would guess that 125% is correct. that would say a
2.4
| > athlon and 3.0P4 are equal. in that test, i would
believe
| > it.
|
|
K
Karolus des Reyches197
Jim, that sounds bad, does it not?
More heat, less safety features, easier to fry CPU ?
Am I missing something here?
Karl
More heat, less safety features, easier to fry CPU ?
Am I missing something here?
Karl
J
Jim Macklin
No, you get a less expensive processor in terms of dollars
with AMD because of the things they don't do or include.
Because there is less internal housekeeping, more time is
available for user output.
Run on a proper mobo, without serious over-clocking, AMD can
be very cost effective and reliable. But because they can
be o/c'd easily because they don't have the internal "safety
features" they are o/c'd more often than Intel.
Cost is the reason to go with AMD, unless you want 64 bits,
then for now, AMD has the market on the desktop.
message | Jim, that sounds bad, does it not?
|
| More heat, less safety features, easier to fry CPU ?
|
| Am I missing something here?
|
| Karl
in message
| | > AMD uses more power, makes more heat and has fewer
built-in
| > safety features to prevent frying the CPU. AMD runs
more
| > operations per clock cycle because it does less internal
| > housekeeping.
| >
| > Any processor at 2.5 or there about, is faster than the
| > FSB/RAM and probably your graphics card unless you have
the
| > latest $400 card.
| >
| > AMD costs less until you get to the very top line 64 bit
| > processor.
| >
| >
in
| > message | > | What test are you using?
| > |
| > | I have done tests and they always show INTEL higher,
but I
| > am most
| > | interested, because I want to upgrade.
| > |
| > |
| > | | > | > P4 is a lot less efficient than athlon.
| > | >
| > | > i would guess that 125% is correct. that would say
a
| > 2.4
| > | > athlon and 3.0P4 are equal. in that test, i would
| > believe
| > | > it.
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
with AMD because of the things they don't do or include.
Because there is less internal housekeeping, more time is
available for user output.
Run on a proper mobo, without serious over-clocking, AMD can
be very cost effective and reliable. But because they can
be o/c'd easily because they don't have the internal "safety
features" they are o/c'd more often than Intel.
Cost is the reason to go with AMD, unless you want 64 bits,
then for now, AMD has the market on the desktop.
message | Jim, that sounds bad, does it not?
|
| More heat, less safety features, easier to fry CPU ?
|
| Am I missing something here?
|
| Karl
in message
| | > AMD uses more power, makes more heat and has fewer
built-in
| > safety features to prevent frying the CPU. AMD runs
more
| > operations per clock cycle because it does less internal
| > housekeeping.
| >
| > Any processor at 2.5 or there about, is faster than the
| > FSB/RAM and probably your graphics card unless you have
the
| > latest $400 card.
| >
| > AMD costs less until you get to the very top line 64 bit
| > processor.
| >
| >
in
| > message | > | What test are you using?
| > |
| > | I have done tests and they always show INTEL higher,
but I
| > am most
| > | interested, because I want to upgrade.
| > |
| > |
| > | | > | > P4 is a lot less efficient than athlon.
| > | >
| > | > i would guess that 125% is correct. that would say
a
| > 2.4
| > | > athlon and 3.0P4 are equal. in that test, i would
| > believe
| > | > it.
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
K
Kevin Lawton
| What is the real life significance if an AMD 1100 computer gets
| around 4000 Dry stones and a IntelP4 3.0 GHZ gets 9000?
You'll probably notice that the Expensive new Pentium-IV feels a little
quicker and smoother in everyday use compared to the old-and-cheap AMD 1100.
How much of a difference this makes in practise, and how important it is to
you, depends on what sort of thing you are doing.
Anything to do with fast graphics, 3D, rendering and that is likely to
benefit from running on the better machine. If you are just doing a bit of
e-mails, web surfing and letter-writing, you'll probably find the old AMD
quite good enough.
If you are considering what to buy, then an AMD 1100 could hardly
described as 'future proof' - it is already below what could be considered
entry level. However, unless you really need to push the limits, the 3 GHz
Intel could be overkill at the moment - though probably still more than
adequate for a few years to come.
I'd suggest you might find the best price/performance comprimise somewhere
in the <> 2.5 GHz AMD XP chips, coupled with plenty of memory etc.
Kevin.
| around 4000 Dry stones and a IntelP4 3.0 GHZ gets 9000?
You'll probably notice that the Expensive new Pentium-IV feels a little
quicker and smoother in everyday use compared to the old-and-cheap AMD 1100.
How much of a difference this makes in practise, and how important it is to
you, depends on what sort of thing you are doing.
Anything to do with fast graphics, 3D, rendering and that is likely to
benefit from running on the better machine. If you are just doing a bit of
e-mails, web surfing and letter-writing, you'll probably find the old AMD
quite good enough.
If you are considering what to buy, then an AMD 1100 could hardly
described as 'future proof' - it is already below what could be considered
entry level. However, unless you really need to push the limits, the 3 GHz
Intel could be overkill at the moment - though probably still more than
adequate for a few years to come.
I'd suggest you might find the best price/performance comprimise somewhere
in the <> 2.5 GHz AMD XP chips, coupled with plenty of memory etc.
Kevin.
K
Karolus des Reyches197
Thanks a lot for the fine explanation.
I presently have the AMD 1100, 512 MB SDRAM, two 80 GHZ drives (1 internal,
1 external) CD reader, CD writer,Cardreader.
Windows XP, word, OE, and various programs to process digital photos and
movies (the latter in the very beginning stages).
I have a Radeon 5000 card (18 months old) and would need to upgrade that
too.
Most of my time is spent in
E-mails
Newsgroups-computers and computer related
Stocks and analysis
Word
Doing newsletters for voluntary org..
Excel
Image photo processing
and editing, printing of final photos.
That is not all but quickly comes to my mind.
NOW, what is it you recommend?
Thanks in advance
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Lawton" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Whet /Drsytone comaprisons?
I presently have the AMD 1100, 512 MB SDRAM, two 80 GHZ drives (1 internal,
1 external) CD reader, CD writer,Cardreader.
Windows XP, word, OE, and various programs to process digital photos and
movies (the latter in the very beginning stages).
I have a Radeon 5000 card (18 months old) and would need to upgrade that
too.
Most of my time is spent in
E-mails
Newsgroups-computers and computer related
Stocks and analysis
Word
Doing newsletters for voluntary org..
Excel
Image photo processing
and editing, printing of final photos.
That is not all but quickly comes to my mind.
NOW, what is it you recommend?
Thanks in advance
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Lawton" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Whet /Drsytone comaprisons?
K
Karolus des Reyches197
Thanks a lot for the fine explanation.
I presently have the AMD 1100, 512 MB SDRAM, two 80 GHZ drives (1 internal,
1 external) CD reader, CD writer,Cardreader.
Windows XP, word, OE, and various programs to process digital photos and
movies (the latter in the very beginning stages).
I have a Radeon 5000 card (18 months old) and would need to upgrade that
too.
Most of my time is spent in
E-mails
Newsgroups-computers and computer related
Stocks and analysis
Word
Doing newsletters for voluntary org..
Excel
Image photo processing
and editing, printing of final photos.
That is not all but quickly comes to my mind.
NOW, what is it you recommend?
Thanks in advance
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Lawton" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Whet /Drsytone comaprisons?
I presently have the AMD 1100, 512 MB SDRAM, two 80 GHZ drives (1 internal,
1 external) CD reader, CD writer,Cardreader.
Windows XP, word, OE, and various programs to process digital photos and
movies (the latter in the very beginning stages).
I have a Radeon 5000 card (18 months old) and would need to upgrade that
too.
Most of my time is spent in
E-mails
Newsgroups-computers and computer related
Stocks and analysis
Word
Doing newsletters for voluntary org..
Excel
Image photo processing
and editing, printing of final photos.
That is not all but quickly comes to my mind.
NOW, what is it you recommend?
Thanks in advance
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Lawton" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Whet /Drsytone comaprisons?
J
Jim Macklin
BTW, 80 GHZ drives???
Maybe 80 GB drives!
| >
| > I presently have the AMD 1100, 512 MB SDRAM, two 80 GHZ
drives (1
| internal,
| > 1 external) CD reader, CD writer,Cardreader.
| >
| > Windows XP, word, OE, and various programs to process
digital photos and
| > movies (the latter in the very beginning stages).
| >
| > I have a Radeon 5000 card (18 months old) and would need
to upgrade that
| > too.
| >
| > Most of my time is spent in
| >
| > E-mails
| > Newsgroups-computers and computer related
| > Stocks and analysis
| > Word
| > Doing newsletters for voluntary org..
| > Excel
| > Image photo processing
| > and editing, printing of final photos.
| >
| > That is not all but quickly comes to my mind.
| >
| > NOW, what is it you recommend?
| >
|
| For all but the last almost anything would have done.
Once the photo
| edditing comes into play you need a fast computer with
lots of ram. If you
| have to cut back a little on the processor go with all the
ram you can for
| the vidio edditing.
|
|
|
Maybe 80 GB drives!
| >
| > I presently have the AMD 1100, 512 MB SDRAM, two 80 GHZ
drives (1
| internal,
| > 1 external) CD reader, CD writer,Cardreader.
| >
| > Windows XP, word, OE, and various programs to process
digital photos and
| > movies (the latter in the very beginning stages).
| >
| > I have a Radeon 5000 card (18 months old) and would need
to upgrade that
| > too.
| >
| > Most of my time is spent in
| >
| > E-mails
| > Newsgroups-computers and computer related
| > Stocks and analysis
| > Word
| > Doing newsletters for voluntary org..
| > Excel
| > Image photo processing
| > and editing, printing of final photos.
| >
| > That is not all but quickly comes to my mind.
| >
| > NOW, what is it you recommend?
| >
|
| For all but the last almost anything would have done.
Once the photo
| edditing comes into play you need a fast computer with
lots of ram. If you
| have to cut back a little on the processor go with all the
ram you can for
| the vidio edditing.
|
|
|
R
Ralph Mowery
I presently have the AMD 1100, 512 MB SDRAM, two 80 GHZ drives (1 internal,
1 external) CD reader, CD writer,Cardreader.
Windows XP, word, OE, and various programs to process digital photos and
movies (the latter in the very beginning stages).
I have a Radeon 5000 card (18 months old) and would need to upgrade that
too.
Most of my time is spent in
E-mails
Newsgroups-computers and computer related
Stocks and analysis
Word
Doing newsletters for voluntary org..
Excel
Image photo processing
and editing, printing of final photos.
That is not all but quickly comes to my mind.
NOW, what is it you recommend?
For all but the last almost anything would have done. Once the photo
edditing comes into play you need a fast computer with lots of ram. If you
have to cut back a little on the processor go with all the ram you can for
the vidio edditing.
K
Karolus des Reyches197
Right, 80 GB drives of course.
K
Kevin Lawton
| Thanks a lot for the fine explanation.
|
| I presently have the AMD 1100, 512 MB SDRAM, two 80 GHZ drives (1
| internal, 1 external) CD reader, CD writer,Cardreader.
|
| Windows XP, word, OE, and various programs to process digital photos
| and movies (the latter in the very beginning stages).
|
| I have a Radeon 5000 card (18 months old) and would need to upgrade
| that too.
|
| Most of my time is spent in
|
| E-mails
| Newsgroups-computers and computer related
| Stocks and analysis
| Word
| Doing newsletters for voluntary org..
| Excel
| Image photo processing
| and editing, printing of final photos.
|
| That is not all but quickly comes to my mind.
|
| NOW, what is it you recommend?
|
| Thanks in advance
You'll probably find the AMD 1100 fine for most of your Apps except for
the image processing which is likely to be s--l--o--w.
I tend to upgrade my main machine to be one step behind 'leading edge' as
that is where the best value for money comes in.
Currently, you can get an AMD XP2400 plus a decent suitable m/board
(Gigabyte, Asus, etc) for less than half it would cost you to go 3 GHz. In
practise, you won't really notice much difference between them unless you
spend your whole life benchmark testing. Give it something like 1 Gb of
PC2700 333 MHz DDR RAM and you'll have a system which can edit photos with
the best of them. Should be more than adequate for getting started with
video editing when you want to try that as well.
Your Radeon 5000 might be far from 'leading edge', but that doesn't mean
it won't do the job.
Most of the latest ATI and nVidia graphics cards give you fantastic 3D
acceleration - but you're not using 3D, so why pay for it ?
Might be best to see how the Radeon performs in a better system, and find
out what you need to improve about it.
If you don't need 3D, then image quality and a choice of outputs might be
your priorities. My own preference in this case would be to look at the
Matrox range, as these have some of the finest 2D quality you can get. Nice
stable drivers, too.
I notice that you are using Windows XP. This can use a significant of
system resources - and thus soak up some performance - if you have all the
bells-and-whistles and eye-candy enabled. Configuring XP to run 'lean and
mean' without so much of the extras can help performance.
Kevin.
|
| I presently have the AMD 1100, 512 MB SDRAM, two 80 GHZ drives (1
| internal, 1 external) CD reader, CD writer,Cardreader.
|
| Windows XP, word, OE, and various programs to process digital photos
| and movies (the latter in the very beginning stages).
|
| I have a Radeon 5000 card (18 months old) and would need to upgrade
| that too.
|
| Most of my time is spent in
|
| E-mails
| Newsgroups-computers and computer related
| Stocks and analysis
| Word
| Doing newsletters for voluntary org..
| Excel
| Image photo processing
| and editing, printing of final photos.
|
| That is not all but quickly comes to my mind.
|
| NOW, what is it you recommend?
|
| Thanks in advance
You'll probably find the AMD 1100 fine for most of your Apps except for
the image processing which is likely to be s--l--o--w.
I tend to upgrade my main machine to be one step behind 'leading edge' as
that is where the best value for money comes in.
Currently, you can get an AMD XP2400 plus a decent suitable m/board
(Gigabyte, Asus, etc) for less than half it would cost you to go 3 GHz. In
practise, you won't really notice much difference between them unless you
spend your whole life benchmark testing. Give it something like 1 Gb of
PC2700 333 MHz DDR RAM and you'll have a system which can edit photos with
the best of them. Should be more than adequate for getting started with
video editing when you want to try that as well.
Your Radeon 5000 might be far from 'leading edge', but that doesn't mean
it won't do the job.
Most of the latest ATI and nVidia graphics cards give you fantastic 3D
acceleration - but you're not using 3D, so why pay for it ?
Might be best to see how the Radeon performs in a better system, and find
out what you need to improve about it.
If you don't need 3D, then image quality and a choice of outputs might be
your priorities. My own preference in this case would be to look at the
Matrox range, as these have some of the finest 2D quality you can get. Nice
stable drivers, too.
I notice that you are using Windows XP. This can use a significant of
system resources - and thus soak up some performance - if you have all the
bells-and-whistles and eye-candy enabled. Configuring XP to run 'lean and
mean' without so much of the extras can help performance.
Kevin.