Author Topic: AMD or Intel? (Read 1390 times)

Kev367th · « **Reply #30 on:** February 14, 2006, 08:26:58 PM »

Thanks Krusty, interesting site.

Highest speed for an AMD was on a AMD64 3000.
Default is 2.0Ghz, overclocked to 4.81Ghz, so about 2.4x original speed.

Highest speed for Intel was on a P4 Prescott (surprised me considering its the hottest running P4).
Defult is 3.8Ghz, overclocked to 7.47Ghz, so about 1.96x original speed.

Suppose the point is that none of these overclocks would be carried out by the average user, probably used all sorts of exotic stuff for cooling etc.
Also shows that the AMD64 can overclock just as well, just they start at a lower speed to begin with.
But as has been pointed out for CPUs 'speed isn't everything', it's what is done during each clock cycle.

Both have their good and bad points, but for a gaming rig, bang for buck the only choice is an AMD64 or one of the FX series.

Bronk · « **Reply #31 on:** February 14, 2006, 11:12:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Thanks Krusty, interesting site.

Highest speed for an AMD was on a AMD64 3000.
Default is 2.0Ghz, overclocked to 4.81Ghz, so about 2.4x original speed.

Highest speed for Intel was on a P4 Prescott (surprised me considering its the hottest running P4).
Defult is 3.8Ghz, overclocked to 7.47Ghz, so about 1.96x original speed.

Suppose the point is that none of these overclocks would be carried out by the average user, probably used all sorts of exotic stuff for cooling etc.
Also shows that the AMD64 can overclock just as well, just they start at a lower speed to begin with.
But as has been pointed out for CPUs 'speed isn't everything', it's what is done during each clock cycle.

Both have their good and bad points, but for a gaming rig, bang for buck the only choice is an AMD64 or one of the FX series.

Kev AMD 64 3000 is 1.8 , 3200 is 2.0
I know cause i run the 3000.

Bronk

Kev367th · « **Reply #32 on:** February 14, 2006, 11:47:31 PM »

Yup your right 1.8Ghz, makes the overclocking even better -
1.8Ghz up to 4.81Ghz = 2.67x overclock.

Think most AMD users don't go to long lengths to overclock, maybe as far as a vcore increase with a good cooler, a multiplier drop and a 'fsb' increase.

38ruk · « **Reply #33 on:** February 15, 2006, 01:20:54 AM »

Its just so easy to do . My friend has a fx57 @2.8ghz stock , cost him right around 900 dollars . I turned my 3700 up to 2805 mhz (255X11) bumped the vcore from 1.4 to 1.450 used the 333 memory divider and the 4x htt divider, now here i am at fx57 speeds for 250 bucks. Our benches are almost exact in 3dmark and aquamark . Not bad for a stock 2.2ghz chip . Will the cpu last , time will tell, im not putting much vcore to it and the water is great ,no temp difference . I usually upgrade every year so if it makes it 8 months i can live with that heh . 38

Skuzzy · « **Reply #34 on:** February 15, 2006, 07:29:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
If you want to game on it, go single core. I'm serious here. Most games (AH included) do not work with dual cored CPUs.

Not quite right Krusty. Aces High II is one of a few games in the industry who do make true use of multi-threading. However, there is a problem with the AMD dual-core systems, particularly when using an NVidia video card. MS has been working on the problem, which indicates there is something amiss in the operating system.

Dual-core/HT enabled Intel CPU's have no known issues with Aces High II, at this time.

Things that are automatically threaded in the Windows gaiming environment include, networking, and sound (if the sound card has real hardware available - AC97 is not hardware). We also add threads for some other background stuff in Aces High II.

Bloom, good to see ya!

buzkill · « **Reply #35 on:** February 15, 2006, 08:17:42 AM »

scuzzy...something amiss with windows?? do we want to start a new thead about this, or leave that big can of worm closed

Kev367th · « **Reply #36 on:** February 15, 2006, 09:55:22 AM »

Guess I'm 'lucky'.

AMD dual core
nVidia graphics card

Works great.

Only difference is I use Windows 2000 not XP.
As I mentioned earlier Microsoft changed the thread handler in windows XP and this seems to be causing the problem.
It is losing track of threads when switching them between cores.

Krusty · « **Reply #37 on:** February 15, 2006, 12:05:42 PM »

That doesn't bode well for Windows. The new resource hogging behemoth of theirs is meant to be for dual core CPUs. I wonder if they porked XP to make everybody buy the new one??

I've heard folks post in these forums that XP was fine until they released an update, THEN the threading got screwed up, and knowing Microsoft... I wonder if it was intentional.

LePaul · « **Reply #38 on:** February 15, 2006, 03:18:39 PM »

You really really need to loose the term "heard" and document things better. This is not meant as any sort of personal attack. But when you are going to have a hardware discussion about things, backing up your opinions (or hunches) with articles, etc would certainly give you comments more weight.

Just saying.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #39 on:** February 18, 2006, 11:20:55 AM »

Well, i built my first rig using intel. p4 2.6. and although i am very pleased with the performance, I run hot. So i am moving to AMD, just to do a compare for myself. I heard the new intel p4's run hot also so I want to get away from the heat. I'll post the results.

MOIL · « **Reply #40 on:** February 18, 2006, 11:47:16 AM »

I'm not getting into the Chev/Ford debate on this one!! I like them all, my AMD K6III 450 O/C'd to 475 is still working great!!! It's great for Email and typing in Wordpad.

Power up:aok

Krusty · « **Reply #41 on:** February 18, 2006, 03:16:15 PM »

Question, when folks claim "The Pentium runs hot" -- how much are we talking here? Ballpark it. For a comparable performance between 2 similar chips, how many more degrees will the Pentium be over the AMD?

(rough average, guesstimates are okay if you have an idea of what you're talking about)

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 18, 2006, 04:46:09 PM »

Krusty my AMD runs at 29C. I've seen people with the Prescott P4s running in the high 40C range and calling it cool, and low to mid 50's is normal. At 60C you are risking component damage.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #43 on:** February 18, 2006, 04:56:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Question, when folks claim "The Pentium runs hot" -- how much are we talking here? Ballpark it. For a comparable performance between 2 similar chips, how many more degrees will the Pentium be over the AMD?

(rough average, guesstimates are okay if you have an idea of what you're talking about)

Well, I cant give you a compare. But, when I back up a dvd on my burner, my puter will run up to 70C according to Hardware doctor. That cannot be correct, obviously, and I think the temp sensor in my board is off by about 12C. So lets say idle at 35c and load 58C. Ambient temp is between 68 and 78F winte and summer. After my amd system is up and running I will post my personal comparison. Dont get me wrong, my rig has served me well and runs really good at stock speeds. I just want to get away from the hot chips.

Krusty · « **Reply #44 on:** February 18, 2006, 11:19:05 PM »

Hrm... I don't think that 60C is the level you can damage chips at, though, because a couple of different cpu temp programs don't start warning you until 65-70C.

My older 500MHz FSB P4 2.6GHZ runs around 28-30C most of the time, and 45-50C under load. That might be because it's older technology, however.