Author Topic: OK Intel gurus give me the run down here. (Read 1880 times)

Wilbus · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2003, 08:21:53 AM »

Uhmm,, 1 Ghz AMD beat P4 2.4? People who wrote that were probarly on crack or something.

Go to tomshwardware and check out some benchmarks and read more about the latest P4's.

As for me not looking at benchmarks, did it a couple weeks ago.

At the moment AMD has nothing that can challange the pure speed of the fastest P4's, saing that a 1 Ghz AMD can beat a 2.4 Ghz P4 is like saying a row boat would win over a battleship on a shootout.

mrsid2 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 06, 2003, 08:37:10 AM »

No Wilbus they weren't on crack, it's the new 64-bit architecture..

Dunno which benchmarks you've been reading Wilbus but Tomshardware says:

" Athlon XP only comes with the model number "2100+". Still, this Athlon XP is impressively close to Intel's P4-flagship."

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020506/index.html

"Today, Intel finally releases its first Pentium 4 2.2 GHz that is based on the advanced 'Northwood' core, while AMD presents AthlonXP 2000+, clocked at 1.67 GHz."

"In any case, one thing is visible: in the majority of performance tests, the new Pentium 4/2200 is ahead. After all, the top AMD processor has to make do with 1666 MHz, while its archenemy steps in with 2200 MHz. A closer look at the comprehensive benchmarks reveals that in Office performance as well as Linux Kernel compiling, the Athlon XP still takes the lead, despite its 32% clock speed disadvantage!"

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020107/index.html

"In the benchmark results, the Athlon XP 2300+ cannot quite keep pace with the Intel Pentium 4/3000, but the values that we measured are very impressive."

So Athlon XP at 1866Mhz cannot quite keep up with Intel 3000Mhz, but comes close..

Where did that gap go Wilbus?

mrsid2 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 06, 2003, 09:09:27 AM »

Seems that my memory played tricks on me.. It wasn't 1Ghz vs 2.4 but 1.2Ghz vs 2.2..

Anyway here is the comparison chart:

Wilbus · « **Reply #18 on:** January 06, 2003, 10:39:45 AM »

Mrsid, why didn't you say it was their new 64 bit? You made it sound like it was their old 1 ghz Athlon. Sure you said it was their latest but it hasn't been released yet... or has it?

minus · « **Reply #19 on:** January 06, 2003, 12:03:02 PM »

wilbus , your truble with AMD was cose of VIA,

have never problem with kt 333 but kt 266 vas realy a plague

and about new AMD in 13 micron give very tough fit to any but realy any even uber INTEL , and if asociated with Nforce 2 and ddr 2700 the n even uber intel with latest rambus not shining just be a same or decimal numeric diference

Wilbus · « **Reply #20 on:** January 06, 2003, 12:03:02 PM »

Anyway... would still go with a P4 if I bought one now....

bloom25 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 06, 2003, 12:05:25 PM »

The Opteron and Athlon 64 are not available yet. Another XP revision (Barton core) with 512 kB of L2 cache is coming first.

Wilbus, you've got some errors in your post as well. The Athlon XP GREATLY outperforms the P4 at the same clockspeed. The P3 and the Athlon were actually very close in performance at the same clockspeed. The Athlon was a bit faster, but not 30% faster. If a P3 and P4 ran at the same clockspeed, the P3 would outperform the P4. Power consumption is also almost the same between the fastest Athlons and P4s now. I think the Athlons actually consume less power, but I haven't looked for a while now. (Newer Athlons are Throughbreds are built on a .13u process, just like the P4s. They also have fewer transistors. Older Athlons were on .18u. - Palominos.)

It really doesn't matter what you pick Reschke, either Intel or AMD would be a good choice. I've built both recently and both perform very well. It really depends on the application which is faster.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #22 on:** January 06, 2003, 01:02:17 PM »

Quote

from Tomshardware:

"Let's look at the situation from an overall perspective: with the introduction of the 3.06 GHz P4, Intel has distanced itself from the competition at AMD, still unable to supply its top model, the XP 2800+. In practical terms, this means that the XP 2600+ (2133 MHz) is the AMD product competing with the P4 3066 (3.06 GHz). The Athlon 2800+ was only able to match the 3.06 GHz P4 in a few areas: 3D rendering, Cinema 4D and SPECviewperf. The difference is particularly apparent with Sysmark 2002. Advanced users should note that the Athlon XP 2800+ only approaches the performance of the 2.8 GHz P4 when the Dual-DDR333 platform is used."

They're talking about considerably faster than what you were stating MrSid.

The AMD and Intel stuff is comparable in performance and price at the high end (Slight edge on price to Intel at 2600) , with the nod going to AMD for price at 2000 (Rating for AMD speed for Intel) and below.

AKDejaVu

boxboy28 · « **Reply #23 on:** January 06, 2003, 01:32:03 PM »

you can buy that AMD set up from MWAVE for about the sam e pirce if not cheaper! go for it!

Reschke · « **Reply #24 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:11:40 PM »

Thanks again guys and I did read that article over on anandtech there bloom. Its just the type of light reading I was looking for at work. I printed in out so I could look like I was doing something at work while my boss was in the next office.

bloom25 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 06, 2003, 07:53:02 PM »

LOL, depending on your job that may or may not earn you "perk points" from your boss.

When it comes to CPU pricing DejaVu is right. AMD is quite a bit cheaper than Intel from the 2100+ level down. Above that, Intel and AMD are roughly equal in price. It really depends on your own preferences which CPU brand you choose once you get to the 2.2 GHz level and up. Performance wise, both have their strong points. Gaming performance is nearly equal. Intel's P4 is faster in most video editting applications (optimized for SSE2). AMD leads Intel in most engineering and scientific type applications (x87 FPU performance is better on the Athlon).

mrsid2 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 07, 2003, 08:32:22 AM »

AkDeja: Wilbus was stating that AMD no longer has the Mhz per Mhz edge it used to.. The comparison you showed proves it wrong.

They're comparing a 2Ghz chip to a 3Ghz chip and, gee, it doesn't quite manage to beat it in performance. If the AMD chip would run at 3Ghz, Intel would be left in the dust.

This is what I was talking about. I know well that the top of the line Intel chip will always be faster and ludicrously expensive. I'm not going to go that route anyway.

bockko · « **Reply #27 on:** January 07, 2003, 10:49:38 AM »

buy intel and help a fellow flier:cool:

no bias here

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #28 on:** January 07, 2003, 12:04:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrsid2
AkDeja: Wilbus was stating that AMD no longer has the Mhz per Mhz edge it used to.. The comparison you showed proves it wrong.

They're comparing a 2Ghz chip to a 3Ghz chip and, gee, it doesn't quite manage to beat it in performance. If the AMD chip would run at 3Ghz, Intel would be left in the dust.

No, they are saying the 2.13GHz AMD compares to the 2.6GHz Intel, but please do continue to exagerate away. That's what most of your posts seem to be about.

Quote

This is what I was talking about. I know well that the top of the line Intel chip will always be faster and ludicrously expensive. I'm not going to go that route anyway.

Ya, and you didn't read what was quoted nor did you check pricewatch. The AMD top of the line are priced a little higher than the Intel (Not counting the 3.06 since AMD has NOTHING THAT COMPETES THERE).

Price for performance... the Intel is winning out at the higher end. Its pretty even down to 2.1, where AMD wins on the price vs performance for low end stuff.

AKDejaVu

mrsid2 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 07, 2003, 12:09:44 PM »

AkDeja you seem persistant in missing the point here..

1000Mhz AMD is (it is) faster than 1000Mhz Intel. Get it? Wilbus tried to make a point that the performance difference was somehow disappeared. It isn't.

And I'm not going to go that way = I'm not going to be a tard and pay triple price for the latest CPU which will be half price in two months be it Intel or AMD. I prefer to buy a CPU in the 'sweet spot' and OC it as far as it goes.

I hope this finally clears it out.