Price difference between Intel & AMD systems

JK wrote:

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

JK wrote:

Franklin wrote:

JK wrote:

Franklin wrote:

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

-- snip --

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.

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...spx?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?

www.pricewatch.com

Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz 800 MHz dual channel OEM ............$177

AMD Athlon XP 3000+ 2.16 GHz 400 MHz single channel OEM ..... $98

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

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

JK wrote:

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

JK wrote:

Franklin wrote:

JK wrote:

Franklin wrote:

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

-- snip --

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.

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...spx?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?

www.pricewatch.com

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 wrote:

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!

--
iv Paul iv

Paul Hopwood wrote:

JK wrote:

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?)

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?



--
iv Paul iv

JK wrote:

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?)

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.

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.

On it's own couch has no value and the house will not function without
it?

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?

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?

--
iv Paul iv

"JK" wrote in message
...

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

"Paul Hopwood" wrote in message
news
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.


J/K supports AMD a little too much. He can't grasp the idea that there are
situations where a P4 may be preferable to any AMD chip. So I'd stop arguing
if I were you it's not worth it. One thing to note. I didn't follow the
thread very closely so if there's a reason why some one should assume we're
talking about British currancy I'll shut up. But news groups are indeed
international. Unfortunatly I"m sure J/K lives some where in the U.S. like
me and perhaps he is assuming we're talking about U.S. currancy. So I'm sure
his pound key isn't broken, perhaps he just didn't know he should be using
it.

Carlo

"Paul Hopwood" wrote in message
...
JK wrote:
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.


Ah! Ok... Note: This was cross posted to comp.sys.intel, alt.comp.hardware,
hardware.overclocking.amd etc......

Carlo

JK wrote:

[...]

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?

And you base this comparison on a single Business Benchmark test? That
test could have a large I/O element and thus depend on other hardware
factors. And I just pointed out to you that on the very same site, the
P4 3.0 GHz beats the AMD Athlon XP 3000+ on Content Creation Benchmark.
You have to look at the whole performance spectrum. Not everybody run
databases or are interested in business tests. The Intels perform
traditionally very well for numerical modeling problems with vectors
and matrices. Special libraries are optimized for Intel. Also the
simplicity of plugging in an Intel P4 without having to worry about
many things.

How about you guys drop c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips from
your crossposting ?

Absolutely none of the regulars from this newsgroup
are participating in this thread. Don't ask me
why it was ever cross-posted here.