A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Overclocking AMD Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Price difference between Intel & AMD systems



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 19th 04, 09:36 PM
twobirds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

And you base this comparison on a single Business Benchmark test?


Did you notice what the OP said he was doing with his PC? No games - no
video - no content creation - no 'nuttin' but surfin' and makin' word docs.
The OP could get by with a PIII 800 and any speedy HDD, but since he's doing
nuttin' but office stuff - that would be the appropriate benchmark to use
for comparisons.


  #22  
Old September 19th 04, 09:37 PM
GTD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

snip

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


That's not what the OP was asking about. Quoted from th OP:

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You should start drinking prune juice and KY jelly cocktails right now,
that will make things a lot smoother.
-Felatio Love
  #23  
Old September 19th 04, 09:37 PM
Johannes H Andersen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Rob Stow wrote:

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.


Don't ask me either, I didn't start the damned cross-posting.
  #24  
Old September 19th 04, 09:55 PM
Tony Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:13:32 +0100, 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?


In a word, no.

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


To a certain extent memory does depend on the motherboard and/or
processor. For example, some setups (for both AMD and Intel) use
single channel memory while others use dual channel memory (ie memory
must be added in pairs). Some AMD systems, most notably the older
Socket 940 Athlon64 FX chips, require the use of registered memory,
while pretty much all others use unregistered memory.

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


Well, first off, defining "equivalent" is not a very easy thing to do.
In some applications Intel's P4 design tends to do pretty well, while
in others AMD's AthlonXP line does well and in others still it's AMD's
Athlon64 line that really pulls ahead. So equivalency here depends
largely on what application is most important to you.

What's more, prices are rather fluid and tend to change a lot
depending on where in the price/performance scale you are looking.
For example, Intel's top-end P4 Extreme Edition chips are VERY
expensive ($900+), and generally perform about the same as an Athlon64
3500+ ($365) or 3700+ ($500). On the other hand, if you were to
compare a P4 3.0GHz, it would usually perform more or less on par with
AMD's Athlon64 3000+ (again, depending on the applications you use),
where here AMD's processor is only about $20 cheaper.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca
  #25  
Old September 19th 04, 09:55 PM
Tony Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:20:36 +0100, Franklin
wrote:

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.


If you're going to use integrated graphics, stick to either Intel, ATI
or nVidia chipsets. SiS boards have VERY weak integrated graphics,
but even they are MUCH better than the trash that VIA puts out.

Interesting note about the Barton 2500+, it's now actually more
expensive than the Barton 2600+. Why? I really don't know. Only
thing I can think of is that overclockers feel that the Barton 2500+
is somehow a better processor.

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


Well, here's some numbers to toss out, all prices from www.newegg.com,
all using retail boxed processors (which include a heatsink and fan,
plus 3 year warranty). Note that these will not be the cheapest
prices you'll find from the Pricewatch bottom-feeders because Newegg
is, from all accounts, a reliable vendor and not some fly-by-night
shop.

AMD system:
AthlonXP 2600+ $94
MSI K7N2GM-L $72
PGI 2x512MB PC2700 $166
Total: $332

Intel Celeron D system
Celeron D 335 2.8GHz $111
MSI 865G NEO2-PLS $95
PDP 2x512MB PC3200 $159
Total: $365

Intel P4 system
P4 2.4C $157
MSI 865G NEO2-PLS $95
PDP 2x512MB PC3200 $159
Total: $411


All three of these systems are likely to be close enough in
performance that you won't notice the difference, though at a guess I
would say that the AthlonXP system would be the fastest, followed by
the P4 system with the Celeron being the slowest.

Anyway, comparing the price/performance of the AthlonXP vs. Celeron
system here, that would give you about a 10% difference in price when
taking just these components, or probably about a 5% difference in
price for the system as a whole.


Now, mind you, if your headers are to be believed, your over on the
other side of the pond, so prices might be a bit different there.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca
  #26  
Old September 19th 04, 10:48 PM
Paul Hopwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Carlo Razzeto" wrote:

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.


I was starting the feel that vibe. ;-)

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.


Which was kinda my point. I'm not going to get drawn into which is
better because it'd be purely my opinion, just as JK's preference to
AMD is his. Both have their merits and people who buy either have
their reasons for doing so. I can't see why some people feel so
strongly about the whole thing or, come to think of it the whole
MCIBTYC thing; be it Intel vs AMD, ATI vs Nvidia, PC vs Mac,
self-build vs branded etc.

The world is so much more colourful and stimulating due to diversity
and choice. I don't see why people can't accept there are other
options and feel the need to suppress and coerce people into acting
the same way they do, whether it be CPUs, cars, politics, race,
sexuality, religion or whatever else it is that rocks your world.

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.


The OP was cross-posted into a number of groups, including
uk.comp.homebuilt so 'Franklin' is either in the UK, in which case any
discussion of price differences in US$ would be irrelevant to him or,
alternatively, he's just off-topic.

--
iv Paul iv

  #27  
Old September 19th 04, 11:39 PM
Tim Auton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Never anonymous Bud wrote:
Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, Tony Hill on Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:55:32 -0400 spoke:

All three of these systems are likely to be close enough in
performance that you won't notice the difference,


WHAT have you been smoking??

The Celeron is a dog by ANY standard, and not close to the other 2 systems.


Office work is not typically CPU-bound.

The Celeron may be a dog, but it really doesn't matter much for an
office system.


Tim
--
Guns Don’t Kill People, Rappers Do.
  #28  
Old September 20th 04, 12:44 AM
JK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Tony Hill wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:13:32 +0100, 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?


In a word, no.

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


To a certain extent memory does depend on the motherboard and/or
processor. For example, some setups (for both AMD and Intel) use
single channel memory while others use dual channel memory (ie memory
must be added in pairs). Some AMD systems, most notably the older
Socket 940 Athlon64 FX chips, require the use of registered memory,
while pretty much all others use unregistered memory.

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


Well, first off, defining "equivalent" is not a very easy thing to do.
In some applications Intel's P4 design tends to do pretty well, while
in others AMD's AthlonXP line does well and in others still it's AMD's
Athlon64 line that really pulls ahead. So equivalency here depends
largely on what application is most important to you.

What's more, prices are rather fluid and tend to change a lot
depending on where in the price/performance scale you are looking.
For example, Intel's top-end P4 Extreme Edition chips are VERY
expensive ($900+), and generally perform about the same as an Athlon64
3500+ ($365) or 3700+ ($500). On the other hand, if you were to
compare a P4 3.0GHz, it would usually perform more or less on par with
AMD's Athlon64 3000+ (again, depending on the applications you use),
where here AMD's processor is only about $20 cheaper.


Which wouldn't be so bad if the Pentium 4 being discussed was a 64 bit one.
Unfortunately it is a 32 bit one. Assigning no extra value to the Athlon 64's
64 bit mode doesn't seem to make much sense. In 2005 many of those
who bought a high priced 32 bit processor in '04 might become upset
that they didn't use foresight and buy a 64 bit processor. I wonder what great
64 bit applications we will see in 2005. I wonder what 32 bit applications will
be ported to 64 bits and show tremendous improvements in performance
when the 64 bit is run compared to the 32 bit version on an Athlon 64
or Opteron. Here is a link to one application already out in 64 bits whose
64 bit version runs 25% faster than the 32 bit version on an Athlon 64.

http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=257&p=1


Other applications might show a much greater performance increase.



-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca


  #29  
Old September 20th 04, 01:22 AM
Paul Hopwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

JK wrote:

Which wouldn't be so bad if the Pentium 4 being discussed was a 64 bit one.
Unfortunately it is a 32 bit one. Assigning no extra value to the Athlon 64's
64 bit mode doesn't seem to make much sense. In 2005 many of those
who bought a high priced 32 bit processor in '04 might become upset
that they didn't use foresight and buy a 64 bit processor. I wonder what great
64 bit applications we will see in 2005. I wonder what 32 bit applications will
be ported to 64 bits and show tremendous improvements in performance
when the 64 bit is run compared to the 32 bit version on an Athlon 64
or Opteron. Here is a link to one application already out in 64 bits whose
64 bit version runs 25% faster than the 32 bit version on an Athlon 64.


Perhaps similar to the reaction of the "let's buy 64-bit because it's
the latest and greatest thing" brigade when technologies such as BTX,
PCI-Express, faster FSBs, new sockets etc hit the market en-mass in
2005 and render their "latest and greatest" machines obsolete. Then
they might well wonder why they didn't buy 32-bit machines, have
saving themselves some money and wait until they actually needed it?

--
iv Paul iv

  #30  
Old September 20th 04, 01:58 AM
JK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Paul Hopwood wrote:

JK wrote:

Which wouldn't be so bad if the Pentium 4 being discussed was a 64 bit one.
Unfortunately it is a 32 bit one. Assigning no extra value to the Athlon 64's
64 bit mode doesn't seem to make much sense. In 2005 many of those
who bought a high priced 32 bit processor in '04 might become upset
that they didn't use foresight and buy a 64 bit processor. I wonder what great
64 bit applications we will see in 2005. I wonder what 32 bit applications will
be ported to 64 bits and show tremendous improvements in performance
when the 64 bit is run compared to the 32 bit version on an Athlon 64
or Opteron. Here is a link to one application already out in 64 bits whose
64 bit version runs 25% faster than the 32 bit version on an Athlon 64.


Perhaps similar to the reaction of the "let's buy 64-bit because it's
the latest and greatest thing" brigade when technologies such as BTX,
PCI-Express, faster FSBs, new sockets etc hit the market en-mass in
2005 and render their "latest and greatest" machines obsolete. Then
they might well wonder why they didn't buy 32-bit machines, have
saving themselves some money and wait until they actually needed it?


Buying a low priced 32 bit Athlon XP or Sempron might make sense,
especially for someone who runs only business software. Buying a 32
bit Pentium 4 at around the price of an Athlon 64 doesn't make much
sense for most people(notice I said most people, as there will be a few
who will say that more than 50% of their pc usage is video editing, and
they have no plans to ever want to upgrade to 64 bit editing software).



--
iv Paul iv


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with mobile CPU? Cuzman Overclocking 1 December 8th 04 09:20 PM
Ghost speed differerent in AMD & Intel Zotin Khuma General 7 November 17th 04 07:56 AM
Approx price difference between Intel & AMD systems JAD General 23 September 21st 04 06:19 PM
Dual CPU systems - still worth it? Mr. Grinch Overclocking AMD Processors 9 May 2nd 04 09:02 AM
Marked difference in price between 2 UPS products? M Wells General 2 January 23rd 04 12:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.