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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |