AMD or INTEL ?

AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
aspect.
Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
ill-configured??

"Codemutant" == Codemutant writes:

Codemutant AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
Codemutant intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
Codemutant expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
Codemutant its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
Codemutant mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
Codemutant of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
Codemutant ill-configured??

Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
really give a serious answer.

Thanks

Alan

Codemutant wrote:

AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
counterpart.

What?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1

and almost always its the intel that wins in every
aspect.

Not quite.


Why is the bench mark different from the true story??

What components are you using?

and if its the
case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
ill-configured??

Why? Many people are either cheap or ill informed, and choose a low quality
motherboard and/or other low quality components. A computer isn't just a cpu.

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

FALSE prophecies from the archives, Post Replies Here Please on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:51:17 -0500
spoke:

"Codemutant" == Codemutant writes:

Codemutant AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
Codemutant intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
Codemutant expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
Codemutant its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
Codemutant mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
Codemutant of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
Codemutant ill-configured??

Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
really give a serious answer.

He has observed EXACTLY the opposite of what I've seen.

I have an XP2500 system, an XP2800,and an Intel P4 2.6C system.

The AMDs are MUCH more responsive in most things,
but the P4 is MUCH faster in Seti and a few other
programs, where little human intervention or
interference is necessary.


The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip. Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon XP2500+
is a $70 chip. What $70 Intel chip
should we compare its performance to? a Pentium 4 1.8 ghz, or a Celeron
2.4 ghz?



--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.

Codemutant wrote:
AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
aspect.
Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
ill-configured??

Well, give some examples of where you find the AMDs not performing as well
as the Intels. Perhaps your expectations are unrealistic? AMDs do not always
perform better than Intels in the benchmarks. There are various categories
of programs where it's been demonstrated that the Intels almost always
perform better. While other categories, AMDs almost always perform better.

Perhaps your workload is more suited to where the Intels perform better.

Yousuf Khan

When you bought those chips and what you paid for them is irrelevant to our
discussion about relative performance. What counts is the performance
at each price level based on current prices.

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

FALSE prophecies from the archives, JK on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:33:19 -0400 spoke:

The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip.

Not when I bought it.

Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+.

Again, NOT when I bought it.

--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.

"Codemutant" wrote in message
om...
AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
aspect.
Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
ill-configured??

Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
on.

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

Judd wrote:

"Codemutant" wrote in message
om...
AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
aspect.
Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
ill-configured??

Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
on.

Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

No one forces those who buy an AMD processor to buy a junky power supply
or to overclock. Those who do so are inviting trouble. An AMD based system
will be reliable if it is properly build and not overclocked.

Bitstring 41225891.B7CE58D5@zciueanmosizefitterzxcazreaszs. com, from
the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
said
snip
Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
on.

Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

You are desperately confused. I hang out there perpetually (and have for
several years) and there are very few AMD user with problems, given the
fact that 99% of the people there =only= build AMD systems these days.
The 'three people**' with home built Intel systems seem to ahve their
share of problems too.
8.

** I exaggerate, there may actually be as many as 6.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

Judd wrote:

"Codemutant" wrote in message
om...
AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
aspect.
Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
ill-configured??

Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
on.

Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.