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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Intel vs. AMD: Best bang for buck, at the moment
OK, I am totally ****ing FED UP with all these morons insisting that AMD is
faster and cheaper than Intel, PERIOD. I am a HUGE AMD fan. So it's incredibly ironic that I should feel compelled to defend Intel against repetitive, undeserved LIES posted on this ng and others about how AMD chips are both faster AND cheaper than Intel chips. At any particular point in time, that might be true, but it hasn't been true for quite a while, and it isn't true NOW. For anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass, or an axe to grind, and wants to know the plain, simple truth, here it is: Stop the nonsense. Compare chips similar in price and look at the benchmarks. AMD processors outperform comparably priced Intel processors for gaming, business applications, mathematical calculations, and many other types of applications. OK, according to pricewatch, same price range at the moment would be: P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+ Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest of their system combined. So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who has the best bang for buck, at the moment. Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel. So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and one tie. GAMING OVERALL: TIED Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide. Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both *CPU* and memory benchmarks Actually, I'm glad you called me out on this issue. I was previously under the impression that AMD and Intel were pretty well matched. But on reviewing the benchmarks again, I'd have to conclude that AMD is only a good idea if you plan to do nothing but DX8 gaming with your computer. Otherwise, you are wasting your money buying an AMD chip. Again, even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8, it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment. Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave 9/20/04 http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html Yeah, I know you are going to blast Tom's Hardware. It's funny that their benchmarks agree with tests run by all the other hardware guide web sites, though . . . including anandtech. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OMG!!....... quickly turn to any mirror and say "AMD is God" 3 times
and hope that the minions will take pity on you........... ;^) this will be a run for the longest thread this year. "Dave C." wrote in message ... OK, I am totally ****ing FED UP with all these morons insisting that AMD is faster and cheaper than Intel, PERIOD. I am a HUGE AMD fan. So it's incredibly ironic that I should feel compelled to defend Intel against repetitive, undeserved LIES posted on this ng and others about how AMD chips are both faster AND cheaper than Intel chips. At any particular point in time, that might be true, but it hasn't been true for quite a while, and it isn't true NOW. For anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass, or an axe to grind, and wants to know the plain, simple truth, here it is: Stop the nonsense. Compare chips similar in price and look at the benchmarks. AMD processors outperform comparably priced Intel processors for gaming, business applications, mathematical calculations, and many other types of applications. OK, according to pricewatch, same price range at the moment would be: P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+ Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest of their system combined. So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who has the best bang for buck, at the moment. Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel. So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and one tie. GAMING OVERALL: TIED Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide. Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both *CPU* and memory benchmarks Actually, I'm glad you called me out on this issue. I was previously under the impression that AMD and Intel were pretty well matched. But on reviewing the benchmarks again, I'd have to conclude that AMD is only a good idea if you plan to do nothing but DX8 gaming with your computer. Otherwise, you are wasting your money buying an AMD chip. Again, even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8, it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment. Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave 9/20/04 http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html Yeah, I know you are going to blast Tom's Hardware. It's funny that their benchmarks agree with tests run by all the other hardware guide web sites, though . . . including anandtech. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"JAD" wrote in message ... OMG!!....... quickly turn to any mirror and say "AMD is God" 3 times and hope that the minions will take pity on you........... ;^) Don't worry. I've already donned my asbestos suit. They can flame away, burn me to crispy critters, and they'll still be WRONG. But no doubt they will scream at the top of their lungs that AMD rocks and Intel sucks. So predictable. -Dave |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dave C. wrote:
reviewing the benchmarks again, I'd have to conclude that AMD is only a good idea if you plan to do nothing but DX8 gaming with your computer. Otherwise, you are wasting your money buying an AMD chip. What if you are building your own apps, using a compiler that generates 64-bit code, and running on a system with 64-bit runtime libraries? Like with Linux for instance? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave C." wrote in :
Can you post links to more benchmarks that support your opinion. I am in the process of choosing Intel or AMD and would like to take a look at more benchmarks comparing AMD and Intel. TIA |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"JS" wrote in message . 1... "Dave C." wrote in : Can you post links to more benchmarks that support your opinion. I am in the process of choosing Intel or AMD and would like to take a look at more benchmarks comparing AMD and Intel. TIA No problem! Let's start at anandtech. The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting is, the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz P4 processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors are pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD being faster on others. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2038&p=1 Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about the 3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great comparison of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be careful, as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And on some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks, you will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD faster on some and Intel faster on others. http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3329681__1 I'd done many hours of research for a couple of systems I was building recently. The more you review the benchmarks, the more you realize that AMD and Intel are pretty much tied, as far as performance goes. Then when you look at total cost to build (not just CPU but you need a mainboard to support it, obviously), the range of prices runs from pretty even to Intel just a bit cheaper to build. My two most recent builds were with Intel P4 processors, including this P4 3.0E that I'm typing on at the moment. I'm still working some bugs out of it, but overall it's a kick-butt system. I don't think you can go wrong, either way. Intel and AMD both have some really great processors on the market at good price points, so the consumer WINS, no matter what they choose. I just am so sick and tired of reading ignorant comments that boil down to "AMD is ALWAYS better than el". -Dave |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/...9164010,00.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1 http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=257&p=2 http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm http://techny.com/articles.cfm?getar...&go=0.53769656 http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7 http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1 http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews...X3BhZ2U9MQ= = JS wrote: "Dave C." wrote in : Can you post links to more benchmarks that support your opinion. I am in the process of choosing Intel or AMD and would like to take a look at more benchmarks comparing AMD and Intel. TIA |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
With all respect, this does not seem to be correct. See this http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7 Here A64 3000+ is faster than Pentium 3.4E - CPU twice as expensive. Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel. So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and one tie. GAMING OVERALL: TIED Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away Incorrect. Depends on benchmark suit. In general, streaming applications (including image processing) work better on Intel, Excel/Word type applications are faster on AMD. Development (compiling) is also significantly faster on AMD. Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave 9/20/04 Depends on type of applications you want to run. Mirek |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
SNIP Who cares if the Intel chips are faster in some benchmarks? The results are so close, but the AMD's can run 64-bit software, which the Intel's cannot. Many are already running 64-bit software - either Linux or beta Windows64. Why buy a chip that only supports 32bit, for the same price as one that does 32&64 well. Also Windows XP SP2 has enhanced AV capabilities with the AMD64 chips... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Tell me, are you just really trying to use up what time you have
before Intel releases its 64 line? Or is it you believe that Intel won't enter the market? R&D costs a bunch, letting amd 'Take the point' for once, is IMO, good marketing strategy( let alone the increased practicality in waiting for 64bit software). Let them get wounded. ! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....? "GTS" wrote in message ... SNIP Who cares if the Intel chips are faster in some benchmarks? The results are so close, but the AMD's can run 64-bit software, which the Intel's cannot. Many are already running 64-bit software - either Linux or beta Windows64. Why buy a chip that only supports 32bit, for the same price as one that does 32&64 well. Also Windows XP SP2 has enhanced AV capabilities with the AMD64 chips... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel Prescott CPU in a Nutshell | LuvrSmel | Overclocking | 1 | January 10th 05 03:23 PM |
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with mobile CPU? | Cuzman | Overclocking | 1 | December 8th 04 08:20 PM |
Ghost speed differerent in AMD & Intel | Zotin Khuma | General | 7 | November 17th 04 06:56 AM |
Best 'bang for buck' CPU at the moment? | Cheddar | Homebuilt PC's | 9 | June 4th 04 01:40 AM |
Gigabyte GA-8IG1000 Pro or Intel D865GBFLK ? | Piotr Makley | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | March 10th 04 03:39 PM |