Intel chipsets are the most stable?

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:50:35 GMT, "Frank" put finger
to keyboard and composed:

A few _cheap_ corporations or bureaucracies will use AMD and off brand
chipsets....Check out the banks who need no fault tolerances....
Intel based IBM........

IME, large corporations with big budgets nearly always go with the
most prominent vendor, whether or not he has the best product, the
rationale being that, if the product fails to perform as expected,
then the person who authorised its purchase cannot be seen to have
gambled.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

Well YOU think they are experts, so it's odd that you'd ask me for
oof. -Dave
What experts? Tomshardware might as well change name to intelslapdog.com

Funny that anandtech and sharky extreme and many other hardware sites agree
with tomshardware. Are they all intelslapdog.com? -Dave

Dave C. wrote:

We went through this already several times.

Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...



Not really a flame war. Just a well-deserved smackdown of an obvious AMD
shill. I'm a huge AMD fan myself, but it's insane the way someone keeps
bashing Intel. Just seeking a little balance is all. -Dave


That was your biggest lie. You are NOT an AMD fan if you claim Intel is
faster than AMD64 in games when all evidence says different. Just read a
WHOLE test next time. AMD wins no mater what API is used. P4 wins in
Comanche 4 thats it. P4 EE doesn't cost as no regualar mortal can afford
one. An Athlon64 FX-53 costs a fraction of what a P4 EE costs and it is
very close behind (or in front of) P4 EE. Besides a lot of the tests are
very GPU bound ( especially in DX9 games like GunMetal) so you really
shouldn't count those tests. If you had run them again a lot of
positions would switch.

If you discount P4 EE AMD wins ALL game tests at anandtech.com

That was your biggest lie. You are NOT an AMD fan if you claim Intel is
faster than AMD64 in games when all evidence says different.

Huh?!? I'm just repeating what the experts, including anandtech, report.
Are all the experts liars, also? If you want to call me a liar, you'd
better be able to prove that tomshardware, anandtech and sharky extreme are
liars, also. Good luck on that. -Dave

According to www.pricewatch.com, 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

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.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

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

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, updated 10/2/04

Dave C. wrote:

Well YOU think they are experts, so it's odd that you'd ask me for
oof. -Dave

What experts? Tomshardware might as well change name to intelslapdog.com


Funny that anandtech and sharky extreme and many other hardware sites agree
with tomshardware. Are they all intelslapdog.com? -Dave


Disregarding P4 Extremely Expensive Edition they do NOT agree.

Dave C. wrote:

That was your biggest lie. You are NOT an AMD fan if you claim Intel is
faster than AMD64 in games when all evidence says different.


Huh?!? I'm just repeating what the experts, including anandtech, report.
Are all the experts liars, also? If you want to call me a liar, you'd
better be able to prove that tomshardware, anandtech and sharky extreme are
liars, also. Good luck on that. -Dave

According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be:

P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or

P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+

Thing is I have READ those reviews and they do NOT say what you claim
they say. P4 Extremely Expensive Edition at the top or right after FX-53
and when a lot of AMD64's and FAAR down the list a P4 that is NOT an EE.
Do yourself a favor and READ the reviews you link to.

Thing is I have READ those reviews and they do NOT say what you claim they
say.

Oh man, maybe you should look into night school. Really. What is UP with
all these morons claiming that what is published is not published? -Dave

Dave C. wrote:

Thing is I have READ those reviews and they do NOT say what you claim they
say.


Oh man, maybe you should look into night school. Really. What is UP with
all these morons claiming that what is published is not published? -Dave



And you should visit your optician. You clearly need your vision checked.
PROOF you have not read the tests you link to.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2038&p=3
Business Winstone 2004

1. AMD Athlon64 FX53
2. AMD Athlon64 FX51
3. AMD Athlon64 3400+
4. AMD Athlon64 3200+
5. Intel Pentium 4 EE 3,4 GHz (EE = Extreme Edition, popularily known as
Extremely Expensive)
This is followed by A64 3000+ and another Extremely Expensive P4. After
that both the slowest A64 and even the old XP3200+ is ahead of all
"normal" P4's. This is clearly NOT a landslide win for Intel as you said.

Content Creation just minor shifts AMD still WAY ahead mostly.

Sysmark with the exception of AMD64 FX53 and Extremely Expensive this is
a clear win for P4. But that is because the tests are optimised for SSE3
and Hyper Threading which AMD64 lacks at the moment.

DX9

Aquamark fps

1. A64 FX53
2. P4 EE 3,4 GHz
3. P4 EE 3,2 GHz
4. A64 3400+
5. A64 FX51

But lets call this a tie since it is really only a difference of 2,8 fps
(disregarding the XP3200+) between the fastest and the slowest.

Aquamark CPU score goes to Intel clearly.

Halo landslide win for AMD if you just look at the positions but again
only a difference of about 1 fps between the slowest and fastest so lets
call it a tie.

Same with GunMetal just too close to call really = tie.
But my guess is that if they had used a 6800 Ultra instead of a 9800 PRO
AMD would have a huge win in nearly all dx9 tests.


DX8

Unreal Tournament 2003

No contest AMD wins both flyby and botmatch. Intel not even close

Warcraft 3 Same as with UT2k3

OpenGL (which you claim Intel wins)

Quake 3 I call for AMD (discounting the Extremely Expensive edition P4)

Jedi Knight AMD wins again

Wolfenstein Once again AMD

Where is the test that shows Intel performs better in OpenGL than AMD?


DivX Encoding goes to Intel

3D Rendering

3DStudio = Intel by quite a big margin
Lightwave Intel again but closer this time.

Development

Q3 Source compile = landslide win for AMD

All in all AMD won almost all game tests and quite a lot of the other tests.

Dave C. wrote:

Thing is I have READ those reviews and they do NOT say what you claim they
say.


Oh man, maybe you should look into night school. Really. What is UP with
all these morons claiming that what is published is not published? -Dave



I wonder what is up with all these morons that claims that what is NOT
published is published.....

Frank wrote:

"JK" wrote in message
...


chrisv wrote:

JK wrote:

We went through this already several times.

Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8)
It
was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...

It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in
desktop
performance by such a large margin.

A few _cheap_ corporations

This is from the AMD website.

"Twenty-five percent of the Fortune Global 100 companies now use AMD Opteron™
processor-based systems to run critical enterprise applications. These organizations
include industry leaders in banking, insurance, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, energy and
telecommunications. "


or bureaucracies will use AMD and off brand
chipsets....Check out the banks who need no fault tolerances....


Intel based IBM........

Not all of them. Some use Sun Opteron based systems.