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

Intel chipsets are the most stable?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old October 18th 04, 07:14 PM
JK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Tony Hill wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:41:26 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
wrote:
JK wrote:

"fussiness" ?

Just choose the proper memory.

"problems with new motherboards."

Choose a decent brand of motherboard. If you choose a brand
that makes low quality motherboards, it is your fault, not the fault
of AMD.


I don't choose any motherboard at the moment since I already have a well
performing P4 machine. But I've noticed some teething problems reported
for boards for the AMD64, see e.g.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...t%26start%3D50


Huh?! Your link points to a message discussing two very specific
problem. The first is strictly a software issue and doesn't even
mention a hardware platform, the second is a very specific issue with
Intel's C0 stepping of Prescott P4's and Celeron-D chips!

"AMD is beating Intel in desktop performance by such a large margin."

As for benchmarks, even the site you quoted is not a clear win at all for AMD64.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6

Forget about P4EE, nobody buys them for their own money. Compare e.g. Intel
Northwood 3.2 and a AMD64 3200+ . AMD64 win some, but the Intel win other
important benchmarks hands down. Just click on the subsequent pages on the site...


Fine, let's do a direct comparison of which chip is faster and by what
percentage (anything less than 1% I'll consider a tie as that's well
within the margin of error)

AMD Athlon64 3200+ wins:
Business Winstone 2004 (11.5%)
Content Creation Winstone 2004 (7.7%)
Unreal Tournament Flyby (8.0%)
Unreal Tournament Botmatch (18.0%)
Warcraft 3 (2.4%)
Quake 3 (4.2%)
Wolfenstein (1.8%)
Jedi Knight (2.8%)
Quake 3 Source Compile (14.5%)

Intel "Northwood" P4 3.2GHz wins:
DivX encoding (21.2%)
Aquamark CPU (9.1%)
3DStudio (23.2%)
Lightwave (17.6%)

Tied:
Aquamark FPS
Gunmetal

So the Athlon64 wins more tests, while when the P4 wins it tends to do
so by a larger margin. If we average all the tests out


That is not reasonable to do, as a business for example that only runs
business software doesn't care how fast Divx encoding, 3D Studio,
or Lightwave runs. I don't care how fast those applications would run
on my pc, since I don't use them, and don't plan to use then.

we get that
the P4 is faster by 0.013% (ie they're tied).

Now if we throw price into the equation, we get that the Athlon64
3200+ costing $204 while the "Northwood" P4 3.2GHz will set you back
$244 (prices care of www.newegg.com) The motherboard cost for boards
used in this test should slightly favor AMD (VIA K8T800 based socket
754 board vs. Intel i875P based Socket 478 board) while all other
components in this test were identical.

Soooo... long story short, if you want to do lots of media encoding or
3D rendering, according to this test at least, you should stick with
the P4.


Only if you must use 32 bit software. When using 64 bit software, I
expect the Athlon 64 to be a great performer for those applications.

If you want to play games, do general office tasks or compile
code, you should go for an Athlon64. You should also stick with the
Athlon64 if 64-bit code is important to you, or if you want the extra
security offered by non-executable data pages. And finally, sticking
with an Athlon64 will also shave a small amount off the price of your
system.

So where is the better value in the Intel system?

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


  #72  
Old October 18th 04, 07:23 PM
Dave C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Now if we throw price into the equation, we get that the Athlon64
3200+ costing $204 while the "Northwood" P4 3.2GHz will set you back
$244 (prices care of www.newegg.com) The motherboard cost for boards
used in this test should slightly favor AMD (VIA K8T800 based socket
754 board vs. Intel i875P based Socket 478 board) while all other
components in this test were identical.


So you're going to choose a el-cheapo Athlon 64 board to go against a very
high-end P4 board and conclude that it's cheaper to build AMD? Ummmmm, no,
but we can conclude you are biased against Intel, and that is the ONLY
conclusion that can be reached. -Dave


  #73  
Old October 18th 04, 08:14 PM
Johannes H Andersen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



JK wrote:

Tony Hill wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:41:26 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
wrote:
JK wrote:

"fussiness" ?

Just choose the proper memory.

"problems with new motherboards."

Choose a decent brand of motherboard. If you choose a brand
that makes low quality motherboards, it is your fault, not the fault
of AMD.

I don't choose any motherboard at the moment since I already have a well
performing P4 machine. But I've noticed some teething problems reported
for boards for the AMD64, see e.g.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...t%26start%3D50


Huh?! Your link points to a message discussing two very specific
problem. The first is strictly a software issue and doesn't even
mention a hardware platform, the second is a very specific issue with
Intel's C0 stepping of Prescott P4's and Celeron-D chips!

"AMD is beating Intel in desktop performance by such a large margin."

As for benchmarks, even the site you quoted is not a clear win at all for AMD64.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6

Forget about P4EE, nobody buys them for their own money. Compare e.g. Intel
Northwood 3.2 and a AMD64 3200+ . AMD64 win some, but the Intel win other
important benchmarks hands down. Just click on the subsequent pages on the site...


Fine, let's do a direct comparison of which chip is faster and by what
percentage (anything less than 1% I'll consider a tie as that's well
within the margin of error)

AMD Athlon64 3200+ wins:
Business Winstone 2004 (11.5%)
Content Creation Winstone 2004 (7.7%)
Unreal Tournament Flyby (8.0%)
Unreal Tournament Botmatch (18.0%)
Warcraft 3 (2.4%)
Quake 3 (4.2%)
Wolfenstein (1.8%)
Jedi Knight (2.8%)
Quake 3 Source Compile (14.5%)

Intel "Northwood" P4 3.2GHz wins:
DivX encoding (21.2%)
Aquamark CPU (9.1%)
3DStudio (23.2%)
Lightwave (17.6%)

Tied:
Aquamark FPS
Gunmetal

So the Athlon64 wins more tests, while when the P4 wins it tends to do
so by a larger margin. If we average all the tests out


That is not reasonable to do, as a business for example that only runs
business software doesn't care how fast Divx encoding, 3D Studio,
or Lightwave runs. I don't care how fast those applications would run
on my pc, since I don't use them, and don't plan to use then.


OK, pick your special application, but then your statement:

"Now AMD is beating Intel in desktop performance by such a large margin."

is unduly generalizing from the specifics. The whole point in increasing
processor performance is to venture into new application arenas such as
photo processing and video. Office computing such as word processing etc.
is a problem that is already satisfactory solved with yesterdays processors.
  #74  
Old October 18th 04, 11:47 PM
Ykalon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave C. wrote:
Now if we throw price into the equation, we get that the Athlon64
3200+ costing $204 while the "Northwood" P4 3.2GHz will set you back
$244 (prices care of www.newegg.com) The motherboard cost for boards
used in this test should slightly favor AMD (VIA K8T800 based socket
754 board vs. Intel i875P based Socket 478 board) while all other
components in this test were identical.



So you're going to choose a el-cheapo Athlon 64 board to go against a very
high-end P4 board and conclude that it's cheaper to build AMD? Ummmmm, no,
but we can conclude you are biased against Intel, and that is the ONLY
conclusion that can be reached. -Dave


Even if you pick a fairly good nForce3 250-board you STILL get it
cheaper than a P4 system and if you are a gamer nothing beats an Athlon64.
  #75  
Old October 19th 04, 01:08 AM
Tony Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:14:13 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
wrote:
OK, pick your special application, but then your statement:

"Now AMD is beating Intel in desktop performance by such a large margin."

is unduly generalizing from the specifics. The whole point in increasing
processor performance is to venture into new application arenas such as
photo processing and video. Office computing such as word processing etc.
is a problem that is already satisfactory solved with yesterdays processors.


Be that as it may, I can probably count on one hand the number of
times I've done photo editing (and have few plans on ever doing so
again), while I use "office"-ish applications on pretty much a daily
basis. I'll take a small improvement on something I do every day over
a large improvement on something I do, at most, once a year.

So, is Office computing "satisfactory solved" with yesterday's
processors? That is a tougher question to answer, but I remember
about 10 years ago that people said a 486 was plenty for any office
computing user. Back that it Office computing was solved plenty well
on a 486, and yet now a 1GHz PC seems rather slow while doing typical
Office tasks (yes I do use 1GHz PCs at work, and yes they do seem slow
on such tasks when compared to my home PC). Sure, part of it is just
software bloat, but a lot of it is increased features.

An application that is "solved" today using yesterdays processors will
require today's processors in order to be solved tomorrow.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca
  #76  
Old October 19th 04, 01:08 AM
Tony Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:23:14 -0400, "Dave C." wrote:

Now if we throw price into the equation, we get that the Athlon64
3200+ costing $204 while the "Northwood" P4 3.2GHz will set you back
$244 (prices care of www.newegg.com) The motherboard cost for boards
used in this test should slightly favor AMD (VIA K8T800 based socket
754 board vs. Intel i875P based Socket 478 board) while all other
components in this test were identical.


So you're going to choose a el-cheapo Athlon 64 board to go against a very
high-end P4 board and conclude that it's cheaper to build AMD? Ummmmm, no,
but we can conclude you are biased against Intel, and that is the ONLY
conclusion that can be reached. -Dave


*I* did not chose the boards, please clean off your eyeballs before
making such comments. To quote what I JUST wrote above

"The motherboard cost for THE BOARDS USED IN THIS TEST should slightly
favor AMD" (emphasis added).

Sure, you could get a MUCH cheaper board for the P4, but the
performance would also drop, invalidating all the comparative results.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca
  #77  
Old October 19th 04, 03:57 AM
keith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:23:14 -0400, Dave C. wrote:


Now if we throw price into the equation, we get that the Athlon64
3200+ costing $204 while the "Northwood" P4 3.2GHz will set you back
$244 (prices care of www.newegg.com) The motherboard cost for boards
used in this test should slightly favor AMD (VIA K8T800 based socket
754 board vs. Intel i875P based Socket 478 board) while all other
components in this test were identical.


So you're going to choose a el-cheapo Athlon 64 board to go against a very
high-end P4 board and conclude that it's cheaper to build AMD? Ummmmm, no,
but we can conclude you are biased against Intel, and that is the ONLY
conclusion that can be reached. -Dave


Ah, so an "el-cheapo" Athlon board kicks the crap outta a "high-end" P4
board. Hmm, I think there is a message in here somewhere.

--
Keith

  #78  
Old October 19th 04, 04:00 AM
keith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:36:41 +0300, assaarpa wrote:

cares about cost? If I wanted to pay more for a processor than I did for
the last car I purchased, then YES, the benchmarks might support your
point


You must have a pretty ****ty car.


I would guess so! I had a '70 AMC Gremlin, and *it* cost $2500 (in 1970
dollars). ;-)

--
Keith
  #79  
Old October 19th 04, 04:29 AM
JAD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave forget it....these are AMD toadies...they no nothing of reality,
they live in a make believe world, held together with bits of bytes
that never stays up very long. The only reason why AMD exists is that
there can be no monopoly, so the token competition must be maintained.
Much like the AMD NG's , they need to be around for the sake of
laughter.


"Dave C." wrote in message
...

Now if we throw price into the equation, we get that the Athlon64
3200+ costing $204 while the "Northwood" P4 3.2GHz will set you

back
$244 (prices care of www.newegg.com) The motherboard cost for

boards
used in this test should slightly favor AMD (VIA K8T800 based

socket
754 board vs. Intel i875P based Socket 478 board) while all other
components in this test were identical.


So you're going to choose a el-cheapo Athlon 64 board to go against

a very
high-end P4 board and conclude that it's cheaper to build AMD?

Ummmmm, no,
but we can conclude you are biased against Intel, and that is the

ONLY
conclusion that can be reached. -Dave




  #80  
Old October 19th 04, 05:05 AM
David Maynard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

JK wrote:


Tony Hill wrote:


On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:41:26 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
wrote:

JK wrote:

"fussiness" ?

Just choose the proper memory.

"problems with new motherboards."

Choose a decent brand of motherboard. If you choose a brand
that makes low quality motherboards, it is your fault, not the fault
of AMD.

I don't choose any motherboard at the moment since I already have a well
performing P4 machine. But I've noticed some teething problems reported
for boards for the AMD64, see e.g.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...t%26start%3D50


Huh?! Your link points to a message discussing two very specific
problem. The first is strictly a software issue and doesn't even
mention a hardware platform, the second is a very specific issue with
Intel's C0 stepping of Prescott P4's and Celeron-D chips!


"AMD is beating Intel in desktop performance by such a large margin."

As for benchmarks, even the site you quoted is not a clear win at all for AMD64.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6

Forget about P4EE, nobody buys them for their own money. Compare e.g. Intel
Northwood 3.2 and a AMD64 3200+ . AMD64 win some, but the Intel win other
important benchmarks hands down. Just click on the subsequent pages on the site...


Fine, let's do a direct comparison of which chip is faster and by what
percentage (anything less than 1% I'll consider a tie as that's well
within the margin of error)

AMD Athlon64 3200+ wins:
Business Winstone 2004 (11.5%)
Content Creation Winstone 2004 (7.7%)
Unreal Tournament Flyby (8.0%)
Unreal Tournament Botmatch (18.0%)
Warcraft 3 (2.4%)
Quake 3 (4.2%)
Wolfenstein (1.8%)
Jedi Knight (2.8%)
Quake 3 Source Compile (14.5%)

Intel "Northwood" P4 3.2GHz wins:
DivX encoding (21.2%)
Aquamark CPU (9.1%)
3DStudio (23.2%)
Lightwave (17.6%)

Tied:
Aquamark FPS
Gunmetal

So the Athlon64 wins more tests, while when the P4 wins it tends to do
so by a larger margin. If we average all the tests out



That is not reasonable to do, as a business for example that only runs
business software doesn't care how fast Divx encoding, 3D Studio,
or Lightwave runs. I don't care how fast those applications would run
on my pc, since I don't use them, and don't plan to use then.


we get that
the P4 is faster by 0.013% (ie they're tied).

Now if we throw price into the equation, we get that the Athlon64
3200+ costing $204 while the "Northwood" P4 3.2GHz will set you back
$244 (prices care of www.newegg.com) The motherboard cost for boards
used in this test should slightly favor AMD (VIA K8T800 based socket
754 board vs. Intel i875P based Socket 478 board) while all other
components in this test were identical.

Soooo... long story short, if you want to do lots of media encoding or
3D rendering, according to this test at least, you should stick with
the P4.



Only if you must use 32 bit software. When using 64 bit software, I
expect the Athlon 64 to be a great performer for those applications.


Out of curiosity, what do you base that 'expectation' on?

 




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
intel board, fans on during standby. intel d875PBZ. JohnJ General 0 January 13th 04 06:14 PM
Best bang for buck CPU? Shawk Homebuilt PC's 9 October 5th 03 07:24 PM
Which is better: AMD Athlon XP 1800+ or Intel Pentium 2 GHz? Pccomputerdr Homebuilt PC's 7 October 5th 03 05:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:46 AM.


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