Intel Still better than AMD!

CyberGhost

I don't get it how AMDs beat Intels?(not arguing just asking)

Intels compete with Athlon64 even though they are 32bit, and have smaller bus bandwidth but still beat them in Memory bandwidth and encoding!

Image when Intel64 comes out! it will completely blow Athlon64, well maybe not completely but with a big gap!

what do you think about it?

zAbbo

troll <insert random generalisation here>

tuxy

Originally posted by CyberGhost

what do you think about it?

i think your a little bit clueless



sorry

Mutant_Fruit

Cyberghost, with your amount of posts i would have expected better, now to systematically destroy every point you made. (correct my mistakes, but in general i'm right).

ntels compete with Athlon64 even though they are 32bit, and have smaller bus bandwidth but still beat them in Memory bandwidth and encoding!

Firstly, the Intels have always had more bandwidth available to them than AMD's for a number of reasons. Check any memory bandwidth test, they always win.

With AMD's you have to run the memory syncronous with the processor, so if you have a 333mhz FSB processor, you can't get more bandwidth than 333mhz ram provides.

Whereas with Intels you can use higher FSB values, therefore allowing faster ram's to be used, and therefore meaning they always have memory bandwidth. Also the memory does not have to be run syncronouslt with the CPU.

As for encoding, i'm 90% certain that if you whip out the XviD mpeg4 encoder, AMD's will outperform Intels. I should also point out the Encoding is dependant on memory bandwidth, so more memory bandwidth=faster encoding (up to a point...).

Image when Intel64 comes out! it will completely blow Athlon64, well maybe not completely but with a big gap!

oh god, i can't wait to lay my hands on an Itanium. Intels greatest flop ever. It was released a few years ago as intels solution to the 64bit problem, but it sucked major ass. It had no support for 32bit whatsoever, so if you wanted to run 32bt apps on your Itanium 64bit processor, you couldn't! (without an emulator).

Amd's 64bit processors were their answer to Intels chip, and as you can see, AMD's processsors are a LOT better than intels 64bit processors.

Also, did you check out gaming benchmarks etc? You'll notice that AMD's are (nearly) always ahead of Intels at similar ratings. (e.g. P4 3ghz versus AMD 3000+, which is a mere 2.2ghz i think).

If you grab an intel 2 ghz, and an AMD 2ghz, you will be pleasantly surprised at the huge performance of the AMD as compared to the Intel.

Intels compete with Athlon64 even though they are 32bit

And every single benchmark you have looked at, you would have seen the AMD64 running in 32bit mode, NOT 64bit mode. The reason for this is all the benchmarking apps are 32bit, and the OS is 32bit, therefore no 64bit advantage as of yet...

astrofool

the real surprise is that after so many posts he still can barely string two words together

Col_Loki

intels compete with Athlon64 even though they are 32bit, and have smaller bus bandwidth but still beat them in Memory bandwidth and encoding!

Dual DDR is the main reason for this, the Socket 939 will have Dual DDR so lets have a look at it then shall we? Lets not even go into memory latency's..........

And as mutant_fruit said Xvid will perform better on the AMD platform, its all about what the software is optimised for.


Think mutant_fruit pretty much sums up the rest!!

SirLemonhead

THE PRICE DIFFERENCE.

CivilServant

Intel has SSE3

tuxy

Originally posted by MasterOfSolos
THE PRICE DIFFERENCE.

prices from komplett.ie
Intel Pentium 4 3.4 GHz €440
AMD Athlon 64 3400+ 2.2 GHz €447

amd's processor being €7 euro more expensive is hardly something worth making a big deal about

SirLemonhead

No, I mean compare it to an Athlon XP.

CyberGhost

but what about overclocking?

If you for example overclock 3ghz to 4ghz

and overclock A64 3000+ to 2.2Ghz, AMDs aren't very overclockable are they?

won't intel 3ghz be faster than an overclocked amd?


----

yea, i'm quite clueless in this area, thanks for flaming me!

CivilServant

Originally posted by Mutant_Fruit
With AMD's you have to run the memory syncronous with the processor, so if you have a 333mhz FSB processor, you can't get more bandwidth than 333mhz ram provides.

What?? That's crazy talk. You don't need the memory isn't limited by the processor and doesn't have to be synced either. I'm running a 266 FSB proc at 400Mhz. Get your facts straight.

tuxy

Originally posted by MasterOfSolos
No, I mean compare it to an Athlon XP.

ok then well lets see depends on the benchmark but a 3200+ xp compares to about a p4 2.8 ghz
again much the same price

but realy its better to compair intels flagship cpu to amd's
so that would be the p4 and athlon 64

SirLemonhead

Rightio, fair enough. P4 boards always seemed alot more expensive than AMD boards though.

Col_Loki

What?? That's crazy talk. You don't need the memory isn't limited by the processor and doesn't have to be synced either. I'm running a 266 FSB proc at 400Mhz. Get your facts straight.

CivilServant read his statement again. Hes saying the CPU FSB has to be (for performance reasons) in sync with the Ram . Hes bang on about that when it comes to the XP systems. This doesent mean he is saying that a 266FSB xp2000+ etc cant run at 400mhz FSB .......... or the classic case Xp2500+ (333mhz FSB) which everyone knows runs at Xp3200+ (400mhz FSB) easily enough.

If you for example overclock 3ghz to 4ghz

Yea with an extremely good chip and watercooling / phase cooling. Your dreaming if you think all P4's will get to 4ghz, the average is 3.5-3.6ghz ish, and people putting decent air cooling onto that aswell........... dont over state the facts.

and overclock A64 3000+ to 2.2Ghz, AMDs aren't very overclockable are they?

Thats a very un-informed comment also, the main problem with the AMD64's is the motherboards dont have AGP/PCI locks so the hard disks get corrupted before the chip is dont overclocking. With decent air cooling and a good chip the AMD64's have been getting round the 2.4-2.5ghz Mark........... put that into gaming terms thats the same as a 3.7 or 3.8ghz P4.

Rightio, fair enough. P4 boards always seemed alot more expensive than AMD boards though.

lol think there was a mix up on that one (you were picked up wrong), you ment that the AMD XP's were cheaper when being compared with lower end intels.......... which you are correct in saying (generally perform better also). As apposed to saying the AMD64's are more expensive than the P4's.........

tuxy

Originally posted by MasterOfSolos
Rightio, fair enough. P4 boards always seemed alot more expensive than AMD boards though.

well this thread is about top of the range cpu's the latest stuff thats out and its very close between intel and amd there

but as you move down the ladder near the budget range then amd totaly kick intels ass
just the word celron is enough to make any gamer cry

Woden

and the overclockabilty of problems of the motherboards are soon to be a thing of the pass with the introduction of motherboard with working pci locks on both nforce 3 chipsets

searchs anandtech.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.html?i=2033&p=7

whos your daddy a fsb of 350mhz yes the overall clock speed is lower but its shows that there is nothing wrong with the chip

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by Mutant_Fruit
oh god, i can't wait to lay my hands on an Itanium. Intels greatest flop ever. It was released a few years ago as intels solution to the 64bit problem, but it sucked major ass. It had no support for 32bit whatsoever, so if you wanted to run 32bt apps on your Itanium 64bit processor, you couldn't! (without an emulator).

Amd's 64bit processors were their answer to Intels chip, and as you can see, AMD's processsors are a LOT better than intels 64bit processors.

Amd's 64bit processors are the answer at the low end. The Itanium was never launched as a desktop processor so to start comparing it to the AMD 64 bit processor is comical.


What I am sure he meant was wait till Intel launch the 64 bit extensions for their desktop P4 processors, the same 64 extensions that are present in the existing AMD 64. The fact that the AMD 64 processor is a 64 bit processor is irrelevent at the moment as I guarantee that not one of you who has one has run a 64 bit application on it.


The AMD marginally outperforms the P4 in games. The Northwood P4 is a relatively old when compared to the AMD 64. The new Prescott may balance things out once it goes beyond 4.0 ghz in a few months.

CivilServant

Originally posted by COL_LOKI
CivilServant read his statement again. Hes saying the CPU FSB has to be (for performance reasons) in sync with the Ram . Hes bang on about that when it comes to the XP systems. This doesent mean he is saying that a 266FSB xp2000+ etc cant run at 400mhz FSB .......... or the classic case Xp2500+ (333mhz FSB) which everyone knows runs at Xp3200+ (400mhz FSB) easily enough.

My bad, misunderstood. Sync is a word I wouldn't use, 1:1 ratio, dividers, FSB: RAM is usually whats more familiar to me.

CyberGhost

btw, while we are at it

what is 1:1 ratio? what ratios are you talking about?
and what are dividers?


P.S don't forget to flame me!

Dempsey

1:1 means the FSB is running at the same frequency as the RAM. 5:4 means that if the FSB is 1GHz the RAM is running at 800MHz etc etc

Mutant_Fruit

I suppose the Itanium wasn't a desktop CPU, it was aimed at servers, but it was a flop.

Intels New 64bit CPU will be using the exact same instruction set that the AMD64 uses, or else they get no OS support (or so i read before). Therefore i don't think we will be seeing loads of new registers etc coming out on the Intel64 as compared to the AMD64.

Still, i think that the origional statement was way off, and i think thats been pretty much proven so far. As for gaming benchmarks, the AMD's are ahead. You say its a small margin, but thats subjective. I could say that the Intel's are only a small bit ahead on DivX encoding...

CyberGhost

Thanks Dempsey!

are ratios only between RAM and FSB? what I mean is that if some one says ratio, he means RAM and FSB only right?

and is the 1:1 ratio the best?(fastest?) option

BloodBath

Even bringing the athlon xp into this is stupid. It's a crap processor. Sorry to anyone that has one but it is.

Tuxx

but as you move down the ladder near the budget range then amd totaly kick intels ass

What are you talking about? Examples please and don't even mention the xp. The 2500mobile perhaps was the best budget chip you could get as it overclocks really well and is dirt cheap but this has been pussy whiped by the 2.4a prescott. It overclocks to 3.75 with stock cooling.


True xvid will perform faster on an a64 but the new version of divx supports sse3 and I bet the encoding will be a lot faster if you have the prescott of course.


The pentiums are also still the king of overclocking. Not a fear of reaching 4ghz without phase change or a vapochill but they still overclock really well with good air.

The true potential of the prescott will not be seen until it moves to the new platform and the clock speed starts going past 3.6. It's at this point that it outperforms a 3.6 northwood. By the time it reaches 4.0ghz which i'm sure a 3.6e would do with good air it will be flying and will be more comparable to the a64 in all benchmarks.


At the moment if your a gamer and your not overclocking i'd say get an a64.

BloodBath

Mutant_Fruit

And i suppose you could say the same about the A64, we will only see its true potential when we get some good overclocking boards, and we see it's clockspeed increase by another few hundred mhz.

The biggest bonus will be the introduction of Dual channel memory, which will more than likely evapourate Intels long-standing lead when it comes to memory bandwidth.

Lets see how a Prescot at 4ghz performs against an A64 at 2.6-2.8ghz....

And what do you mean by the Athlon XP being crap? Are you saying all Northwoods are crap aswell? Cos Athlon XP's outperform similarly rated Intels....

RuggieBear

Originally posted by BloodBath
Even bringing the athlon xp into this is stupid. It's a crap processor. Sorry to anyone that has one but it is.

Thanks for feeling sorry for me!!!!! I wish i was made of money.....oh the things i would buy then.....


P

Woden

Originally posted by BloodBath
Even bringing the athlon xp into this is stupid. It's a crap processor. Sorry to anyone that has one but it is.

Tuxx


What are you talking about? Examples please and don't even mention the xp. The 2500mobile perhaps was the best budget chip you could get as it overclocks really well and is dirt cheap but this has been pussy whiped by the 2.4a prescott. It overclocks to 3.75 with stock cooling.

saying an xp is a crap processor stupid. at the time you could get a 2500+ barton and an abit nf7-s motherboard for the price of a pentium 4 2.4c and a high end motherboard would have costed you another 150 euro.

basically the 2.4c was twice the price of the 2500+ and did it offer twice the performance hell no it didn't. when intel's pentium 4's came out it was athlon xp processor that wiped the floor with them as the p4 matured onto the northwood core and then effectively doubled the fsb to the c chips that was when it started to leave the xp behind. the xp however being a crap processor is imo a stupid statement its all about price the performance ratio which amd offered.

now the budget market your looking at the wrong chips for the budget market. the budget market it the celerons and durons of this world and to some extent the lower end xp's

the durons dance all over the celerons then when they are finished they lift em up and bend them over and kick em up the ass just for the sheer hell of it

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=14

that is all

data

Mutant_Fruit

69euro, Athlon xp 2500+. 8eur on a "decent" aircooling system. Then of course a little overclock on the FSB bumps that speed of the processor to 3200+ rating. Is that excellant or is that excellant?

What would a simialr P4 chip cost for that performance?

This time, the Duron 1.6ghz is an incredible 45.9% faster than the 2.6GHz Celeron.

Civilian_Target

This time, the Duron 1.6ghz is an incredible 45.9% faster than the 2.6GHz Celeron.

Holy ****, thats a large difference, but when you think about it, it's reflected in the clock speed difference between P4s and AMD 64s.....

RuggieBear

Although the 2500m is supposed to be a real star, I still reckon the 2500 barton is the bargain of the last 2 years...nothing (until recently) comes close to its price/performance ratio!!!


p

tuxy

Originally posted by BloodBath

Tuxx


What are you talking about? Examples please and don't even mention the xp

so your saying the xp isnt a a budget cpu or you think a celron is better than it?

you name what you think is a good intel low budget cpu (sub 100 euro) and i bet i can find an xp for the same price that kicks its ass

BloodBath

Mutant Fruit

And what do you mean by the Athlon XP being crap? Are you saying all Northwoods are crap aswell? Cos Athlon XP's outperform similarly rated Intels....

Em no they don't. No-where near in fact. You bought into that marketing **** then your a bigger fool.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834

A 3200xp is only the eqivilent of a 2.6-2.8c pentium.


Dataisgod

saying an xp is a crap processor stupid. at the time you could get a 2500+ barton and an abit nf7-s motherboard for the price of a pentium 4 2.4c and a high end motherboard would have costed you another 150 euro.

First off you wouldn't need a high end mobo. A normal Ic7 is a great board and a reasonable price.

basically the 2.4c was twice the price of the 2500+ and did it offer twice the performance hell no it didn't. when intel's pentium 4's came out it was athlon xp processor that wiped the floor with them as the p4 matured onto the northwood core and then effectively doubled the fsb to the c chips that was when it started to leave the xp behind. the xp however being a crap processor is imo a stupid statement its all about price the performance ratio which amd offered.

We don't need a history lesson. I'm talking about now.

now the budget market your looking at the wrong chips for the budget market. the budget market it the celerons and durons of this world and to some extent the lower end xp's

Really? I always thought the budget market was cheap chips. Who in their right mind would buy a celeron anyway?


That is all.......


Tuxx

you name what you think is a good intel low budget cpu (sub 100 euro) and i bet i can find an xp for the same price that kicks its ass

The 2.4a and it overclocks to around 3.75.


BloodBath

tuxy

Originally posted by BloodBath

The 2.4a and it overclocks to around 3.75.

i didnt realies it was still in production where can you buy it ?

BloodBath

I don't know where you can get them but they look good for the budget range.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjAzLDE=


BloodBath

CivilServant

2.4a clocks to 3.75 with a €600 phase change setup. More like 3gig normally, plus they're hard to find. Get yourself a mobiel 2500+ and oc it to 2.6Ghz on air.

tuxy

Originally posted by BloodBath
I don't know where you can get them but they look good for the budget range.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjAzLDE=


BloodBath

oh i see you think low budget =water cooling

and do you realy think its a sub 100 euro cpu?
im talking about retail prices not second hand

so thats why i say amd kicks intels ass at budget cpu's
i cant think of one good sub 100 euro intel cpu
but the xp 2800 is great bang for buck cpu

Mutant_Fruit

Firstly i think i misunderstood oneo f your eariler statements, i thought you meant budget Intels beat AMD XP's. thats my mistake...

In the Anandtech benchmark
All AMD's are bad at content creation, and lose

In "General Usage Performance": top 4 places are AMD

Unreal Tournament Fpyboy: as fast as 2.6ghz

Botmatch: As fast as 3.06 ghz

Splintercell: as fast as 2.8ghz

Quake III Arena: As fast as 2.6ghz

Jedi Knight 2: as fast as 2.4ghz

Seriious Sam2: as fast as 3.2ghz

Overall, i'd agree with you, the AMD 3200+ doesn't deserve the 3200+ speed marking. It would actually deserve a 2800+ rating, based on that alone. I'm a bit surprised at that myself, previous benchmarks lead me to believe that the AMD rated pretty highly.

Of course, previous benchmarks could have been done on Intel chips with lower FSBS, but i don't know. But at a price of just 69eur, i think that the 2500+ is well worth the cash.

po0k

Heat.


If AMD, who already have a fab partnership with IBM, make use of IBM's 90nm SSOI process they will whip Intel around the place on performance per Watt.
AMD have also commissioned their own 90nm fab in Dresden (with a bit of German state funding afaik), and if they do things right (either by licensing IBM's tech or developing something similar themselves) they will have a bloody good x86 platform on their hands.

The reason current AMD64s don't overclock well (in the traditional sense) is due to the integrated memory controller (which has it's own advantages and disadvantages) and the rather large die.
Even so, they still produce less heat at a similar performance level to Prescots (which are just a poor chip for a few reasons).
What will be interesting to see in the next year or so is how the "Desktop Centrino" performs.
That could very well snatch back a bit of the price/power/performance crown.

Also, until DDR2 starts hitting the high frequencies (~700Mhz+) it's going to be pweened by dual channel DDR, on both cost and performance (latency especially).

I would buy a AMD64 chip if I was building an x86 system tomorrow.

BloodBath

Is that all the 2500xp is. That is cheap for the overclockability of it.


The 2.4a still reached speeds of 3.3ghz with the stock cooler which is impressive. I don't know how much they are selling for new but somewhere around the 100 mark i'd say.

I didn't realise the 2500xp was so cheap though.

Even so, they still produce less heat at a similar performance level to Prescots (which are just a poor chip for a few reasons).

Please enlighten me on these reasons

BloodBath

Mutant_Fruit

Read it and weep: Only 69eur. Thats why the 2500 is so good. You can get it dirt cheap, and overclock the hell out of it.

To buy an XP3200, would set you back a mere189 euro. So do the math... Buy cheap, overclock hugely, get lots of free speed.

Woden

Originally posted by BloodBath


First off you wouldn't need a high end mobo. A normal Ic7 is a great board and a reasonable price.

BloodBath

yes and the ic7 costs around 140 euro at the moment close to the figure i highlighted in the first place.

now as you say the 3200+ xp performs similarly to a 2.8ghz northwood and in that case a prescott as well however its cheaper then a 2.8ghz pentium chip so how can it be that its crap. especially then when you take into account that you would have to spend an extra 50quid to obtain a similarly equipped socket 478 mb (and i'm not interested in overclocking here) just the chip itself.

yes the budget market is cheap chips and the cheapest chips are for intel the celerons and from amd the durons which i what i highlighted above. the fact at you can buy many an xp chip cheaper then the cheapest intel is just testament to the rip off of intel chips and also the fact that you can buy a duron for half the price of an celeron.

these are the budget chips

tuxy

Originally posted by BloodBath


I don't know how much they are selling for new but somewhere around the 100 mark i'd say.

i just checked online they are very hard to find but if you can get them they are around the 170 euro mark
now im still waiting to hear what intels best sub 100 euro cpu is?

Woden

at the moment i do believe its a 2.6ghz celeron if your lucky you may find a 2.8ghz on but its currently 130euro for that on overclockers and komplett don't stock the 2.8 but the 2.6 is about 85euro

tuxy

Originally posted by Dataisgod


yes the budget market is cheap chips and the cheapest chips are for intel the celerons and from amd the durons which i what i highlighted above. the fact at you can buy many an xp chip cheaper then the cheapest intel is just testament to the rip off of intel chips and also the fact that you can buy a duron for half the price of an celeron.

eurm amd stopped doing durons months ago
the budget amd cpu's are now the xp 2800+ and lower
which offer bang for buck thats miles ahead of intel at that price range

Woden

you can still buy em though no bother

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/amd_duron.html

tuxy

Originally posted by Dataisgod
you can still buy em though no bother

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/amd_duron.html

i see overclockers much have had a very big stock of them or they just dont sell
but you still cant compare them to anything intel have since they are half the price of the lowerst priced celron

so celron - xp 2800+ is a better comparison

tuxy

double post ;/

Col_Loki

eurm amd stopped doing durons months ago

They stoped morgan durons, but replaced them strait away with applebred durons. Hell the durons are sheduled to be made for the socket 754......... 32bit with 256kb L2 cache.

On the whole intel amd debate..........

AMD have the low end market and you would be crazy to question that.

Midrange market intel and AMD are very simular, AMD64 3000+ v P4 3ghz ....... both good chips both have flaws (refering to the prescott not northwood on this one). Intel have majour heat issues, AMD have crappy motherboard issues. Both are set to be set right , the prescott has a new stepping comming out and the AMD64 new boards........ from an overclocking perspective we really should worry more about that battle when things get straitened out.

I dont care about the high end, leave the FX's and EE's to themselves....... total waste of money.

CivilServant

Intel doesn't like selling pentiums (4) under €150. I remember when everyone was buying 2.4c's then the price change came into play and intel stopped making them. I was hoping to pick one up on the cheap but they were pulled, now the 2.6 is gone. Next to go will be 2.8c, there's no such thing as a cheap pentium. Intel want to keep it that way.

Woden

i think you can compare them in the sense that even though they are half the price they out perform intel's budget chips.

the fact that you can get an 2500-2800+ for the price of intels celerons is just further testament to amd's good price performance ratio

tuxy

Originally posted by COL_LOKI

Midrange market intel and AMD are very simular, AMD64 3000+ v P4 3ghz ....... both good chips both have flaws (refering to the prescott not northwood on this one). Intel have majour heat issues, AMD have crappy motherboard issues. Both are set to be set right , the prescott has a new stepping comming out and the AMD64 new boards........ from an overclocking perspective we really should worry more about that battle when things get straitened out.

ya i agree with you totaly i think the only one that disagrees that amd own the budget market is bloodbath and he has yet to prove it