Intel v AMB

TheDuke

Hi guys,

I am looking to by an new gaming rig (on a budget of arround 1k and DIY) and I've come accross allot of pro AMD aguments and not quite as many pro Intel ones.

Seemnigly the Prescot is just too hot to handles (although I'm planning to come in at 3.2GHz which I prosume will be managable heat wise).

Is the AMB 64 Athlon better? I cant see how, well not until 64 bit OS's hit the mass market (and the last time I recall that discussion was just before NT was discontinued on Digital Alpha ;-))

I know I am waffling a little but Intel has done me good and the only time AMB ever got a head start was on their 386DX being faster then Intels 486SX (but that didn't last).... showing my age here...

Talk to you guys,

The Duke : ))

Gilgamesh

Dude, I think yo ushould read some of the old threads regarding this, there are tons of them about here.

jessy

As Gilgamesh has already said this argument has been done to death, Main difference is (for the hundred time) AMD=Game, Intel = Encoding.(it’s a general rule at this point in time).

stevenmu

At a guess I think the reason AMD64s are better for gaming is because they have an onboard memory controller. This means it can dip in and out of memory quicker then an Intel chip can, the Intel chips has to first send instructions to it's off-chip controller, which then gets the data from memory and sends it back to the chip. On the other hand Intels off-chip controller can handle more data at a time than AMDs on-chip one (altough this may have change since AMD started supporting dual-ddr, not sure). This is good for things like video processing because with that you want to pull huge amounts of data through, whereas with games you want lots of quick little reads and writes to memory.

That's just a mildly-educated guess though.

Azza

Well AMD is faster in the majorty of applications rather than just games. Intel still holds encoding. Its just better architecture in my view. The 64bit thing is just a bouns but it has potential. Just makes sense

RicardoSmith

Dang I was hoping AMB was something new...

Andrew Fotzpatr

lol

MrPinK

Azza wrote:

Well AMD is faster in the majorty of applications rather than just games. Intel still holds encoding

Intel still holds encoding in 32 bit applications. From the benchies I've seen, the Athlon 64 knocks up to 25% of it's encoding times (stuff like LAME, DivX, GZIP,etc.) when it's running 64-bit code. If you don't use linux then that isn't a whole lot of use to you right now, but it will be when MS take their fingers out and release Win x86-64.

Of course, 64-bit pentiums will get a performance boost too.

RicardoSmith

MrPinK wrote:

Intel still holds encoding in 32 bit applications. From the benchies I've seen, the Athlon 64 knocks up to 25% of it's encoding times (stuff like LAME, DivX, GZIP,etc.) when it's running 64-bit code. If you don't use linux then that isn't a whole lot of use to you right now, but it will be when MS take their fingers out and release Win x86-64.

Of course, 64-bit pentiums will get a performance boost too.

Yes the 64-bit pentiums, I'm sure they exist...

the 64bit work great now. What more do you need.

TheDuke

tnx guys for all the prompt responces...

I'll dip into the history to get more info... Intel PR has just burned itself into my circuit... need to brush off those AMD chips (off my shoulder) and start anew..


oh and RicardoSmith... sorry for getting you all swetty and exited...

TacT

Gaming rigs - A64
Better multi-tasking or video - intel

no need to complicate things any further

Mutant_Fruit

The really crazy thing is the DivX encodes faster on Intels, whereas XviD is faster on AMD's. At least thats what i remember from reading in www.doom9.org. And they're both fully MPEG4 compliant encoders... except Xvid has more features

Azza

Gaming rigs - A64
Better multi-tasking or video - intel

no need to complicate things any further

Well its abit unfair just to label AMD for gamers as I said they do better in the majority of apps. Asides from which Intels vanunted hyper threading is abit of hot air as very few programs take advantage of it.

Nukem

Azza wrote:

very few programs take advantage of it.

Damn right - CAD and solid modelling programs its faster iv read. Only place AMD really fall down the old multi tasking.

Will the 64bit make a difference in the future does anyone know.

MrPinK

Nukem wrote:

Will the 64bit make a difference in the future does anyone know.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1665&page=8

That's a bit of an extreme case. I wouldn't be expecting speed-up's like that across the board, but it just shows how much of an impovement can be achieved. An increase of about 20% is reckoned to be the average.

Nukem

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

jessy

Off topic
But has anyone seen AMD Share prices ever the Last 5-6 days.
WTF happened :eek:

RicardoSmith

Nukem wrote:

...Only place AMD really fall down the old multi tasking..

Whys that then?

jessy wrote:

Off topic
But has anyone seen AMD Share prices ever the Last 5-6 days.
WTF happened :eek:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/11/amd_shares_drop/

jessy

ya I read the same Article today but I thought AMD was making huge inroads into Intel, Didn’t think Flash memory could account for that sort of losses to want to make investors sell there shares.

Nukem

RicardoSmith wrote:

Whys that then?

As i said its what i have read



Apologies - il find a more updated one later(cant rmember where i saw it)

jessy

Ok, but is that really a fair Challenge, comparing the 3.6 with the 3800?
3800 costs €602.87 Price Taken from here

3.6 Costs €393.54 Price taken from

RicardoSmith

Not a huge difference really. Though I really notice on my dual Xeon machine at work, multitasking is really smooth, compared to my P4 laptop or AMD desktop.

Mutant_Fruit

jessy wrote:

Ok, but is that really a fair Challenge, comparing the 3.6 with the 3800?
3800 costs €602.87 Price Taken from here

3.6 Costs €393.54 Price taken from

Well, i know its not a 3800+, but from komplett a 3700+ costs a mere €455. A bit more realistic in price than overclockers. Still more expensive though.

Nukem

Here is a good one http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=7 But yet to see a big list jammed with most CPU's with good test sheets. There is bits and pieces around.

I think its down to personal choice and waht you need it for.

jessy

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

A bit more realistic in price than overclockers.

not Really the 3800 is an expensive chip, Overclockers Are Competitive Dabs was the cheapest the found it with out leaving the EU @ €580.39

Mutant_Fruit

what i meant was for EUR150 less, you can get a chip which supposedly matches an Intel 3.7ghz instead of a 3.6ghz. I think its a bit fairer comparing those rather than comparing the 3800+ and 3.6ghz Top end chips are always highly overpriced.

EDIT: The AMD64 3800+ and the intel 3.8ghz are evenly priced on overclockers... thats comparing like with like. AMD say the 3800+ matches an intel 3.8ghz, and they price it accordingly.

astrofool

well the 3500+ beats a p4 3.6 in most benchmarks, and a 3000+ walks all over the prescott 3.0

jessy

astrofool wrote:

well the 3500+ beats a p4 3.6 in most benchmarks, and a 3000+ walks all over the prescott 3.0

Post some Links to these BM socres

Nukem

Yes yes linkies - Komplett just got a 3500+ on order - seems like an idea