INTEL is the best

ASTRACLUB

Washout and all the Lads

INTEL is the best man,.....

Performance wise i have never seen anyone talking abt AMD
so go for INTEL....
its same like going for a fresh goodlooking , reliable and go for ordinary whore (AMD)...
so go for best
do not compromise

tribble

Who brought out the first 1GHz chip agan?

troll....


tribble

sisob

Intel emulate some functions in software
that are in hardware in AMD and PowerPC
making Pentium 2.4MHZ slower than 1Ghz PowerPC and 1.4 AMD *

* In some tests/functions

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by sisob
Intel emulate some functions in software
that are in hardware in AMD and PowerPC
making Pentium 2.4MHZ slower than 1Ghz PowerPC and 1.4 AMD *

* In some tests/functions

Which tests and functions? Because my 2.4 P4 leaves my AMD 1.4 for dust.

KdjaCL

Fanboyism on Cpus.

hehhehe


kdjac

longword

Roll on the selective benchmarks showing the weaknesses of the P4 - as slow clock-for-clock as a pre-MMX Pentium and well less than half the speed of certain other processors.

Dizz

Flame alert! Take it to USENET!

Stephen

lol, I have never, ever heard anyone likening a CPU to a whore before

Ryo Hazuki

Well a "Pentium 2.4MHZ" is always going to be slower than a 1GHZ Chip (of any manufacturer).

Go AMD.

JustHalf

Blatant troll, and blatant victims.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Ryo Hazuki
Well a "Pentium 2.4MHZ" is always going to be slower than a 1GHZ Chip (of any manufacturer).

Go AMD.

LOL

swiss

God, I know this is turning into a trollfest, but I've been looking at motherboard/chip upgrades, and I must say that in terms of raw clock speed, Intel appear to be in the lead.

For example, the AMD XP3000+ runs at IIRC 2.167GHz, whereas a pentium running at a comparable clock speed would be less than half the price. Now I understand that raw clock speed alone does not determine the speed of a processor. Chip architecture, L1 and L2 cache, as well as various hardware and software functions all play a role, but given the sole benchmark of clock speed, the Intels appear to have the edge.

Can anyone give me solid advice as to which chip gives me the most bang for my buck. Any links to relevant benchmark results would also be appreciated.

ASTRACLUB

INTELL IS STILL THE NUMBER ONE IN ALL ASPECTS...
GO FOR INTEL...
I HAD TO SELL MY AMD COS IT DOESN;T WORK LIKE A PROCESSOR...
IT WORKS LIKE A BULLOCK CART

Woden

divyak you are full of **** one bad experience with a processor doesn't make a whole company crap, you'll find thousands if not millions of very happy amd users, only recently with the northwood core did intel finally manage to pull away slightly
from amd, and amd still give the most bang for your buck

i will however admit that amd's usual cheapness in comparision too intel seems to be slipping away with the lastest xp 3000+ barton retailing for almost €700 comparable in price to intel's
3.06Ghz which is at about €720

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-27.html
however looking at these sample benchmarks you can see that for the most part amd's chip naming policy is quite reasonable and and even with lower clock speed's they can equivalently or outperform intel's chip

seamus

Let's cut to the chase here people. x86 technology is clumsy and outdated. If it wasn't for the sheer number of x86 chips in use, and thus the need for backwards compatibility, we wouldn't be using them. A complete redesign should have been carried out before the Pentium was released...but anywho.....

I find no difference in AMD and intel chips. I go for AMD cos they're cheaper and I prefer to favour the market underdog when buying products (dunno why)

Praetorian

Both companies make excellent CPU's.

Intel are just ahead at the moment, but not by much. I'm really looking forward to AMD's Opteron / Athlon 64. Hopefully they will introduce the heat spreader.

Competition is great for us (the consumer), AMD vs INTEL, ATI vs NVIDIA etc etc

longword

Originally posted by seamus
A complete redesign should have been carried out before the Pentium was released...but anywho.....

I think it's fair to say AMD's x86-64 is the redesign you've been waiting for.

SouperComputer

Washout and all the Lads

INTEL is the best man,.....

Performance wise i have never seen anyone talking abt AMD
so go for INTEL....
its same like going for a fresh goodlooking , reliable and go for ordinary whore (AMD)...
so go for best
do not compromise

LOL! Dude, you're great!

prefer not to be biased, generally if your building a system and arent ripping people off by OCing, AMD would be the way to go.

both chips are great, but Intel do have a lawsuit against them for a number of performance reasons, mainly that the P4 does less work per clock cycle than the p3. Yes, a generalisation taken from the top of my head.

I agree its time for x86 to go, not looking 4wrd to 64bit prices though.

ASTRACLUB

Wel guys
i am not biased, i agree that both INTEL and AMD are good but u know like somelike FIAT, someone like TOYOTA,,its actually depends on your personal choice plus working smoothness...
yes INTEL is a big brand and has been in the market for a long time, on the other hand AMD being a new brand , has advantage as a small company and this is all part of marketing, normally people wants change, everyone like change, so some are changing over to AMD, not just because AMD is best and intel is poor quality or vise versa, its just changing mood.........
so both company looks best and INTEL on top...now there is not too much difference in price even, so just handy whatever u buy is grant,,,,

plus centirino is also available....

http://www.intel.com/english/products/mobiletechnology/index.htm
...........
at last my VOTE IS
INTEL....
carry on guys...........

DIVYA...

THE DON

SouperComputer

erm AMD have been around since the early 70's AFAIK and making CPU's since 486's

not really new, not to mention some of their flash tecnology used in Cisco products.

centrino looks interesting, still a shame about the transmeta crusoe not taking off though

on price:

XP 1800: 56USD, P4 1800 104USD
XP 2200: 86USD, P4 2200 150USD
XP 2600: 189USD, P4 2600 225USD

id call that a big difference in price! Granted, the P4 offers a faster FSB, but that seems to be nothing more than cosmetic in comparision to the difference performance (is there one?).

OC'ing I guess the P4 is better (litterally guessing!) but thats not the way most people run or resell systems.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by longword
I think it's fair to say AMD's x86-64 is the redesign you've been waiting for.

Well, x86-64, while cool, is still x86 with crap stuck on. The only actual redesign and revolutionary CPU from either of them is the Itanium...



Matt

longword

Originally posted by Matt Simis
Well, x86-64, while cool, is still x86 with crap stuck on. The only actual redesign and revolutionary CPU from either of them is the Itanium...

Itanium is an experiment. A seriously unproven experiment at this point. Whilst x86-64 chips do have all the old x86 bits in them, they don't waste too many transistors on it, and once you slip into Long Mode where you can actually start using the 64-bitness, most of the icky x86 features disappear. No more register starvation. No more madcap segmentation schemes. They even dumped Virtual x86 mode.

Samba

I used to be a Pentium man but since my XP2600+ ill never go back.

the OEM one I recieved was defaulted at 2.16 Ghz, in college last year they had P4 machines round about the 2ghz mark.

The difference between those PC's and the AMD system I have atm is phenominal, my amd mops the floor the Pentium system.

My next ambition is to have everything including the ram at 400/200 mhz, getting there slowly but surely

Intel have taken a slight lead on in the market and mainly because Microsoft and Intel Scratch each others back imo.

But I suspect AMD will rise to the challenge once more.

BKtje

Performance wise it really depends on what you actually use the system for. Intels are great for encoding while amd are better at other stuff.

Intels got the hyper threading now tho which would put it a bit ahead imo with a lot of applications.
www.anandtech.com did a good Hyperthread 3.06ghz intel vs non hyperthread 3.06ghz vs xp2800. (true it was one xp lower than intel's top). Had some interesting results

My next pc will prob be an intel (currently a very happy amd customer) tho that may change if i delay a bit and wait for the next gen.

ASTRACLUB

Hi LADS

HERE IS THE RESULT OF THIS THREAD TILL DATE:

NO. OF PEOPLE SAYING :----

INTEL IS BEST :--- 13

AMD is GOOD :-- 6

CAN'T SAY :--- 2

BOTH ARE BEST, JUST THE NAME IS DIFFRENT : 1


so you see, intel is leading,
If anyone want to add , just put a mark in respective (i.e. +1 in front of intel if she/he favours INTEL )

ALSO PLEASE RATE THE THREAD....

SUPERCOMPUTER !!! what is your true opinion????



See u guys....
come on time is ticking on

REGARDS

Divya.. The Don
INTEL IS BEST :--- 13 :cool:

Washout

Ok I saw my nick been specifically mentioned in the opening post

Washout and all the Lads

I would like to dissassociate myself from this thread and say I have nothing to do with the publishing ofit whatsoever.

I asked a question in another thread about building a machine from scratch. I have no prior experience to comparing amd chips to intel chips. as my current PC is an amd athlon 1.8 and my one prior to that was a P2. thats no comparasion.
All i want to do is build the ULTIMATE gaming machine.


Anyways Carry on with yer debate




J

ASTRACLUB

Washout
then go for intel as i am a game frick and my last pc got crashed 2 times and then i had to sell it,
now i am on P4 and its been more then a year with almost all the game and doing perfactly fine

Regards

DIVYA

DeVore

Originally posted by divyaksharma
Wel guys
i am not biased, i agree that both INTEL and AMD are good but u know like somelike FIAT, someone like TOYOTA,,its actually depends on your personal choice plus working smoothness...

Excuse me.... You work for Intel.

DeV.

longword

Originally posted by divyaksharma
HERE IS THE RESULT OF THIS THREAD TILL DATE:

NO. OF PEOPLE SAYING :----

INTEL IS BEST :--- 13

AMD is GOOD :-- 6

CAN'T SAY :--- 2

BOTH ARE BEST, JUST THE NAME IS DIFFRENT : 1

Is this a Pentium math bug I see before me?
21 different opinions from 18 different nicks

Gerry

haha, I haven't been looking at this board much lately, but this is classic stuff. divyaksharma, if you want to enthuse about intel, you could at least be a little more subtle about it. I don't think intel need your cack handed attempts at PR to sell their chips You could at least do some research on amd. I don't think you ever had an amd system, sure an alarm would have gone off in your boss's office!
Apart from the troll, this thread is pretty interesting. People still have plenty of misconceptions about the p4.

Samba: Intel have taken a slight lead on in the market and mainly because Microsoft and Intel Scratch each others back imo.

What do you mean by this? Perhaps microsoft help intel in the marketplace, but microsoft don't make intels chips run any faster. I thought this thread was about the performance of the chips, not the market share.

SouperComputer: id call that a big difference in price! Granted, the P4 offers a faster FSB, but that seems to be nothing more than cosmetic in comparision to the difference performance (is
there one?).

The FSB speed makes a massive difference to the p4, because it needs so much memory bandwidth. The new 800mhz fsb offers significant performance gains over the 533mhz. The increases in fsb have allowed the p4 to scale in a pretty much linear fashion. If you do not increase the fsb, you worsen the bottleneck between cpu and memory. The athlon does not need such high memory bandwidth, but the 266mhz fsb was starving it. Hence the large performance gains when amd moved to a 333mhz fsb.

MisterAnarchy

Have a look at this months issue ( May) of PC Pro.
They reviewed 29 processors from both INTEL and AMD .
To summarise the findings ,
AMD chips are better value up to XP2500 and aa XP1800 is just as powerful as a 2.2Ghz Pentium in 2D and 3D tests.
Above 2.5Ghz ,Intel has more muscle.
Hopefully AMD's financial situation will improve or else Intel may have a monopoly and that could be a disaster.

kamobe

Excuse me.... You work for Intel.

Hysterical

Edit: And I vote for athlon...

Dempsey

I think AMD 128Kb L1 Cache is where they really take Intel to the cleaners. Intel only have 8Kb.

Cyrus

I think AMD 128Kb L1 Cache is where they really take Intel to the cleaners. Intel only have 8Kb.

not really the chips are designed very very differently intel goin for less work per cycle but more cycles(ie higher mhz) and amd going for less cycles but a lot more work per cycle.

the p4s were originally designed with rambus in mind and thus were created to make use of massive memory bandwith(hence the quad pumped fsb) amd xps are only dual pumped.

Ive had an xp 2100 at 2.3 gigs on an nforce 2 mobo at 200 fsb and i currently have a p4 1.8a @ 3.1 gigs on an abit bh7 with ram at 210 fsb+

i prefer the p4 rig, why dunno, personal preference i spose but the bios corrupting on my nforce 2 mobo and the need to wait two weeks on a reengineered bios chip is one thing that annoyed me!! also ive never had a p4 rig with an intel chipset crash randomly, alas i cannot say the same for the amd chipsets

Finally as it stands if u want the fastest home pc money can buy ud get a P4 3.06 with a Granite bay or i850e mobo, no non overclocked Amd Set up would beat it in any significant benchmark

Amd have gained a bit lately but the new c 200 fsb chips with canterwood chipsets will bite back.........hard

Samba

Mmm, but compare the price of the two Chips.

What really lets down the AMD's is the FSB speed, an OC'd Xp2600+ with daddy Ram all running in Sync at 200/400 outperforms the P4 3.06 on many Bench marks and when you compare prices.....the AMD seems a better buy imo.

There is almost a €500 price difference.


Seems obvious to me which one is the better buy, if you know how to overclock etc.

That aside, i don't think this thread is going anywhere

marauder

I think the price differences are a little overestimated... I pulled this off pricewatch.com today...

AMD top end stuff is more expensive than Intels! Now theres a first. The mid to lower end region AMD price falls away. Remember though that Duron is effectively gone so AMD are plugging the lower end with XPs while Intel is still selling Celeron (interesting article on Ars yesterday about it)

The pricing not only reflects FSB speed but L2 cache size. The prices start to diverge significantly below 2500 where on AMD you are looking at 266Mhz FSB and 256k cache.
At 2500+ AMD has 333FSB Thorughbreds and Barton with 512k their pricing is much closer to Intels.

Intel and AMD use pretty similar pricing startegies and the pricing is not really that disparate

$515  P4 3.06GHz 533MHz		$525  Athlon XP 3000 
$318  P4 2.8GHz  533MHz		$347  Athlon XP 2800 
				$329  Athlon XP 2800 333 
				$247  Athlon XP 2700 333 
$224  P4 2.6GHz 533MHz		$195  Athlon XP 2600 
				$195  Athlon XP 2600 333 
$177  P4 2.53GHz 533MHz		$170  Athlon XP 2500 
				$165  Athlon XP 2500 333 
$152  P4 2.4GHz 533MHz 		$112  Athlon XP 2400 
$144  P4 2.4GHz 400MHz 		 
$150  P4 2.2GHz 400MHz 
$157  P4 2.26GHz 533MHz 	$ 85  Athlon XP 2200
$157  P4 2.26GHz 
				$ 82  Athlon XP 2100 
$136  P4 2.0GHz Sock 478 	$ 69  Athlon XP 2000 
$175  P4 2.0GHz 
$129  P4 1.9GHz Sock 478 	$ 65  Athlon XP 1900 
$220  P4 1.9GHz 
$104  P4 1.8GHz Sock 478 	$ 56  Athlon XP 1800 
$145  P4 1.8GHz 

Samba, you can't compare a non-o/c chip to an o/c chip and say the o/c chip is better value - of course it is. But if you bought a 2.6 p4 o/c'ed it to 3.06 you would still save the €500

Samba

Yeah ya can, I just did

Also a bit pointless quoting prices from the U.S, price example I took was off komplett.




http://www.hexus.co.uk/print.php?review=500&page=1

BabyEater

At high end its a toss up between Intel and AMD Intel is probably better as they have better chipsets. At the low end it has to be AMD the low end AMD are up against Celerons which is no comparison. As i tend to buy low end and overclock to high end i would have to say AMD.

The_Bullman

I am just wondering what the story is with the AMD Baton core. It runs at a slower clock speed than the thouroughbred chips yet it apperantly out performs it. Does the extra L2 cache really make that much difference?

I ask as I am trying to figure out which is better. The XP2500+ Barton or the 2100 TB "b" chip. I am factoring in overclocking in to my choice by the way

marauder

Yeah ya can, I just did

LOL witty!

Also a bit pointless quoting prices from the U.S, price example I took was off komplett.

I was refering to SouperComputer's list which quoted US prices... not to your trivial example....

but anyway, here is Komplett.ie for the top end

P4 2.8	462.22  XP2800+	 448.73   
P4 3.06    715.26  XP3000+      700.28   

the point is the same, the price isn't that different until you drop below 2.5

Samba

Sheesh, you'd swear I offended your processor or somthing


Fact is on average, AMD are cheaper and are my preference of chip, OEM version is 100 Eur cheaper btw.


To Gerry what I mean by this is that it plays a large part as to why Intel are in the Lead, more revenue = more money to pump back in to improving their chips.






















I don't believe I got sucked in to this thread.

Cyrus

What really lets down the AMD's is the FSB speed, an OC'd Xp2600+ with daddy Ram all running in Sync at 200/400 outperforms the P4 3.06 on many Bench marks and when you compare prices.....the AMD seems a better buy imo.

well my 1.8a runs at 3.06 with the ram at 210 fsb+ and was cheaper than an xp 2600 so which is a better buy now

Samba

pfff, well naturally we would have to do a benchmark test

Wp on that overclock btw, 1 Q, would it be the equivalent of the p4 3.06 in terms of archtecture and performance etc?

Cyrus

cheers mate

Its a c1 stepping cpu which means its teh same stepping as the 3 gig part so i knew it would do 3 gigs at least,tbh i would have expected more!!

As for similarities to the 3.06 its the exact same chip except mine doesnt have hyper threading enabled thats all, only the 3.06 has that at the moment altho perf gains are negligible until software takes advantage.

however as my cpu is running on a 170 fsb bus compare to the 133 bus of the stock 3.06 and my ram is at 210 my set up would be a bit quicker than say a dell machine with a 3.06 at stock with ddr ram

Dempsey

Originally posted by Cyrus not really the chips are designed very very differently intel goin for less work per cycle but more cycles(ie higher mhz) and amd going for less cycles but a lot more work per cycle.B]

You worded it better than I did. That amount of L1 cache would compensate for not using high clock speeds to get more performance. If intel put 128kB L1 cache on a Pentium, they'd blow AMD out of the water.

SouperComputer

by the same token, so would AMD if they matched the clock speed!

Anyone else think this thread is getting irritating?

Y cant we all just get some G4's, run linux and be friends?

Woden

G4's? mac's? nooooooo stop the madness

Samba

agreed

SouperComputer

dont forget 6502 68k and z80 , ye dont even need heatsinks with these beasts

i never mentioned mac BTW! just POWERPC

so you said the dirty word 1st!

:cool:

Woden

ah but you thought it go on admit it, i just link G4's with general crapness and so much overpricing its almost as bad as broadband in ireland

SouperComputer

i disagree with crapness re RISC, but price, well yea RIPOFF!