Amd Vs. pentium

jor el · 05-07-2005 03:32PM

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

People are comparing 2.26 ghz P4s to 3000+ athlons..... Ever heard of a fair comparison anyone ?

No, I was comparing a P4 2.26GHz with an Athlon XP 1900+ (1.6gHz), so if anything the P4 should have been better, but it wasn't. Nothing unfair about it.

youcancallmeal · 05-07-2005 03:45PM

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

People are comparing 2.26 ghz P4s to 3000+ athlons..... Ever heard of a fair comparison anyone ?

Yea would have to agree here, anyone got a good comparison between top of the line amd Vs. top of the line intel. This being said i would still think amd would win in any such comparison

DemonOfTheFall · 05-07-2005 03:49PM

Yeah they do tend to win overall in any balanced comparison. Try browsing through www.anandtech.com , there will probably be loads of them.

jor el · 05-07-2005 03:54PM

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

Unless of course you have a REALLY badly set up intel system.

It's a Dell, need I say any more?

It is strange thought that it is so slow. Of course, I shouldn't be transcoding DVDs on my work computer anyway but the fact remains that it is just slow.

On the low memory/system swap that Khannie mentioned, I had thought of that and it would seem likely, however there is 768M in it and usually has about 300M free. Can't see why it's swapping it out, and it also happens to other programs not just Firefox, just picked that as an example. Maybe it's just Dell?

DemonOfTheFall · 05-07-2005 04:00PM

Dell are actually fast PCs once they've been reformatted and had all of the dell ****e wiped off and had all of the latest drivers installed. It's not like their components are *that* non-standard.

Must be something wrong with that pc because firefox opens instantly for me from the taskbar on a P2-300 with 128megs of ram running win2k, being controlled thru VNC over a cheapo software network card

airetam_storm · 05-07-2005 04:05PM

Have a look here for AMD -v- Intel
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2456&p=2

Highend chips but a reflection of how Intel have been stumbling as of late. Or maybe its just AMD have been advancing rapidly

astrofool · 05-07-2005 04:05PM

they dropped the athlon equivelent stuff with ath64 (the 64-2800+ outperformed the xp-3200+).

Even with the athlon xp however, it was really rated toward the p4, and saying it was related to the athlon was rubbish, and pr based.

BloodBath · 05-07-2005 05:10PM

Man I hate these kind of threads because you always get loads of retards who don't know what they are talking about.

First of all don't even compare the athlon xp's to p4's. As soon as the P4's got the northwood core they destroyed xp's in every task. Check the benchmarks.

Now amd got their act back together with the a64's. They are better for gaming a lot of other tasks but on the other hand p4's are better at multi-tasking and encoding. Again check any fair benchmarks.

Red Ice you couldn't be a bigger amd fanboy than you are. The last Pentium you owned was a 2.4? And you think you can compare p'4s with a64's? The price difference is reasonably small although it should be tighter. Not exactly a fraction of the cost though is it?

Both processors are excellent overclockers. Have a look at any of the big overclockers on boards or any other sites. I've seen countless 3.2-3.4 p4's pushed over 4ghz stable and lot's of lower speed ones like the 2.8's pushed up to 3.6-3.8, it's all down to how lucky you get with your chip, which core you get, what your other components are like ect.

they dropped the athlon equivelent stuff with ath64 (the 64-2800+ outperformed the xp-3200+).

Even with the athlon xp however, it was really rated toward the p4, and saying it was related to the athlon was rubbish, and pr based.

They had to lower it as they over-rated the athlon xp's. A 2.8 P4 outperformed a 3.2 athlon xp which is why the 2800 a64 outperformed the xp. They got the rating more in line with p4's again.

If I was building a sytem atm though I would go AMD. That's mainly because i'm a gamer. If you are a solid encoder i'd go P4.

DemonOfTheFall · 05-07-2005 05:54PM

Bloodbath pretty much sums it up there. The whole clockspeed/performance rating is bull****.
-Neither of the accurately describe performance at all-

You just gotta check the specific benchmarks. With so many different core revisions, clock speeds, instruction sets, IPC ratios, overclocking abilities, ram requirements, etc it really is impossible to just say "Athlon 3000s rule" or "p4 2.8 is cack". you really gotta be more specific because theres such a mire of very similar sounding chips

Ozzy · 05-07-2005 07:09PM

I'm choosing to assume that youre just talking the piss. Otherwise things might go bad for you

*obtains fanboi beating stick*

Half and half amigo

I went for an AMD chip over a Pentium and I was sorry I did at the time - it was a few years ago in fairness, things might have changed since. Although the same thing happened with my brother, he bought an XP.
People said to me it was better for games yadda yadda. It wasn't, it was crap.

I go for quality, whatever the brand. In my view Intel is better quality.

I guess its like beer. Some beer is better than other beer, but at the end of the day i'll drink any beer so i guess its not really like beer at all. I like beer.

Mutant_Fruit · 05-07-2005 07:54PM

Except when quality testing consistantly puts on beer ahead of the other. Check out benchmarks. AMD's perform very very well when compared to their similarly priced Intel counterparts.

Read the reviews before you decide intel is better quality

Dempsey · 05-07-2005 08:04PM

AMD's can perform much better at encoding if XviD is used. DivX suits Pentiums much better. Some of the fanboy comments I've have no basis in reality. AMD's generally pull ahead in games but Pentiums do the same in encoding. All depends on yer reasons for buying. I was going to buy Dual MP's before but when I heard that Intel had the edge in encoding i changed my mind.)

^whitey^ · 05-07-2005 08:06PM

Do Intel's have a longer life span than AMD's ?

mp3guy · 05-07-2005 08:18PM

I don't know what people are saying about AMD's being cooler. I've a 2600+ 1.91GHz with stock HSF that runs at 50c idle, 65c load. I've a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 Prescott that runs at 40c idle, 55c load, on stock HSF

secret_squirrel · 05-07-2005 08:18PM

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

Generally, intels are better at multitasking

Slight correction there Hyperthreading Enabled P4's are better than AMD64's at multitasking - the non-HT ones arent any better at all.

The dual core chips from both companies also will generally own any of either manufacturers single core chips in multithreaded/tasked scenarios.

@Whitey - Both CPU's are rated at around 10 years (from memory) long after most of them will have been binned.

Also AMD's run cooler and therefore less stressed so in *theory* they should last longer - its all much of a muchness tbh.

secret_squirrel · 05-07-2005 08:21PM

mp3guy wrote:

I don't know what people are saying about AMD's being cooler. I've a 2600+ 1.91GHz with stock HSF that runs at 50c idle, 65c load. I've a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 Prescott that runs at 40c idle, 55c load, on stock HSF

Dissipation on current (ie new cpu's) is much better in favour of AMD. From memory peak disipation for a 90 micron Prescott based core is 130W and only about 90W on a 90micron AMD core. Also AMD's auto CPU power scaling seems to be a little more effective than Intels right now.

AMD dualies also a benchmarking cooler than Intels - hence why intels dualies are aimed at the lower end/spec market and AMD's nearer the top end.

Early Athlons and K5's were known as nasty little firecrackers tho.

Dempsey · 05-07-2005 08:23PM

AMD64's run cooler. the Bartons etc were fairly hot.

Mutant_Fruit · 05-07-2005 10:20PM

For most people after a few years an upgrade is performed. So the chip never actually is used for more than a few years, and unless you're REALLY unlucky you will never experience a CPU dying unless its due to an improperly mounted heatsink or something equally rediculous.

DemonOfTheFall · 05-07-2005 10:30PM

The latest venice core AMDs put out 30w of heat at full load. I dont know what a P4 3.6ghz puts out but i'm willing to put a few quid on it being a lot closer to 100w of heat

astrofool · 06-07-2005 09:42AM

ah now, AMD aren't that great, its a good bit more than 30W, and probably over 70W.

DemonOfTheFall · 06-07-2005 09:44AM

No it's not, check out the articles for it. Solid 30w at full load.

EDIT: http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_venice/

8.4 watts idle for the 4000+, 29.5 watts while doing 3d rendering.
I think it rises to around 45 watts when overclocked to 2.8 ghz?

Now that's low power consumption / heat output

po0k · 06-07-2005 10:36AM

AMD's thermal specs quote ~67-70W dissipated @2.0-2.2Ghz, rising sharply to 100W+ as you start hitting 2.6-2.8Ghz ranges.

Martyr · 06-07-2005 10:46AM

All I'm going to say is that if you wrote software to take advantage of the AMD64 Architecture, it would be much faster than any P4 on the market at the moment.

A P4 is NOT a 64-bit processor..it is capable of executing what i would say is psuedo 64 and 128-bit operations (MMX/SSE/SSE2) because it is aliased with FPU (math co-processor)

Intel plan on releasing an affordable 64-bit cpu (IA-32e) soon, and the reason for the delay was because they were trying to market the Itanium 64-bit processor which wasn't really that affordable compared to AMD64.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

DemonOfTheFall · 06-07-2005 11:40AM

SyXpack, check the specifications for *The New Venice Core Chips*. Which I have painstakingly pointed out that I am talking about. No offence, but come on! I made a big deal out of the fact that I was talking about them.

The old 130nm chips were hot, they peaked quite high like you said.
Then 90nm winchester cores came out, they peaked at 70-80watts.
Now check the venice cores, from that link I posted. Theres some low power output.

My mates venice 3000+ ran with almost no cooling for a good 5 minutes before it hit 55 degrees. there was a zalman 7700 supposedly on it but when i checked it i found that he'd left it barely screwed on and hanging half off. I'd be absolutely amazed if any other high power desktop chip could manage this feat.

juliuspret · 06-07-2005 11:47AM

Are venice cores that effecient?

I have a winchester and love how much cooler it runs than a P4.

Mutant_Fruit · 06-07-2005 01:19PM

Venice cores use less than 30Watts! Just read a review on it. Thats pretty impressive. When they were overclocked to about 2.7ghz, they still used less than about 60watts of power. Definately getting me one of these babies.

dearg_doom · 06-07-2005 01:55PM

Cremo wrote:

pentiums have been long known for their ability to encode dvd's better than AMD's, i don't know the technicalities on the subject but i remember reading it on here before.

Intel's can encode faster because they have a higher FSB (800MHz or 1066MHz in the latest ones) and HT support, AMD have only 400MHz and no HT support.

dearg_doom · 06-07-2005 02:04PM

jozi wrote:

The amd 3200+ not meant to perform on par with a 3.2ghz pentium performance wise? Is that not how they rate their chips?
I'd actually like to know how it works to, how the amd ghz compare to intel ghz etc

Intel's philosophy was to push up the speed( ie the GHz numbers), while doing the same amount of work per GHz.

AMD's was simply to do more work per GHz, which means that a lower speed AMD chip will perform on a par with a higher speed Pentium.

Mutant_Fruit · 06-07-2005 06:41PM

dearg_doom wrote:

Intel's can encode faster because they have a higher FSB (800MHz or 1066MHz in the latest ones) and HT support, AMD have only 400MHz and no HT support.

The gap in encoding performance has closed a lot with the newer AMD's. Personally, i think the AMD is a better all-rounder, but before buying you have to see if the performance/price makes it the better deal. Usually it does.

djmarkus · 06-07-2005 07:33PM

Looks like we have a clear winner, Advanced Micro Devices, and rightly so.

Amd Vs. pentium

Comments