INTEL is the best

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!

Woden

i think i relate the crapness to what you get for the price, i find it amusing that apple also sell current imac's that have clock speeds similar to my 2 year old pentium 3 system

oh and whats RISC?

longword

Originally posted by Dataisgod
i think i relate the crapness to what you get for the price, i find it amusing that apple also sell current imac's that have clock speeds similar to my 2 year old pentium 3 system

Again, if you choose the right benchmark, my old 667MHz G4 can best a liquid cooled 4GHz Pentium 4 and a more modern dual 1.42GHz G4 desktop will do as much as a 6 CPU 3GHz Pentium 4 server.

With the right benchmark.

Woden

its all relative is that what your saying longword? , i'd still know what i'd buy though given the money.

po0k

I've only skimmed the first 5 or 6 posts of this thread.
lol


Get 4-in-1 socket Alpha EV8 setup and then come back and say that intel/amd are "fast" cpus...

"All you guys look the same in my rear-view mirror." - Alpha designer on comp.arch

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT121300000000

po0k

Originally posted by Dataisgod
i think i relate the crapness to what you get for the price, i find it amusing that apple also sell current imac's that have clock speeds similar to my 2 year old pentium 3 system

oh and whats RISC?

ahhahahahhahhaha
oh sweet mother of Jed.....
That's classic

SouperComputer

, i find it amusing that apple also sell current imac's that have clock speeds similar to my 2 year old pentium 3 system

clock speed? WTF has that got to do with power?

you're taking the piss right?


yea, i forgot alpha. yum

have access to a few old digital unix box's with alpha 133's. Must bring em out to play :cool:

po0k

we (NUI,G CompSoc) have a 200mhz compaq alpha knocking about....my sitting room...
Must get it in the rack (somehow) and get it used

http://gil.nuiglway.ie/ soon

clock speed? WTF has that got to do with power?

you're taking the piss right?

Damn right.


Oh, and btw, 8051s kick the **** out of PA-RISC

johnnyc

would agree with that statement intel are best> the chip is overpriced i have a amd chip1.8 for my laptop and it runs like a dream

longword

Originally posted by Dataisgod
its all relative is that what your saying longword? , i'd still know what i'd buy though given the money.

I'm saying there are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks. You should choose the CPU whose colour is most aesthetically harmonious with your case mod.

Woden

never said clock speeds had anything to do with power?