PDA

View Full Version : AMD or Intel?


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Philibob
07-28-02, 03:26 PM
AMD, heat is a bad downside but they are definately cheaper than intel - and I can use a nForce m/b with AMD

PCarr78
07-28-02, 03:33 PM
I/m tellin you,the price/perf. of AMD is insane

Intel sucks by comparison

fastguy94416
07-28-02, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by tryx
I have been an AMD guy for a long time now like starting with my K6-2 400 all the way up to my last one I put together which was my T-Bird 1.4 that I ran at 1.6 with a 266a DDR MB but I gave in to the big time overclocking and speed that the P4 has and put together a puter with a Epox 4G4A+ MB that has the 845G chipset with 333 DDR surport and the 533 bus and drop in a P4 2.26 that easily went up to 2.77Ghz and I got my DDR to run at 407Mhz (it is Corsair 3200 ram) an gained over 1,400 points in 3DMark2001 with my GeForce 3 200 I went form 7,300 with the AMD to 8,750 with P4 and the P4 2.26 is about the same price as the AMD 2200 plus most socket A MB don't even have surrport for it so I decided to move over to Intel for now(beleave me I didn't want to give those money hungry basterds at Intel any of my money) but I didn't want to wait for AMD anymore to catch up to them and I plan on move back over to AMD as soon as the Clawhammer comes out;)

Thats a mighty long sentence you have there.

PCarr78
07-28-02, 05:11 PM
LOL

Someone hasn't learned about the use of punctuation and run-ons yet :D :) ;)


Just kidding, dude :)

Kruno
07-28-02, 05:19 PM
ROTFLMAO Maybe I should leave out punctuation to see if I can get anywhere :rolleyes:
Intel is the best becuase = I can overclock it hundreds of Mhz at a time :p

PCarr78
07-28-02, 06:02 PM
A p4 OC'd by 400MHz performs 25% better.

An Atlmonxp OC'd by 40Mhz also performs 25% better...

LORD-eX-Bu
07-28-02, 06:20 PM
Intel is dropping their prices drastically by the end of the year, they even dropped the price of the 2.8 ghz Pentium 4 which hasn't even been publically released yet. They are making way for the 3.06 Ghz Pentium 4. Here are the new prices:

http://digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2002/07/24&pages=02&seq=2

AMD has also announced new price drops, but Intel will still have lower prices than AMD's with those price drops. 2.4 Ghz Pentium 4 for $193. Intel will also be dropping the price of the 2.53 Ghz Pentium 4 by 63%. That sounds hella good to me. It is not just the price, but the quality that counts. With a Intel chip I know that my CPU won't burn and go to hell all of the sudden, and I know that it will be compatible with anything. Intel doesn't have to add misleading numbers to the name of their products in order to sell them, unlike AMD, they have to do it to appear to be in competition with Intel. Besides, even with the Nforce 2, AMD CPUs won't be able to compete with a Pentium 4 hooked up with one of these:

http://www.viavpsd.com/product/P4PB400_spec.jsp?motherboardId=41

Intel is doing so well right now that they have decided to cut the time to releasing their new chips by a whole quarter, that means that 2.8 Ghz by the end of fall and 3.0 Ghz by holiday season, along with NV30, WHOO HOO!

AMD is already suffering from Intel's latest price drops, what will they do to stay in business when they have to slash their prices even more to stay competitive with Intel's new prices when they come out? It would be bad if AMD would go out, cuz then Intel would have to buy them, and burn all the athlons, lol, and then what would we do? lol, just kiddin'. But really, AMD has to step it up, I am buying a 3.0 Ghz when it comes out and I will buy a NV30 also, whatever they decide to call it, but I am gonna have one hella fast system. PEACE!:D

netviper13
07-28-02, 06:37 PM
Err, sorry but the only misleading manufacturer is Intel; propogating their mhz-only mentality on the unwary public.

AMD's PR ratings are actually quite conservative when compared to Intel's. Also, as applications become more intensive Intel's huge pipeline is going to become a problem.

Thoroughbred was simply AMD's way of battening the hatches and riding out the storm until the release of the Hammer chips.

LORD-eX-Bu
07-28-02, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by netviper13
Err, sorry but the only misleading manufacturer is Intel; propogating their mhz-only mentality on the unwary public.

AMD's PR ratings are actually quite conservative when compared to Intel's. Also, as applications become more intensive Intel's huge pipeline is going to become a problem.

Thoroughbred was simply AMD's way of battening the hatches and riding out the storm until the release of the Hammer chips.

That is alot of wishful thinking on your part for AMD. Intel isn't the one that adds numbers like 2000+ or 2200+ or anything like that when they are a few hundred megahertz from the 2.0 Ghz mark. By the way... AMD was the one that came up with that argument because they saw that they were begining to fall behind and that have no way of catching up to Intel anytime in the near future. So they needed to raise sales and thus they came up with that argument and then "backed it up" by tweaking their processors to unstable levels to the point that they run so hot that it is dangerous for the consumer's investment. Now, isn't that misleading? Why do you think that Athlon XP's, wow that is another misleading thing, XP, "hmm... I am guessing that since it says XP it is what my new OS needs to run properly", anyways, AMD is misleading consumers and tricking them into buying their, not inferior, but not the best product that they could get. AMD is still below the 2 ghz mark, and won't release any new chips until 2003 by the looks of things. Intel hasn't changed anything, Pentium, that is not a misleading name now is it? oh now wait they changed one thing, they changed the 3 to a 4, but then again, that is just the series number, oh and they also changed the release date of their 2.8 ghz Pentium 4 to the 3rd Quarter, and then they had the nerve to change the release of their 3.06 Ghz Pentium 4 to September 1st. As applications become more intensive Intel will release more powerful processors to deal with these more intensive applications like they always have. I think Intel and AMD should start hiring some of us to advertise and convince people to buy their products, same goes for NVIDIA and ATI, lol, we are getting good at this aren't we? If you, Intel AMD NVIDIA or ATI are reading... HIRE US! We will make you richer!:D

PCarr78
07-28-02, 06:44 PM
One has to wonder what kind of future current/future AthlonXPs have with the imminent release of hammer

netviper13
07-28-02, 07:12 PM
AMDs chips are still better, it's just that Intel has the MHZ advantage. If AMD upped their pipeline to 20-steps (or however many Intel's is) their processors would scale as high as Intel's.

tryx
07-28-02, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by [Corporal Dan]
A p4 OC'd by 400MHz performs 25% better.

An Atlmonxp OC'd by 40Mhz also performs 25% better...

Please... I love AMD as much as the nexted guy but give me a break dude I mean really. I had the Athlon overclocked 200mhz and I never saw anything close to that. Your point is good but the math doesn't fly. When I put my AMD 1.4 to 1.6 that 200 didn't come close to the gain I got with my P4 2.26 overclocked to 2.77.

mavis
07-28-02, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by tryx


Please... I love AMD as much as the nexted guy but give me a break dude I mean really. I had the Athlon overclocked 200mhz and I never saw anything close to that. Your point is good but the math doesn't fly. When I put my AMD 1.4 to 1.6 that 200 didn't come close to the gain I got with my P4 2.26 overclocked to 2.77.

That's what I'm talkin about. :)

I know AMDs have a higher IPC, but what difference does that make when you're comparing a 1.9GHz chip to a 2.7GHz chip??

As for price difference, I don't really believe that either - as has been mentioned earlier, right now you can buy a P4 2.26b for about $30 more than an AthlonXP 2200. The P4 chip can be overclocked (using stock hsf, lest we forget) to about 2.7GHz. The AMD can only be overclocked to about PR2400, if that.

Now as for RAM - yes, RDRAM is more expensive than DDR RAM, but then again you buy 512MB of PC1066 (4.2Gb/s) RDRAM for about $260, or you can buy 512MB of PC3200 (3.2Gb/s) SDRAM for about $170 (source: Pricewatch). Ok, a difference of almost $90, but with RDRAM you get much higher bandwidth - better performance.

So the way I see it, my 2.7GHz Intel rig will cost roughly $120 more than the fastest Athlon rig, yet I won't have to invest in any kind of additional cooling, and will have significantly better performance (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020610/thoroughbred-14.html).

So, what happened to the price argument???

mavis

ps this doesn't even take into account the Sept. 1st price drop either - at that time, the price difference will be less than $100.

SavagePaladin
07-28-02, 08:38 PM
RDRAM has much higher bandwidth yet higher latency. What's the point :p
Seriously, this has been done to death. I use AMD because I hate being bombarded by p4 ads, I don't like the prices, I like NVidia a hell of a lot, and it is, no matter how much/little, cheaper. Especially since I don't BUY a 2200+

The cooling thing is an issue, but one I really don't care about as it never affects me (thats what they put protection on the motherboard for now)

Intel is certainly ahead right now, but from what I know, they usually are before the launch of a new AMD processor. AMD can't concentrate on everything with the kind of resources Intel has yet.

nin_fragile14
07-28-02, 08:51 PM
Intel. The 1.6a P4, along with all the other Northwoods, are an incredible value, more so than AMD.

DaveW
07-28-02, 09:23 PM
RDRAM is crap... but you don't have to go Rambus when buying a P4 anymore, most of the new P4 motherboards are DDR.

I have a P3 right now, I used to think that my next upgrade would be AMD, but now I am thinking it will be Intel. You simply get more performance for a cheaper price.

StealthHawk
07-28-02, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by DaveW
RDRAM is crap... but you don't have to go Rambus when buying a P4 anymore, most of the new P4 motherboards are DDR.

I have a P3 right now, I used to think that my next upgrade would be AMD, but now I am thinking it will be Intel. You simply get more performance for a cheaper price.

that's right. the new DDR333 motherboards from Intel(coming in October) slap RDRAM around right now. they are very close to dual channel PC1066 RDRAM. the new DDR400 SiS motherboard is right on par with dual channel PC1066 RDRAM. RDRAM is done. next year dual channel DDR mobos will be out. Although I think the P4 bus is too slow to take full advantage of them :(

PS. your overclocked P4 scales better than your oc'ed Athlon because you're increasing the FSB so much

mavis
07-28-02, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by StealthHawk


that's right. the new DDR333 motherboards from Intel(coming in October) slap RDRAM around right now. they are very close to dual channel PC1066 RDRAM. the new DDR400 SiS motherboard is right on par with dual channel PC1066 RDRAM. RDRAM is done. next year dual channel DDR mobos will be out. Although I think the P4 bus is too slow to take full advantage of them :(

PS. your overclocked P4 scales better than your oc'ed Athlon because you're increasing the FSB so much

Yes, the DDR400 on the SiS648 chipset is close to RDRAM performance, but not quite there. So, if you want the best performance from your P4, RAMBUS is still the way to go. Sure, if I want to wait until next year I can get something faster, but then again, I'd also have a choice between several new processors, a few new video cards, etc. There's always something beter coming, but right now (today, this summer, right this instant, etc) RDRAM is the FASTEST choice for a P4 platform.

Also, despite what you may have read at tomshardware or anandtech, I think it's a bit early to say "RAMBUS is done." It's still the fastest, and the price has dropped to the point where it is actually competitive with the faster DDR SDRAM chips...

mavis

StealthHawk
07-28-02, 10:52 PM
mavis,

yes it is VERY close. considering that CL2.5 DDR400 is within +/- 5% of PC1066 RDRAM i would say the performance difference is negligible. in many cases that difference is less than that even. one thing i do not know is the availability/price of PC1066 RDRAM. how much more expensive is this variety over PC800? DDR333 and even DDR400 are already on par or below PC800 prices. i was under the impression that PC1066 RDRAM was pretty rare.

mavis
07-28-02, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by StealthHawk
mavis,

yes it is VERY close. considering that CL2.5 DDR400 is within +/- 5% of PC1066 RDRAM i would say the performance difference is negligible. in many cases that difference is less than that even. one thing i do not know is the availability/price of PC1066 RDRAM. how much more expensive is this variety over PC800? DDR333 and even DDR400 are already on par or below PC800 prices. i was under the impression that PC1066 RDRAM was pretty rare.

hmm... yeah I admit I was looking at that SiS chipset for myself, the problem is I know nothing about Shuttle or SiS, so ... :)

Anyway, you can pick up PC1066 from a variety of places. googlegear.com, newegg.com, etc. I would check pricewatch.com for pricing, but I think right now you can get 256MB modules for about $130.

mavis

netviper13
07-29-02, 01:37 AM
Intel abandoned RDRAM. Plus with DDR2 set to be released, as well as dual-channel DDR, RDRAM is dead. Big prices + big latency does NOT = big sales.

volt
07-29-02, 01:52 AM
Hammer time baby!

mavis
07-29-02, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by netviper13
Intel abandoned RDRAM. Plus with DDR2 set to be released, as well as dual-channel DDR, RDRAM is dead. Big prices + big latency does NOT = big sales.

Yeah "set to be released" is really the key part of your post there, isn't it? ;)

I'd love to know when exactly it will be released ... Anyway, my point was that RIGHT NOW, as in this month, this summer, right this second, with the choices CURRENTLY ON THE MARKET, RDRAM is the best performer. You seem to forget that SiS is releasing a new RDRAM chipset, and that Rambus is going to be releasing a new 1333MHz module, with greater than 10Gb/s bandwidth.

If the fastest DDR is at PC3200 right now (3.2Gb/s) I expect DDR2/Dual channel DDR will theoretically double that, right? If so, it's only about 4Gb/s slower than next generation RAMBUS ... :D

As for price, I have already illustrated that the difference is negligable... Yes, RDRAM used to cost substantially more than DDR RAM, but that is no longer the case. So the argument you posted should read: Slightly above average prices, Big Latency, Big Bandwidth= Decent sales. Or am I missing something here?

mavis

SavagePaladin
07-29-02, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by d1rX
Hammer time baby!
woot! woot!

StealthHawk
07-29-02, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by mavis


Yeah "set to be released" is really the key part of your post there, isn't it? ;)

I'd love to know when exactly it will be released ... Anyway, my point was that RIGHT NOW, as in this month, this summer, right this second, with the choices CURRENTLY ON THE MARKET, RDRAM is the best performer. You seem to forget that SiS is releasing a new RDRAM chipset, and that Rambus is going to be releasing a new 1333MHz module, with greater than 10Gb/s bandwidth.

If the fastest DDR is at PC3200 right now (3.2Gb/s) I expect DDR2/Dual channel DDR will theoretically double that, right? If so, it's only about 4Gb/s slower than next generation RAMBUS ... :D

As for price, I have already illustrated that the difference is negligable... Yes, RDRAM used to cost substantially more than DDR RAM, but that is no longer the case. So the argument you posted should read: Slightly above average prices, Big Latency, Big Bandwidth= Decent sales. Or am I missing something here?

mavis

"some time early next year" is when dual channel ddr support from Intel will be introduced last i heard.

you seem to be forgetting one thing about RDRAM and Pentium 4, mavis. each speed of RDRAM is in sync with the P4 FSB, providing exactly as much bandwidth as the FSB can handle. PC800 provides what the 100MHz FSB maxes out with, and PC1066 provides all that 133MHz can cope with. unless Intel is increasing the FSB to quad pumped 166MHz or something, the new RDRAM won't help at all. i haven't seen any roadmaps or info on when Intel will be doing this. it is obvious that dual channel PC800 RDRAM cannot even compete with DDR333 single channel(the new Intel and SiS mobos), let alone DDR400(the SiS mobo). PC1066 still has them beat by a little though. dual channel DDR will change this, as it will double the bandwidth.