Amd 64 vs Pentium 4

[seanbee20]

For all you pentium lovers read this review of the athlon 64 vs the pentium 4: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI0

;D see the process that amd has made

[Cultus]

I find the review to be a biased one leaning more towards AMD. I'm gonna do some searching for a more unbiased review of both products. But hats off to AMD though. They are indeed beginning to impress me. I'm sure Intel will be releaseing something better than the P4EE. As was stated in the review this could have just been a quick thing to take the focus off AMD......we'll just have to wait and see.

[seanbee20]

When you find a review showing otherwise, please post it, amd vs intel, is like ATI vs Nvidia now, the underdogs are kicking some ***, i am going to post the reviews i saw of ATI vs Nvidia, i know that these reviews will shock all you nvidia faithfuls.

Power to the underdogs

[biohazrd]

POWER TO ATI AND AMD!!!! A dem a di top dog dem fran long time

[seanbee20]

biohazard, you are man of my own heart, big up

[Cultus]

I found a much more unbiased review of the war between AMD and Intel with regards to the AMD 64 and Intel's 3.2......Please check all the pages and look at the numbers closely...also read the authors final thoughts...you should find it rather intresting.....

Notice the beating that AMD is getting in the openGL tests. I notice that none of you AMD faithfuls made mention of that also the other categories that INTEL is beating AMD in. The Real world test scores are very close in AMD's favour. The Direct3D test are almost even, with the pentium having the edge, ....here's the link.....
http://www.motherboards.org/articlesd/hardware-reviews/1269_5.html

I'm still researching.....
Power to INTEL

[Gillion]

I found a much more unbiased review of the war between AMD and Intel with regards to the AMD 64 and Intel's 3.2......Please check all the pages and look at the numbers closely...also read the authors final thoughts...you should find it rather intresting.....

Notice the beating that AMD is getting in the openGL tests. I notice that none of you AMD faithfuls made mention of that also the other categories that INTEL is beating AMD in. The Real world test scores are very close in AMD's favour. The Direct3D test are almost even, with the pentium having the edge, ....here's the link.....
http://www.motherboards.org/articlesd/hardware-reviews/1269_5.html

I'm still researching.....
Power to INTEL



Power OFF for INTEL

[matronyx]

Go AMD...GO!!!
I been a fan of these guys from the first time I powered up my then very fast AMD-K6-2 350MHz iron.
I remember when Pentiums and AMDs were graded with the same ruler.... the MHz wars. Then AMD started to think outside the box and did things more efficiently.... thus the confusion amongst some pentium loyalists. They just could not understand how a "measly",cheap AMD 1GHz chip could easily beat their expensive P3 1GHz ;D

[Cultus]

Go AMD...GO!!!
I been a fan of these guys from the first time I powered up my then very fast AMD-K6-2 350MHz iron.
I remember when Pentiums and AMDs were graded with the same ruler.... the MHz wars. Then AMD started to think outside the box and did things more efficiently.... thus the confusion amongst some pentium loyalists. They just could not understand how a "measly",cheap AMD 1GHz chip could easily beat their expensive P3 1GHz ;D
Didi any of you guys even read the review... I don't see AMD winning Intel in any obvious way....yes AMD is getting there but as i told Gillion last night....when AMD is beating INETL in every tests. Direct3D, OpenGL, Quake3, and all the other benchmark tests.....then and only then will I even consider switching to AMD.....

[matronyx]

Didi any of you guys even read the review... I don't see AMD winning Intel in any obvious way....yes AMD is getting there but as i told Gillion last night....when AMD is beating INETL in every tests. Direct3D, OpenGL, Quake3, and all the other benchmark tests.....then and only then will I even consider switching to AMD.....


In every test?What about 9/10?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11339

WE WERE very close to Athlon 64 and Athlon FX last week but didn't get time to play with the systems. Still the world is too small a place to hide the numbers until the 23rd of this month.

AMD has sent many Athlon FXs and 64s to people around UK and continental Europe and if you are an OEM or a system integrator, you know how these babies look and perform.

The Athlon FX on Windows XP 32 bit beats Intel's latest release 3.2 GHz but that's still the Northwood core, of course.

In the Sandra memory test, Athlon FX delivers 5600 MB/s while an Intel Pentium 4 3.2 on Canterwood 875 with DDR 400 of course only delivers 5000MB/s.

In Quake 3 , which was always considered Intel's playground and patch, the Athlon FX is slightly under nine per cent faster on AMD's processor rather than Intel's "brain of a PC".

In Unreal 1024x768, it's close to 18 per cent advantage in AMD's favour.

3Dmark03 at 1024x768 shows that the FX is two per cent slower than on Intel. Pcmark03 is faster on Intel by five per cent since this is an Intel heavily optimized application while the memory score is 18 per cent faster on Athlon FX due to its integrated memory controller.

Still, it's not all roses, roses as Intel still holds the crown in all SSE 2 optimized application and the ones that use HyperThreading. I am mainly talking about rendering applications, where Intel still holds the crown but the gap that used to be huge between Intel's 3.2 and Athlon XP 3200+ is now significantly smaller.

In 3Dstudio Max, a Pentium 4 3.2 GHz with HT is about 10 per cent faster if you render just one frame but in a complete scene that you want to render took exactly the same in both systems. It took them both an hour with a small time difference that's not even worthy of mention and is like a twinkle in the eye (nimesha).

Consider too that the AMD is cheaper. To me....thats a BIG plus.

[Gillion]

Didi any of you guys even read the review... I don't see AMD winning Intel in any obvious way....yes AMD is getting there but as i told Gillion last night....when AMD is beating INETL in every tests. Direct3D, OpenGL, Quake3, and all the other benchmark tests.....then and only then will I even consider switching to AMD.....


I got into computers only as a function of my experimentation with controls and robotics. Thus the key component for me was COST weighed against FUNCTIONALITY . It was then. It has always been.

When looking at "platforms", it was clear from day one that AMD was the cost winning product. Cyrix was, back then, the FASTEST and the BEST, and INTEL was the runner up, AMD was nowhere on the "popularity" scale. It was the cheapest however so I took a RISK in buying a product that was not popular. It has been blessing ever since.

Now in buying an AMD CPU, I had more money left to buy even more electronics parts to further experiment with, and LEARN MORE.

I could afford to fully experiment with and of course destroy, as a result of the learning process, my computer. This will inadvertently happen at some point when you try to interface electronics to the parallel port of a PC. And it did.

I blew my IO card and CPU and one 72 pin simm RAM.
I went out and bought a new set... started again.
I could have never done that without the AMD cpu.
This happened quite a few times.

I soon came to realize that pound for pound or MHz for MHz the dollar value of an AMD chip far out weighs the INTEL. I thought that was the only asset at one point until I started messing around with books on CPU design and architecture.

It turns out that my lowly AMD cpu is the better designed chip.

When people said I was nuts for using Linux, it turns out that ... fill in the blanks...v but at all times I was weighing COST vs Functionality

I was never interested in easy to use GUI, or how many Frame rates my video card gives, or what my CPU can do when playing XYZ game, I just wanted COST and FUNCTIONALITY.

Now I am a realist. I live in Jamaica, my pay is not all that great because the government eats out most of it in the form of taxes. Which I still have to pay more of in the form of GCT. You cant catch me dead buying a CPU for $24,000 when when I have to pay 15% of it to put in Omar Davis budget . And to top that off JPS is notoriously a mucky power source, and I still experiment. The risk is too much. Did I mention that I am Asthmatic and my medical bills costs huge amounts of money even when I am using my health card ?

I like to tell the story of BUYING Windows ME ($7,000) because I thought it was more mature than Win 98 (i got suckered at a Microsoft Expo) and how do you think I felt at the end of 1week ? I ran back to my cheap, virus free Linux setup screaming.

I joyously played with my $400 JA dollar software (thats how much it cost to get it delivered from http://www.cheap bytes.com at the time) all the time cursing my luck, at being so stupid in listening to hype, rather than my technical instincts and my pocket.

I have used these different CPUs at the same task Pentium 4, Athlon, Barton, Palomino etc. Nothing spectacular about Pentium... and whats more clear is that MR INTEL's products are just hype and popular.

You don't get a AMD chip in a Dell or IBM computer by default when buying a computer, you get an INTEL chip. You have to ask for the AMD and it is ALWAYS way cheaper, but also the SAME performance

I am not a game player, so INTEL optimized games mean NOTHING to me, and BENCHMARKS that are for Open GL, Direct32 and Quake are pointless... REAL world bench marks are more what the doctor ordered for me, just me, I don't know about anyone else

http://www.motherboards.org/articlesd/hardware-reviews/1269_5.html

So Cultus you need to check your truth'o' metre, the SysMark and Winstone bussiness bench marks for AMD 64 "beat" the Pentium4 even though the software used are not 64 Bit otimized.
You and I both know that FPS benchmarks are usless to anyone who uses a computer for anything more than just game playing. And that, dare I say, is the crux of it.

You play games, intel optimzed games. You can't use game bench marks to tell me that INTEL is better than AMD, tell me that INTEL is better than AMD at crunching out more FPS for watching blood splatter on a wall... then let us run IE or Word or Excel and show me the modicom of difference !, because in the end they do the same thing, run software.

Can you car carry more than 3 people without having some trouble ? why ? you optimized it for one arena !, can a general car, say a LADA carry more than 4 people with no optimisation ?
When was the last time you watched a lada TAXI work from OCHI to Mo'Bay and back ?

The day that INTEL chips out run an equivalent AMD CHIP by more than 25% in real world performance then I will gladly pay more money, because thats where its at

Cost, Functionality, General application and Overall Efficiency.

There is no effective advantage to selecting ANY of the two chips AMD or INTEL, based solely on hype, a few measly fps rates, the odd benchmark performance, or single brand processor optimized games. Selection for me is done on what I printed in the red words above... thusly intel gives no one a clear and UNCONTESTABLE advantage.

In the end, the DAY I buy an INTEL cpu for any Desktop/Server application I build is the day that the prices come down or the day it is actually WORTH IT. UNTIL then hell will just have to freeze over.
formance


--regards
Gillion

[matronyx]

Now Cultus, you have been told over and over that the best cpu for your $$$ is AMD.
This is something that cannot be argued about...AMD just is the better buy.

AMD delivers tremendous performance by increasing the amount of work done per clock cycle and improving the operating frequency at the same time.
At the heart of their QuantiSpeed architecture is a nine-issue, superscalar, fully-pipelined core. This provides more pathways to feed application instructions into the execution engines of the core, simply allowing the processor to complete more work in a given clock cycle.

A 3200+ operates at a frequency of 2.2GHz yet can outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 3.0GHz . ::)

[Cultus]

From this link http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11339 that you posted matronyx it still shows that INTEL is leading amd in all the applications that I used. I use Maya, 3DS Max, Cinema4D..... I am an aspiring 3D animator, hence I do alot of rendering on my PC. And also from your link matronyx, the revied stated intel's advantage in 3D rendering Apps. What you have to realize is that most of my applications are optimized for use with an intel cpu.....hence amd would be of no benefit to me....it just goes to show you that software developers still believe in optimizing their software for intel cpus'...... And ya'll say amd will out perform intel...yet in all the reviews I have read so far....all i can see at the end is the gap that intel has is getting smaller....which still means that INTEL is The better CPU (for now)....

[Gillion]

With great circumspection, any cost conscious individual, will come to the realization that the large difference in cost between equivalent AMD and INTEL CPU's does NOT equate with the SMALL overall performance difference between the said cpu's.
Simply put, when weighed on a Jamican economic scale, prudence wins out. INTEL products are not worth it... they have no prouduct that satisfies me or any other cost conscious individual.

Only the rich care not for these things.

--carpe deum
Gillion

[shampionnaux]

Hey Guys, :) I assembled a computer from scratch and guess which CPU I went for. The CPU is doing pretty fine but the OS is a Joker and guess which OS that is. Like gillion I was cost and functionality. btw if you know want you doing I think you can use the alternative CPU to play high end games ;) .

Peace, Kacey.

[saint]

AMD RULEZ

Maximum Bang for Minimum Bucks
(I've built quite a few AMD cpu based systems)