AMD or INTEL ?

Codemutant wrote:

 > AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
 > find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
 > counterpart.

What?
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1</a>

 > and almost always its the intel that wins in every
 > aspect.

Not quite.

 >
 > Why is the bench mark different from the true story??

What components are you using?

 > and if its the
 > case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
 > ill-configured??

Why? Many people are either cheap or ill informed, and choose a low quality
motherboard and/or other low quality components. A computer isn't just a cpu.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ? 

"Codemutant" <codemutant.TakeThisOut@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:5dac30fd.0408162301.406b014c@posting.google.com...
 > AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
 > find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
 > counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
 > aspect.
 > Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
 > case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
 > ill-configured??

Go to <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.spec.org" target="_blank">www.spec.org</a> - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
on.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ? 

FALSE prophecies from the archives, Post Replies Here Please <spamme.DeleteThis@edge.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:51:17 -0500
spoke:

   >>>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant.DeleteThis@programmer.net> writes:
 >
 > Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
 > Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
 > Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
 > Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
 > Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
 > Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
 > Codemutant> ill-configured??
 >
 >Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
 >experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
 >really give a serious answer.

He has observed EXACTLY the opposite of what I've seen.

I have an XP2500 system, an XP2800,and an Intel P4 2.6C system.

The AMDs are MUCH more responsive in most things,
but the P4 is MUCH faster in Seti and a few other
programs, where little human intervention or
interference is necessary.






--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ? 

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

 > FALSE prophecies from the archives, Post Replies Here Please <spamme DeleteThis @edge.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:51:17 -0500
 > spoke:
 >
   > >>>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant DeleteThis @programmer.net> writes:
  > >
  > > Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
  > > Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
  > > Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
  > > Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
  > > Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
  > > Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
  > > Codemutant> ill-configured??
  > >
  > >Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
  > >experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
  > >really give a serious answer.
 >
 > He has observed EXACTLY the opposite of what I've seen.
 >
 > I have an XP2500 system, an XP2800,and an Intel P4 2.6C system.
 >
 > The AMDs are MUCH more responsive in most things,
 > but the P4 is MUCH faster in Seti and a few other
 > programs, where little human intervention or
 > interference is necessary.
 >

The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip. Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon XP2500+
is a $70 chip. What $70 Intel chip
should we compare its performance to? a Pentium 4 1.8 ghz, or a Celeron
2.4 ghz?


 >
 > --
 >
 > The truth is out there,
 >
 > but it's not interesting enough for most people.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ? 

FALSE prophecies from the archives, JK <JK9821.RemoveThis@netscape.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:43:10 -0400 spoke:

 >Why? Many people are either cheap or ill informed, and choose a low quality
 >motherboard and/or other low quality components. A computer isn't just a cpu.

My AMD systems both have nForce2 MBs, the Intel has an MSI 865PE chipset MB.
All 3 systems each have a gig of DDR400 memory, and 7200rpm 8 meg cache IDE HDs.





--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ? 

JK <JK9821.RemoveThis@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<4122172F.CE4558AA.RemoveThis@netscape.net>...
 >
 > The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip. Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon XP2500+
 > is a $70 chip. What $70 Intel chip
 > should we compare its performance to? a Pentium 4 1.8 ghz, or a Celeron
 > 2.4 ghz?
 >

Actually, don't you mean Chip + Motherboard ?

All the other componants are the same in both systems.

So, using newegg's numbers it's:

XP2800+ Barton ($113) + Abit AN7 nForce2-400 ($93) = $206
P4 2.4C ($146) + Abit IS7-E ($82) = $228
A64 3000+ ($175) + Abit KV8-K8T800 ($91) = $266

I picked as identical MB's as possible, not bottom of the barrel or
top of the line. Basically what I'd get if I was building either
system. And of course if we're talking performace/price the end
results should be divided by the whole system cost which would be
anywhere between $700 - $1500.

Bottom Line: The P4 2.4C is closer to the XP2800 in price in a real
system than the A64 3000+. The P4 is also by far the most
overclockable CPU on the market. I don't know anyone who isn't getting
3.0ghz with stock cooling easily.

The A64 still performs better and is undeniably a bestter deal, but
the P4 still blows away the XP at a very similar price.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ? 

Codemutant <codemutant RemoveThis @programmer.net> wrote:
 > AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
 > find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
 > counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
 > aspect.
 > Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
 > case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
 > ill-configured??

Well, give some examples of where you find the AMDs not performing as well
as the Intels. Perhaps your expectations are unrealistic? AMDs do not always
perform better than Intels in the benchmarks. There are various categories
of programs where it's been demonstrated that the Intels almost always
perform better. While other categories, AMDs almost always perform better.

Perhaps your workload is more suited to where the Intels perform better.

Yousuf Khan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ? 

FALSE prophecies from the archives, JK <JK9821.TakeThisOut@netscape.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:33:19 -0400 spoke:

 >The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip.

Not when I bought it.

 >Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+.

Again, NOT when I bought it.





--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ? 

When you bought those chips and what you paid for them is irrelevant to our
discussion about relative performance. What counts is the performance
at each price level based on current prices.

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

 > FALSE prophecies from the archives, JK <JK9821.DeleteThis@netscape.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:33:19 -0400 spoke:
 >
  > >The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip.
 >
 > Not when I bought it.
 >
  > >Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+.
 >
 > Again, NOT when I bought it.
 >
 > --
 >
 > The truth is out there,
 >
 > but it's not interesting enough for most people.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ? 

Judd wrote:
 >
 > "Codemutant" <codemutant.RemoveThis@programmer.net> wrote in message
 > news:5dac30fd.0408162301.406b014c@posting.google.com...
  > > AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
  > > find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
  > > counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
  > > aspect.
  > > Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
  > > case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
  > > ill-configured??
 >
 > Go to <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.spec.org" target="_blank">www.spec.org</a> - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
 > find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
 > what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
 > issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
 > on.

Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ? 

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

 > Judd wrote:
  > >
  > > "Codemutant" <codemutant.TakeThisOut@programmer.net> wrote in message
  > > news:5dac30fd.0408162301.406b014c@posting.google.com...
   > > > AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
   > > > find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
   > > > counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
   > > > aspect.
   > > > Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
   > > > case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
   > > > ill-configured??
  > >
  > > Go to <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.spec.org" target="_blank">www.spec.org</a> - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
  > > find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
  > > what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
  > > issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
  > > on.
 >
 > Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
 > have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
 > system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
 > a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

No one forces those who buy an AMD processor to buy a junky power supply
or to overclock. Those who do so are inviting trouble. An AMD based system
will be reliable if it is properly build and not overclocked.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ? 

Bitstring <41225891.B7CE58D5.TakeThisOut@zciueanmosizefitterzxcazreaszs.com>, from
the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
<johs.TakeThisOut@zciueanmosizefitterzxcazreaszs.com> said
<snip>
  >> Go to <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.spec.org" target="_blank">www.spec.org</a> - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
  >> find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
  >> what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
  >> issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
  >> on.
 >
 >Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
 >have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
 >system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
 >a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

You are desperately confused. I hang out there perpetually (and have for
several years) and there are very few AMD user with problems, given the
fact that 99% of the people there =only= build AMD systems these days.
The 'three people**' with home built Intel systems seem to ahve their
share of problems too.
8>.

** I exaggerate, there may actually be as many as 6.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ? 

G wrote:

 > JK <JK9821.DeleteThis@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<4122172F.CE4558AA.DeleteThis@netscape.net>...
  > >
  > > The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip. Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon XP2500+
  > > is a $70 chip. What $70 Intel chip
  > > should we compare its performance to? a Pentium 4 1.8 ghz, or a Celeron
  > > 2.4 ghz?
  > >
 >
 > Actually, don't you mean Chip + Motherboard ?
 >
 > All the other componants are the same in both systems.
 >
 > So, using newegg's numbers it's:
 >
 > XP2800+ Barton ($113) + Abit AN7 nForce2-400 ($93) = $206

$113 for an XP2800+? <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pricewatch.com" target="_blank">www.pricewatch.com</a> has the XP3000+
listed at $99, and the P4 2.4 C at $143. Both are oem with a heatsink.
The Athlon 64 3000+ retail box is listed at $164.

 >
 > P4 2.4C ($146) + Abit IS7-E ($82) = $228
 > A64 3000+ ($175) + Abit KV8-K8T800 ($91) = $266
 >
 > I picked as identical MB's as possible, not bottom of the barrel or
 > top of the line. Basically what I'd get if I was building either
 > system. And of course if we're talking performace/price the end
 > results should be divided by the whole system cost which would be
 > anywhere between $700 - $1500.
 >
 > Bottom Line: The P4 2.4C is closer to the XP2800 in price in a real
 > system than the A64 3000+.

Not really. Add to the OEM Athlon XP and P$ prices the cost of a
heatsink. One could also order an Athlon 64 2800+ retail box
at $147(although this would be silly since the A64 3000+ is so
close in price). So using an A64 2800+ would cost you the same
as the P4 2.4C , and the 3000+ around $20 more.

 > The P4 is also by far the most
 > overclockable CPU on the market. I don't know anyone who isn't getting
 > 3.0ghz with stock cooling easily.

That is irrelevant for most people, and is probably debatable for
those interested in overclocking.

 >
 >
 > The A64 still performs better and is undeniably a bestter deal, but
 > the P4 still blows away the XP at a very similar price.

Not quite.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: AMD or INTEL ?