What's interesting with that TR review is that in gaming performance, the 2.4GHz 4800+ X2 consistantly beats the 2.4GHz 4000+ and even beats the 2.6GHz FX-55 in two of the gaming benchmarks, despite, to my knowledge, the games being single-threaded.
Capt Caveman
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2005
- 34,543
- 651
- 126
Mods - Please Lock!
What was the purpose of this thread? Reviews, etc. have already been posted. Why just start another flame war?
ps. A 955x board can be had for $220. In three weeks, the board has already dropped $30. Like the Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, when a new board/chipset comes out Intel or AMD, the price is initially set high and then drops (just like CPUS and everything else).
fwiw - even though my set-up allows me to go Intel dual-core, I am seriously thinking of switching to a X2.
What was the purpose of this thread? Reviews, etc. have already been posted. Why just start another flame war?
ps. A 955x board can be had for $220. In three weeks, the board has already dropped $30. Like the Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, when a new board/chipset comes out Intel or AMD, the price is initially set high and then drops (just like CPUS and everything else).
fwiw - even though my set-up allows me to go Intel dual-core, I am seriously thinking of switching to a X2.
there are definitely sub-$100 socket 939 nforce4 Ultra boards out there, such as the Chaintech VNF4/Ultra, and to a lesser extent boards such as the Foxconn and ECS ones. This is an important factor when looking at the prices of X2 versus Pentium D. While I don't expect 945/955 boards to stay in the $250 range (at least not the 945), it's safe to say that decent boards probably won't be under $100 for at least 6 months (the length of time nforce4 has been around). As such, I expect that between the added cost of getting a decent 945 mobo and DDR2-533 or better ram, you're looking at maybe a $75 price premium for the Intel platform. So the real price difference between an 820 and a 4200+ is ~$225. Still, that's quite a chunk of change to shell out.
I give the nod to AMD for the technology - it's clearly superior, and when AMD has a full top-to-bottom lineup (i.e. 1.8-2.6GHz chips), there is no doubt that they will wipe the floor with Intel price/performance wise, at least until Yonah is released (still quite a ways off). But Intel is going to win the sales war. The market for people wanting $500-1000 chips represents probably 5% or less of the desktop market, so even if AMD gets half the sales in that segment, it still only accounts for 2.5% of the market. Intel is going to be pushing these chips in all the Dells, HPs, and Gateways, as well as the DIY crowd, which is a huge portion of the market. Still, it's hard to blame AMD too much for this - they don't have the capacity to compete in the low end right now - maybe when Fab 36, IBM, and Chartered are all cranking out chips, then they can ramp up quickly and attack the value segment right away. Till then, every new product starts slow and then production increases, so when supply is tight, they need to sell expensive chips.
Personally, I'm glad I went ahead and bought a Winnie back in december, cause by the time i need an upgrade, this whole mess will be settled down and I'll probably be able to get a cheap $150 dualie.
I give the nod to AMD for the technology - it's clearly superior, and when AMD has a full top-to-bottom lineup (i.e. 1.8-2.6GHz chips), there is no doubt that they will wipe the floor with Intel price/performance wise, at least until Yonah is released (still quite a ways off). But Intel is going to win the sales war. The market for people wanting $500-1000 chips represents probably 5% or less of the desktop market, so even if AMD gets half the sales in that segment, it still only accounts for 2.5% of the market. Intel is going to be pushing these chips in all the Dells, HPs, and Gateways, as well as the DIY crowd, which is a huge portion of the market. Still, it's hard to blame AMD too much for this - they don't have the capacity to compete in the low end right now - maybe when Fab 36, IBM, and Chartered are all cranking out chips, then they can ramp up quickly and attack the value segment right away. Till then, every new product starts slow and then production increases, so when supply is tight, they need to sell expensive chips.
Personally, I'm glad I went ahead and bought a Winnie back in december, cause by the time i need an upgrade, this whole mess will be settled down and I'll probably be able to get a cheap $150 dualie.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Right. 820 costs $241. Cheapest X2 will be $500+. Talking about price performance value. Sure x2 is faster but it's hardly worth the price.
With respect to those benchmarks, only the gaming ones are relevant for a common user. And for those we do not know the resolution they tested the games at.
These forums are becoming disgustingly full of AMD and Nvidia fanboys. Sure AMD is faster, and Nvidia has sm3.0 support but people here tend to make everyone think, if it's not AMD and Nvidia, the world is gonna end. LIke Intel cpus are in paraolympics or something. Last time i recall P4 3.2ghz won 99% of the benchmarks vs. AXP3200+ on BOTH Anandtech and Tomshardware. Did everyone who have an Intel system say, wow AXP sucks? It's the worst thing ever.....and picked out benches that no one cares about like LAME and 3dMax and Cinebench?
Prices will change quickly in the coming months; one thing is for sure, people who already own a 939 motherboard need only buy a $500 processor to upgrade to AMD X2 in June. The upgrade path for Intel requires a new motherboard, which in June will be more than $200, so the price difference is not as great as it seems from a simple comparison of processor prices. If things had been the other way around, then you're right the Intel option would have been much more favourable. That is not the case.
WRT sickening fan boys it seems many people can rant in favour of their preferred technology, both AMD and Intel. It does seem that AMD users are in the majority on this forum though. Maybe because they are better ?
It just surprises me how worked up some people can get over a piece of silicon. Buy what you want, but don?t try to force your views onto other, it just makes them more defensive? which starts an argument like this where no one gets anywhere?
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
I think you're looking at it all wrong. The 820 isn't designed to compete with the 4200+ any more than a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 is designed to compete with an Athlon64 3500+.
I fully understand that even Intel's top of the line dual core EE chips are still outperformed by AMD's offerings... but as the price of the motherboards for Pentium D's come down in price, Intel will have a dual core processor for a section of the market where AMD offers no competition because their lowest dual core processor is priced at about twice what Intel's lowest dual core processor is.
I fully understand that even Intel's top of the line dual core EE chips are still outperformed by AMD's offerings... but as the price of the motherboards for Pentium D's come down in price, Intel will have a dual core processor for a section of the market where AMD offers no competition because their lowest dual core processor is priced at about twice what Intel's lowest dual core processor is.
I am sorry I use 2 out of those 3 apps now....Any idiot who likes to have 3dmark score in his sigs pretty much sums up what type of user he is.....Again sorry that they tested real world applications that actually are used for productivity on a computer and not just watseful gaming......
The biggest problem I see with the 820 (cause we all have to agree the price is nice and in multithreaded apps it will still be faster then any current single core cpu out there), is the relatively low clock speed...At 2.8ghz a whopping 1ghz behind top of the line single core cpu or 35+% slower means that in most applications, cause we do not have a majority of multithreaded apps now that it will be quite a step back for some users or at least a lateral move....If they truly multitask, which I think is a concept mainly for power users and more technophiles, they will want more powerful systems. In that scheme 290 dollars saved on a processor for it being 30-50% slower, but perhaps pay a premium on the new intel chipset and a premium on DDR2 if you dont go for the crippled Dell PC4200....In the end the whole system may be separated by under 200 bucks and when it translates out to 30-50%, that seems to speaks a heck of a lot louder, IMO...
AMDs X2's are closer to flagship single core speed so you get mid to top of the line single core perfiormance and unparalled dual core speed.....So we really are talking about an RX8 versus a mazda 3.....
I will reiterate I dont care what you ppl buy...And if you Intel fanboys can cling to something to feel better about yourselves I am happy for you....This is a hardware forum where we talk about the best and it is clear which is and it is clear for the ppl (users) who really need this technology they tend to be a bit more of a power user and I think the 820 doesn't deliver....
The 820 will sell cause Intel's marketing machine is good....
Not really...
This mem as DDR400 does 2-2-2-5 at 2.7-2.8v easily. You don't need nothing special.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: caater
interesting.. any URL?
a64 X2 4800+ superpi1M @3006mhz stable and pcmark04, cinebench, superpi8M @ 2950
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=62525
though cooling is vapo LS, not on air.
so it appears that with that kind of cooling, 2.8ghz 24/7 speed is maybe reasonable.
Unless you'll get your cpu for superpi 1M or cinebench runs..
pent D is all different story.. fugger benched his @ 4.9ghz but he had triple stage cascade running at ~-100C.. can imagine the power requirement of 4.9ghz pent D
there are some overclocks with weaker cooling (machII gt) here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=61605
so according to these tests, i think it's same to assume that pent D 24/7 limit with
LS/machII phasechange would be ~4.2ghz..
so the 2.8 X2 eats pent D when overclocked, but not sure how much.
But i'm waiting for those X2 3ghz on air screenies and results..
I try to be nice to the noobies but you're seriously getting on my nerves.. between PM's I get work and fun my time precious.
Don't doubt what I state as fact
I know TuxDave, these arguments are so lame, for some of these people it's like the foundation of their entire lives is based on a computer processor.
Intel would have a lot more support if they didn't fail so miserably with the Prescott. Before the socket 939 A64, I?d thought of Duvie as a pretty big Intel fanboy, but these recent months have just gone to show that he?s looking for the best performance for his money.
It?s true that before A64, AMD didn?t really have any advantage accept in low low budget areas with overclocking involved, as the Northwood P4s were just simply dominating across the board. Where were you then to shun the AMD fanboys? It would have been justifiable to do so THEN.
Now AMD has pretty much offered complete domination over Intel in terms of performance across the board, even the high priced X2s are justifiable by their sheer dominance.
Yes you pay a little more, but you get clear and obvious performance advantages AT STOCK SPEED. No more OC bs, ?oh its as good if you OC?...but the kicker now is that X2 should have even more of an advantage with overclocking. You also lack the heat and power consumption, the PD is truly ridiculous in its heat dissipation and power consumption ? this also leads to noise factor, good luck with the stock fan being quiet, or is that another hidden cost in forking over $50+ for a HS/fan that offers acceptable cooling and noise?
I don?t get why intel fans would be bashing the X2, they should be thrilled that the faster product that costs more, that?s what they seemed to love during the Northwood days.
Yes the 820 is very inexpensive for dual core, but you also get terrible single thread performance, it is perfectly fine if all you?re doing is a lot of multi threaded work, but I think many of you promoting the ?cheapness? of the PD fail to realize that it is a very niche product, there is little demand for something that offers improvements in some areas, and major steps backwards in others (such as heat/power/ and single thread performance) - Yes there is always the chance that overclocking could save the lower end PDs, however it just doesn?t seem as practical as with the X2?s. ? On the other hand we have the X2, dualcore offering single thread performance near the same speed as singlecore cousins, then there?s the low heat and power (which is no more than their 130nm line), overclocking is still very much an option.
Again we come back to the true value of the lower end PDs, who would really want to buy them? Budget minded consumers? Do they even need the advantages dual core has to offer? Your average budget user would not care for it and would most likely favor a faster single core P4 or A64. Would enthusiasts want the PD? Most likely not unless they?re the type that has the money and would buy just for tinkering around with it. It certainly shouldn?t have the same potential to do what the X2 can do, not by a long shot, enthusiasts care about power and the X2 offers it, at a fair price to boot. Intel would be charging well over $700 if they had such a product to even offer.
So who would buy the 820? The only type of person I can think of (other than your diehard intel fanboy) is someone who uses multithreaded apps for a living and simply cannot afford the X2.
Its going to take the improved Pentium M and dual/multi core to win over those who are interested A64/X2...
Well said... Slam Dunk!!!
I cant even belive ppl can even call me an AMD fanboy....I get such a kick out of that as I am LMAO at the true fanboys.....You see I am not that loyal....I will switch on you.....
I was INtel from P75 to P-Pro 200 (1995-1997) went to AMD K62-400 (1998) to Tbird 1.4ghz (266fsb) (2001).....Then I switched again to one of the all time sweetest OCER 1.6a and road the northwoods to the C versions from the A up until end of 2004....As far back as mid 2004 it was eire apparent the A64s would surpass...intel was hell-bent on the prescott and I as many Intel users saw this as a step bacwards and realized it wasn't for us....Come Nov 2004 I switched the A64 and more importantly at the time the more expensive sckt 939 cause little rumors were then that dual core would be sckt 939 compatable.....I can tell you for certain I will be AMD at least until beginnning of 2006. I see nothing in Intel's roadmap up until then worth switching.
Edit: Maybe then I will swicth back and help the Intel fanboys cause they are seriously lame and obviously need a leader and some intelligence thrown back into the mix....
I would like to say Keysplayr2003 I respect...We have had some good threads discussing the products...
Using a linux based dualie AXP and my A64 back to back, I think that slower dual core is actually better suited to the 'average user' than a single fast core. Just based on overall difference in responsiveness I can see when I hit the KVM switch and start doing "regular" things on the other box.
I think generally you don't notice a 10% increase in core speed on a single core. But when doing things that benefit from multi-core, you get an 80-100% increase in speed.
To me, the former is not so noticeable, single threaded performance in typical applications is so ridiculously overpowered compared to what is needed (even a 1GHz P3 is fine for most people doing email, browsing, etc...) that a little extra speed here is not even noticeable.
But the latter takes things that we normally don't realize are issues and trims down the time involved fairly considerably. In this aspect the performance benefit of dual core is better than the performance benefit of a similarly priced faster single core CPU.
There are users who definitely pay ~$250 for a CPU. I bet at least 50% of those "average" users would see more noticeable benefit more from Intel's dual core vs. a faster single core processor (Intel or AMD).
Obvioulsy I'm not talking about gamers here, I'm talking about Joe Dell/HP shopper looking to "do cool stuff online" (there is a radio commercial around here that uses that line, I kinda like it)
There are hundreds of people who buy a computer and upgrade the processor "just because" or "just in-case" tha very likely see no noticeable benefit from choosing the faster processor. These people, when they start choosing dual core will actually start seeing some benefit of dual core. But that is the market Intel is clearly going for, and personally, I think they are marketing it appropriately to make dual core catch on.
We should all WANT dual core to catch on and sell to the masses regardless of which manufacturer is selling more processors. As it catches on, we will see more and more software that makes use of dual core processors.
the X2 is an excellent product. however, given the K8 thermals, im wondering what AMD will do with multicore... even at 40W per core it'd be hard to pack four into a single die.
the p-m is quite low power already and is well suited for that purpose. will the K10 use shrunken K8's or something different. should be interesting.
the p-m is quite low power already and is well suited for that purpose. will the K10 use shrunken K8's or something different. should be interesting.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Not at all. Duvie is a performance fanboy. Me and him went at it lots of times before. Me citing price/performance in the Athlon XP days, Him citing performance of northwoods which was a better chip, 20-30% better. He needs heavy duty performance but there is a limit too; like when prices get all crazy like EE's and stuff. Either way no matter what you did to a Athlon XP it could never become a Nothwood dispite it's price/performance superiority. Sound familiar? Yup,no matter what you do to a pentium D it can never perform like an X2. That's why he's on-board. Well plus he likes it's superior price/performance charateristics
Sorry for speaking for you brudda...just my impression.
BTW good post Bunny
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Show me the PM thermals at 3.0? Besides future smooture. You think AMD fired all thier engineers after A64 was made? I know Intel hired a couple to help them out. but AMD has stuff in the oven too. What counts is now. X2 and A64 clearly owns everything respectivly in the benchs and tops to bottom on particulars like power and heat and maybe even price. WTF was intel thinking putting that failure presshot x 2 on the same package?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter