AMD vs INTEL in DOOM 3!

[OnEMoReTrY]

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
Interesting how a $174 Athlon 64 3000+ matches the $995 3.4ghz EE in performance of DOOM 3. AMD > Intel in gaming? I think so =O

 

[Shimmishim]

we've all known that for a while...

this looks like possible flame bait...

 

[jswjimmy]

well amd cheaper, faster, cooler, use less power, and are more future proof, why would any one (other than video editors) buy a intel chip.

 

[oldman420]

Originally posted by: jswjimmy
well amd cheaper, faster, cooler, use less power, and are more future proof, why would any one (other than video editors) buy a intel chip.

yup

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: jswjimmy
well amd cheaper, faster, cooler, use less power, and are more future proof, why would any one (other than video editors) buy a intel chip.

Well, here's an excerpt from HardOCP...

"Pricing aside, AMD looks to be producing some of the best performance CPUs we have ever seen. The only hole I can really shoot in their armor is the lack of a HyperThreading-type feature. Now depending on how you use your computer, this may or may not impact your experience. When multitasking, the Pentium4 simply feels smoother to use. You get a seamless experience. Now this is not say that you never feel a lag here or there on a 3.4GHz Pentium4 desktop, but I will assure you there are not many of them. As of writing this, I have 15 windows open on 3 monitors running 8 different applications. If I wanted to, I could also encode a ripped DVD to DivX while I work and never be aware of it for the most part. My experience is that cannot be done on AMD's CPUs."

I do believe AMD has the upper hand in gaming but it's true that for some desktop applications, Intel does perform better. This can be seen in some benchmarks where encoding is concerned. Still, Intel doesn't outperform the equivalent AMD chips by a large enough margin to raise a huge fuss over...while AMD does outperform Intel when it comes to games by a pretty good margin.

Another reason some may purchase an Intel chip is overclockability. I know some people were getting their AMD 2500's pretty high but a LOT of people are reaching 3.6-3.7 with their P4 3.0's/3.2's...and earlier today I saw a 2.6C overclocked to over 4 GHz!! Talk about a bang for your buck!

 

[onza]

Originally posted by: jswjimmy
well amd cheaper, faster, cooler, use less power, and are more future proof, why would any one (other than video editors) buy a intel chip.

are they cooler running now?

never knew that..

 

[GhandiInstinct]

Well, how many of us open that many apps at the same time. It's usuall 1 or 2, or sometimes 3. AMD can handle that.

But, Intel only has this one plus on their side. It's not enough to sway the consumers their way anymore. AMD has them beat. I just wish their 939 prices go down, chips and mobo's.

 

[clarkey01]

When I think of AMD i smile ;-)

glad there here, if they wernt you'd have Intel using a 0.35 micron process selling celerons with @ whooping speed of 200 Mhz

" yeah runs doom 3 a treat"

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: jswjimmy
well amd cheaper, faster, cooler, use less power, and are more future proof, why would any one (other than video editors) buy a intel chip.

video encoding/editing, but it's not worth the price diefference...at least not for me anyway, I run my little small business with a 2500+barton OC'd to 12.5x169 (memory's holding me back)

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

What people always seem to forget is that the shorter pipeline gives a great speed boost per frequency increase. A 200Mghrtz increase of the AMD64 is like a 300-400Mghrtz increase on the P4. So what if the PIV goes up 600Mghtrz and the AMD only goes up 300. The overclock ends up balanced out and the AMD64is still faster. Anandtech on their 939 review showed the AMD64 to perform the same in encoding. It all depends on what front end the encoder is using. Try xvid and see who runs faster (hint it isn't Intel). I am not knocking Intel but the myths of AMD need to die. They are not less reliable and hot like they used to be. I will take either chip that offers the best performance and price. Right now that is the AMD. The 3500+ AMD is 350 dollars. The 3400 Prescott 775 is 418 dollars. Why do we need the AMD's to get cheaper (except for our understandable capitalistic greed). Heck if you want a 754 board you can get the 3400+ for 285 dollars? Even better against Intel. Lets hope AMD actually tries to market their stuff and get more market share for even more innovations and prices. I have Intel and AMD systems so I am not a (complete) AMD fanboy.

 

[Kondik]

Heh sorry guys,but im for AMD Cheaper,Faster better

 

[clarkey01]

Kondik knows where its @.


RISE

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: Kondik
Heh sorry guys,but im for AMD Cheaper,Faster better

Even Intel fanboys I know, agree with this now... gotta love that!

 

[jellysandwichx]

Don't forget that a big reason why Intel processors are
better than AMD processors at video editing/encoding is
due to Hyperthreading.

-jellysandwich

 

[rogue1979]

I thought the Athlon 64 has reached the same performance as Intel in video encoding?

As far as smooth multi-tasking alot of this depends on your set-up.

total system ram,
operating system,
background applications running,
motherboard chipset and so on.

I have both P4 and Barton, I have never noticed a difference in desktop multi-tasking, and I don't even have the Athlon 64 yet. Obviously with a shorter pipeline AMD didn't bother with hyped-up threading and Intel's Dothan core doesn't either.

Hyped-up threading was a patch for a Northwood's very long pipeline that actually worked reasonably well, I never viewed it as a superior new technology. Obviously Intel agrees with the demise of the Northwood and Prescott

 

[Zebo]

AMD has a short pipe so it does'nt need nor would it benefit from having HT.

HT is useless to the dothan (pentiuim 3) too.

The only thing it's good for is a super ineffcient processor like the prescott which is buring power but not doing much of anything.

 

[clarkey01]

thanks for bringing that point up Zebo, some ppl think hyperthreading is a blessed inovation when its just there to keep the pipelines busy and full.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: jswjimmy
well amd cheaper, faster, cooler, use less power, and are more future proof, why would any one (other than video editors) buy a intel chip.

Because they dont want to jump through hoops when trying to RMA

 

[clarkey01]

???????????????????????????????????

 

[caz67]

Both great CPU's. 64Bit is awesome..!!

 

[Geomagick]

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: Kondik
Heh sorry guys,but im for AMD Cheaper,Faster better

Even Intel fanboys I know, agree with this now... gotta love that!

Gotta admit AMD are doing a bang up job at the moment.

 

[Acanthus]

They just need to make their own chipset for A64 now...

Nforce 3 250 is mediocre at best, and i dont buy VIA.

Nforce 4 is looking pretty nice in the rumor mill so far, but we know what the rumor mill can crank out sometimes.