AMD vs Intel - please convince me....

[FelixDeCat]

Ive long been happy with my 3.2EE. Its also been a quiet, powerful, stable system.

Also, dont forget the powerful Celeron D, available for your computing needs.

 

[2kfire]

Between an Opteron 170 (2.0 GHz, 2x1 MB L2) and a P4 660 (3.6 GHz, 2 MB L2), the Opteron is the better choice. Cooler, quieter, and at least as fast, plus it's dual core, so you have a little 'future-proofing'. They are about the same price too @ newegg. And if you're into overclocking, the s939 Opterons have a good reputation. The overclocks people are getting with them make them untouchable.

Edit: Here's a link: Link It's been said that the reviewers at this site are heavily biased towards Intel, but even so, AMD CPUs dominate most of the performance charts.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Griswold
Uhm, you said DDR runs at 800MHz. It doesnt. DDR400 runs at 200MHz giving you the same datarate as if it was running at 400MHz. My question was, where do you come up with 800MHz? Dont toss dual channel in there, as it is not that simple to just claim 800MHz because you run with 2 channels..

The P4 has a 4X data bus running 200MHz. It then has roughly equal to 800MHz bus, right? Well, Intel says the P4 has an 800MHz FSB

Let's then just call it an "equivalent" amount of bandwidth. Yes, in essence dual channel PC3200 really runs at 200MHz. How much bandwidth does it provide? 4X as much bandwidth as SDRAM running at 200MHz, right? Then, 800MHz worth of "equivalent" bandwidth.

2x12 = 3x8 = 4x6

Don't they all equal 24?

 

[lyssword]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Ive long been happy with my 3.2EE. Its also been a quiet, powerful, stable system.

Also, dont forget the powerful Celeron D, available for your computing needs.

ROFL, a celeron running at 6ghz would not beat 2 ghz opteron/athlon 64 in gaming performance

 

[Zebo]

Read Between the lines

Originally posted by: Anand Lal Shimpi
Not since Intel's Northwood Pentium 4 core has Intel really been performance-competitive with AMD. These days, the majority of Pentium 4s are just not very interesting. They are too hot, more expensive and under-performing compared to their AMD counterparts. And while Intel continues to have the lowest price on an entry-level dual core processor, the rest of their desktop product line is made up of processors that we can't recommend.
.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2578

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: Griswold
Uhm, you said DDR runs at 800MHz. It doesnt. DDR400 runs at 200MHz giving you the same datarate as if it was running at 400MHz. My question was, where do you come up with 800MHz? Dont toss dual channel in there, as it is not that simple to just claim 800MHz because you run with 2 channels..

The P4 has a 4X data bus running 200MHz. It then has roughly equal to 800MHz bus, right? Well, Intel says the P4 has an 800MHz FSB

Let's then just call it an "equivalent" amount of bandwidth. Yes, in essence dual channel PC3200 really runs at 200MHz. How much bandwidth does it provide? 4X as much bandwidth as SDRAM running at 200MHz, right? Then, 800MHz worth of "equivalent" bandwidth.

2x12 = 3x8 = 4x6

Don't they all equal 24?

Well, in your original post it looked like you're refering to DDR in context of AMD, not "quad pumped" Intel DDR (which is way outdated now). So, when speaking of DDR in a present day AMD system, its not correct to talk about 800MHz. That was my point. Perhaps I misunderstood you there.

And mixing bandwith and MHz is also not a wise move, bandwith is bandwith and frequency is frequency, even though bandwith increases with frequency in this case.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: Griswold
Uhm, you said DDR runs at 800MHz. It doesnt. DDR400 runs at 200MHz giving you the same datarate as if it was running at 400MHz. My question was, where do you come up with 800MHz? Dont toss dual channel in there, as it is not that simple to just claim 800MHz because you run with 2 channels..

The P4 has a 4X data bus running 200MHz. It then has roughly equal to 800MHz bus, right? Well, Intel says the P4 has an 800MHz FSB

Let's then just call it an "equivalent" amount of bandwidth. Yes, in essence dual channel PC3200 really runs at 200MHz. How much bandwidth does it provide? 4X as much bandwidth as SDRAM running at 200MHz, right? Then, 800MHz worth of "equivalent" bandwidth.

2x12 = 3x8 = 4x6

Don't they all equal 24?

Isn't DDR2 quad pumped, so PC2-3200 actually runs at 100mhz? That makes it look worse than DDR by that comparision.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Read Between the lines

Originally posted by: Anand Lal Shimpi
Not since Intel's Northwood Pentium 4 core has Intel really been performance-competitive with AMD. These days, the majority of Pentium 4s are just not very interesting. They are too hot, more expensive and under-performing compared to their AMD counterparts. And while Intel continues to have the lowest price on an entry-level dual core processor, the rest of their desktop product line is made up of processors that we can't recommend.
.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2578

Definitly !

 

[alfa147x]

agree as you see here Text
the intel chip whopps a$$
ALSO here Text
here too
Text
maybe not here
Text
But here
Text
still in there
Text
Case closed

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Ive long been happy with my 3.2EE. Its also been a quiet, powerful, stable system.

Also, dont forget the powerful Celeron D, available for your computing needs.

Youu forgot to say that it is also riculous and extremely expensive, and also gets blowed away by the much cheaper a64 3400+ S754.
And the celeron is absolute crap, dolla by bollar the semprom 754 kills it in any way.
You are such a troll!!!

 

[GuitarDaddy]

My $.02

Intel has massive market share and focuses on mass producing cheap and profitable boxes to supply the general public and businesses and is less concerned with the higher end enthusiasts market.

AMD has held the CPU performance crown for quite a while, and they control the enthusiasts market and have made major inroads into the highend server market because of their performance dominace.

Intel marketing is always touting a new technology thats just around the corner that will pwn AMD and win back the performance crown, but I will believe it when I see it. The bottom line is that meeting the relatively low end needs of the general and business market segements is where the money is and where Intels focus is. Honestly I believe Intel could care less if their high end chips lag behind AMD

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Honestly I believe Intel could care less if their high end chips lag behind AMD

They probably do, and they probably don't. They do because who doesn't want to be known as "the best?" They don't as long as they continue to outsell AMD.

 

[Hulk]

With all due respect, given the current offerings today from Intel and AMD this is a no brainer.

AMD X2 chips are faster, cooler, and cheaper for equal (and better) performance.

Just get a 3800+ X2 and a fast video card.

 

[openwheelformula1]

Alpha147x is comparing 955EE to 4800+ and drawing conclusions? Shouldn't price be an important factor?

 

[robertk2012]

Opty 165 or 144. The new processors are coming out soon and neither will be capatible with current motherboards. Intel may take the lead but either way you would have to purchase a new motherboard. The only possible component that might get reused from intel and not amd woud be the ddr2. I would just get 1gig of value ram and solid value motherboard dfi infinity. Then upgrade in the future if you want.