C2D OC or AMD

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I agree buy what YOU want. Intel AMD doesn't matter your the buyer.

Sure would have been nice to this kind of advice back when AMD64 was beating P4 by even smaller performance differance. And gaming test were gosphel at low res. All that changed with C2D . Oh! the hypocrisy of it all.

WTF are you talking about? The A64 kick'd (by a larger margin) the P4's ass for several years!

The point is that C2D would be a wiser purchase rite now.

No it didn't. P4 held it's own in video encoding and 3D rendering. A64 dominated gaming and scientific apps or anything heavily FPU related.

Core2 outperforms A64 X2 in virtually ALL benchmarks. A64 never came close to achieving a clean sweep over P4.

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I agree buy what YOU want. Intel AMD doesn't matter your the buyer.

Sure would have been nice to this kind of advice back when AMD64 was beating P4 by even smaller performance differance. And gaming test were gosphel at low res. All that changed with C2D . Oh! the hypocrisy of it all.

WTF are you talking about? The A64 kick'd (by a larger margin) the P4's ass for several years!

The point is that C2D would be a wiser purchase rite now.

No it didn't. P4 held it's own in video encoding and 3D rendering. A64 dominated gaming and scientific apps or anything heavily FPU related.

Core2 outperforms A64 X2 in virtually ALL benchmarks. A64 never came close to achieving a clean sweep over P4.

Yes, but the A64 came through where it mattered most (for ATers). Also the A64 was a much cooler running CPU than the P4.

The A64 had a pretty much clean sweep, except for video encoding. Check your facts.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I agree buy what YOU want. Intel AMD doesn't matter your the buyer.

Sure would have been nice to this kind of advice back when AMD64 was beating P4 by even smaller performance differance. And gaming test were gosphel at low res. All that changed with C2D . Oh! the hypocrisy of it all.

WTF are you talking about? The A64 kick'd (by a larger margin) the P4's ass for several years!

The point is that C2D would be a wiser purchase rite now.

Vary not true. They traded blows pretty good till X2 came out. Fact is if you were to test P4C against AMD 64 in games that support more than 1 thread guess who wins.

Funny how Intel had H/T out all that time . Programmers refused to wright apps for SMT.
More than likely because they weren't smart enough to do multi-threads. But dual cores has changed all that. Now Intel has SMT again in Nehalem . Its going to be an AMD bloodbath. Intel deserves it they worked hard . Had bad experiance with Net-Burst but what they learned was invalueable. Nethalem if were lucky will show us just how much intel learned from net-burst and SMT.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Heres a link . I don't see it the way you do at all.

Clock for clock AMD was way stronger agreed . But were talking netburst here. Intels best against AMD's best . Was not as 1 sided as you want others to believe . Also P4Cs ran pretty cool and o/c very well.

There are all sorts of old benchies of these 2 . All show about the same .

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1884&p=1

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Heres a link . I don't see it the way you do at all.

Clock for clock AMD was way stronger agreed . But were talking netburst here. Intels best against AMD's best . Was not as 1 sided as you want others to believe . Also P4Cs ran pretty cool and o/c very well.

There are all sorts of old benchies of these 2 . All show about the same .

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1884&p=1

Ran cool?!?!?!? What are you talking about?

 

[Xvys]

I just build a second system with parts I got off the local craiglist: hardly used Biostar AM2 mb with hdmi & nvidia 7050, that came with a X2 3600 processor and 1G Crucial ram for $90...a 250G Maxtor sata $45...a standard white case with Sparkle 400w $20...cdrw my bro gave me $0...o/s and files clonned from my other computer. So I built this Amd dual core home theatre setup for $155. You could probably build a brand new one for $275 or so (with a faster cpu, although I o/c this one to 2300Mhz.) An Intel core2duo setup might cost a bit more, even used, unless you wanted to go with a P945 open box with celeron.

 

[Vipeax]

http://cpubenchmark.net/overclocked_cpus.html
That list shows:
E2140 @ 2624MHz: 1541, @ 3199MHz: 1857
x2 6000+ @ 3252MHz: 1397
(PassMark bench software)

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Heres a link . I don't see it the way you do at all.

Clock for clock AMD was way stronger agreed . But were talking netburst here. Intels best against AMD's best . Was not as 1 sided as you want others to believe . Also P4Cs ran pretty cool and o/c very well.

There are all sorts of old benchies of these 2 . All show about the same .

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1884&p=1

I wouldn't link the A64 launch article and claim that's K8's best. But that's another thing.

Like you correctly states, with enormous clock speed advantage Pentiums could come close to A64 in certain areas (mostly in apps written with Intel compilers in mind) at that time. However, Intel never priced their CPUs in proportion to AMD's. If I remember correctly the lowest price for mainstream parts (i.e. no Celies) were around $200~$300 and it went from there. There was no such thing as $100 Pentium 4.

And their chipset division would constantly update their chipsets (915->925->955->975 for the performance parts, plus gazillion mainstream and mobile parts) and made sure the new CPUs are not compatible with old chipsets, so despite the same socket, users often had to change the mobo to upgrade a CPU. Habbit of pushig high price RAM was just a icing on the cake.

So for instance, P4 3.20GHz might have been comparable to A64 3200+ but the total cost of ownership was much higher. (More expensive mobo + more expensive DDR2) Basically a user would end up spending 50~100% more just to get the equal or less performance by going to an Intel route. (not to mention the uncertainty regarding upgrade-ability) So the recommendation favoring AMD was quite natural at the time.

Even today, for an ultra budget build there is nothing that Intel can counter AM2 690G build. (Take note: Intel might have lowered their CPU prices tremendously, but their chipset prices haven't moved much - another proof why competition matters)

I don't think there is any hypocrite here. For a budget build, I don't see much of a difference between the two platform. But surely there is no competition (Intel favored) in performance/overclocking-oriented build.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...ts/showdoc.aspx?i=3112