Do we still have situations where Intel processor is superior?

[NeoPTLD]

Supposedly many CAD softwares are/were that way because they're SSE intense.

Overclockability is not considered. It is not something the average people do.

This is a comparision between same clock speed Intel and AMD.

It isn't a comparision between AMD Athlon 2000+ and a P4 2.0GHz.

 

[imported_Phil]

Media encoding, the P4 wins hands down, most of the time.

 

[myocardia]

Plus, the P4's are extremely easy to overclock, and an overclocked P4C (3.5ghz or so) will compare to an overclocked Athlon64 any day of the week at the things the A64 excels at, like gaming.

 

[Optimummind]

It appears that the AMD FX series wins the majority of gaming benchmarks whereas the P4's win the majority of application/media/encoding line of benchmarks.

In terms of flexibility and upgradeability, though, the P4 seems to be the better bet (since the memory controller isn't hard-wired on the CPU die).

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Optimummind
It appears that the AMD FX series wins the majority of gaming benchmarks whereas the P4's win the majority of application/media/encoding line of benchmarks.

In terms of flexibility and upgradeability, though, the P4 seems to be the better bet (since the memory controller isn't hard-wired on the CPU die).

Nope, not even close. The only one with any upgradability is the Athlon64. Both the socket 754 and the socket 940 will continue for awhile, while Intel is abandoning the socket 478.

 

[kyparrish]

P4 spanks @ media encoding, as previously stated...

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: NeoPTLD
Supposedly may CAD softwares are/were that way because they're SSE intense.

Actually many Cad apps are SSE, and SSE2 optimized but that favors the Athlon64's, Fx's, and opterons as well as SSE2 instructions are on those cpus as well...

The advanatge may be in those apps that are not optimised for 64bit that many CAD apps are dual processor capable meaning they usually can take advantage of Hyperthreading....

They definitely both have there strengths but I think the Athlon Fx's wil start to close that gap as they continue to climb in speed and INtel lags behind trying to solve their rather embarassing Prescott line....Basically I am saying the leads are not so great that AMD pumping up the speed which it appears it can do much easier with theis K8 line then Intel has more potential in the coming 1/2 year or so, IMO....

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: myocardiaBoth the socket 754 and the socket 940 will continue for awhile, while Intel is abandoning the socket 478.

intel may be abandoning s478, but i seriously doubt us users will be abandoning it

 

[Dman877]

In the cpu wars, its a sort of flip-flop affair. In some benchs Intel dominates, in others AMD owns. IMO, in high-end processing, xxx dollars of intel = xxx dollars of AMD. The differences in encoding and gaming are there but much less noticeable in real-life use then the benches would have have you believe.

Any comp can handle internet surfing and general office/email use. Beyond general use, if the majority of your computing is media-related, go Intel. If you spend most of your time gaming, go AMD. If you do a wide variety of things on your comp, video/photo editing, mp3 encoding, gaming, dvd watching, 3d work, etc either brand will serve you well.

 

[gwag]

Rumors (truth) are IBM is helping them get to .9 fab and power and heat is way down so much better cheaper yeilds are on the way from AMD, unlike intels .9 fab where heat and power are thru the roof. IBM G5 on .9 fab cut power and heat by about 50%, AMD should see similar results, not to metion way shorter pipelines. by december I suspect AMD will be clearly on top athlough the packaging is a bit confusing and may not lead to a good upgrade path for early adopters

 

[IntelUser2000]

Rumors (truth) are IBM is helping them get to .9 fab and power and heat is way down so much better cheaper yeilds are on the way from AMD, unlike intels .9 fab where heat and power are thru the roof. IBM G5 on .9 fab cut power and heat by about 50%, AMD should see similar results, not to metion way shorter pipelines. by december I suspect AMD will be clearly on top athlough the packaging is a bit confusing and may not lead to a good upgrade path for early adopters Text

No, not exactly look at the next link showing IBM's problems.
Link: http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5199327.html They lost 150 million, majorly because of 130nm AND 90nm 300mm2 wafer problems(but not the 200mm2 wafer). So look Intel is better in yield, and mass production and IBM is good at lowering heat. Yeah so it depends whether you want to lose 150 million dollars instantly or possible loss through people not buying hotter processors. And according to Anandtech's link Prescott don't run as hot as people think(just a lot more power consumption than process shrink is thought is supposed to decrease). Yeah AMD's will run cooler on 90nm, but do you see on rumor sites that they are gonna have like 3 times the transistors of current 130nm? NO!!! And if you look at some sites like Xbitlabs and Inquirer, AMD 3800+ will be the fastest. Which means Intel should not fare that bad.

People are very negative about everything, I find.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Rumors (truth) are IBM is helping them get to .9 fab and power and heat is way down so much better cheaper yeilds are on the way from AMD, unlike intels .9 fab where heat and power are thru the roof. IBM G5 on .9 fab cut power and heat by about 50%, AMD should see similar results, not to metion way shorter pipelines. by december I suspect AMD will be clearly on top athlough the packaging is a bit confusing and may not lead to a good upgrade path for early adopters Text

No, not exactly look at the next link showing IBM's problems.
Link: http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5199327.html They lost 150 million, majorly because of 130nm AND 90nm 300mm2 wafer problems(but not the 200mm2 wafer). So look Intel is better in yield, and mass production and IBM is good at lowering heat. Yeah so it depends whether you want to lose 150 million dollars instantly or possible loss through people not buying hotter processors. And according to Anandtech's link Prescott don't run as hot as people think(just a lot more power consumption than process shrink is thought is supposed to decrease). Yeah AMD's will run cooler on 90nm, but do you see on rumor sites that they are gonna have like 3 times the transistors of current 130nm? NO!!! And if you look at some sites like Xbitlabs and Inquirer, AMD 3800+ will be the fastest. Which means Intel should not fare that bad.

People are very negative about everything, I find.

 

[Acanthus]

The one place i can safely say that intel beats AMD is heavy multitasking. Hyperthreading is a huge deal for me.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
Rumors (truth) are IBM is helping them get to .9 fab and power and heat is way down so much better cheaper yeilds are on the way from AMD, unlike intels .9 fab where heat and power are thru the roof. IBM G5 on .9 fab cut power and heat by about 50%, AMD should see similar results, not to metion way shorter pipelines. by december I suspect AMD will be clearly on top athlough the packaging is a bit confusing and may not lead to a good upgrade path for early adopters Text

No, not exactly look at the next link showing IBM's problems.
Link: http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5199327.html They lost 150 million, majorly because of 130nm AND 90nm 300mm2 wafer problems(but not the 200mm2 wafer). So look Intel is better in yield, and mass production and IBM is good at lowering heat. Yeah so it depends whether you want to lose 150 million dollars instantly or possible loss through people not buying hotter processors. And according to Anandtech's link Prescott don't run as hot as people think(just a lot more power consumption than process shrink is thought is supposed to decrease). Yeah AMD's will run cooler on 90nm, but do you see on rumor sites that they are gonna have like 3 times the transistors of current 130nm? NO!!! And if you look at some sites like Xbitlabs and Inquirer, AMD 3800+ will be the fastest. Which means Intel should not fare that bad.

People are very negative about everything, I find.

The new prescott stepping due out very soon adds 4 layers to the chip, reducing heat, EMI, power consumption, and considerably better yeilds.

While i have lots of faith in IBM, intel isnt out of the game yet

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Plus, the P4's are extremely easy to overclock, and an overclocked P4C (3.5ghz or so) will compare to an overclocked Athlon64 any day of the week at the things the A64 excels at, like gaming.

What about when 64bit software becomes available? Is the P4 going to be able to run 64bit software like the A64?

 

[nemesismk2]

The title of this topic is "Do we still have situations where Intel processor is superior?":-

If your talking about the budget section then AMD wins hands down because the Celeron processor is only able to run office applications and abit of internet surfing. The AMD Duron on the other hand also offers good gaming performance which the Celeron lacks.

"It is very obvious from these tests which line of budget processors is worth the money. When we can find a 1.6GHz Duron for just over half the price of a 2.6GHz Celeron and get better performance consistently in almost every test we ran, the choice is clear."

Budget CPU Shootout: Clash of the 'rons





If your talking mainstream then yeah Intel have some good P4 products however the xp2500 mobile can do 2.4ghz-2.5ghz easily which ofcourse would give it a big advantage over any mainstream intel processor.

Show me an Intel Pentium4 processor costing £60 which could hope to beat my 2.5ghz Athlon XP!

"The results speak for themselves. High performance doesn't necessarily have to be limited to the Athlon 64 or top-end Pentium 4 CPUs. What's more, it can be achieved with a £70 CPU."

Look at the xp2500 mobile beat a 3ghz Pentium4!




As for high end, well the Athlon64 3400+ is in a class of it's own because Intel doesn't have a 64bit processor!

 

[Jeff7181]

This again?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
The title of this topic is "Do we still have situations where Intel processor is superior?":-

If your talking about the budget section then AMD wins hands down because the Celeron processor is only able to run office applications and abit of internet surfing. The AMD Duron on the other hand also offers good gaming performance which the Celeron lacks.

"It is very obvious from these tests which line of budget processors is worth the money. When we can find a 1.6GHz Duron for just over half the price of a 2.6GHz Celeron and get better performance consistently in almost every test we ran, the choice is clear."

Budget CPU Shootout: Clash of the 'rons





If your talking mainstream then yeah Intel have some good P4 products however the xp2500 mobile can do 2.4ghz-2.5ghz easily which ofcourse would give it a big advantage over any mainstream intel processor.

Show me an Intel Pentium4 processor costing £60 which could hope to beat my 2.5ghz Athlon XP!

"The results speak for themselves. High performance doesn't necessarily have to be limited to the Athlon 64 or top-end Pentium 4 CPUs. What's more, it can be achieved with a £70 CPU."

Look at the xp2500 mobile beat a 3ghz Pentium4!




As for high end, well the Athlon64 3400+ is in a class of it's own because Intel doesn't have a 64bit processor!

Ya you should crank it to 2.6. I think you guys on the other side of the lake ar'nt getting the good steppings. I had an email discussion with Tim Smally, author of another mobile baton review (GB based) and he said you're not getting IQYHA's and IQYFA's. I offered to broker him one but he found one in continental europe. He was fascinated by the overclocks the guys over at overclockers forums are getting. Anyway no doubt the moblie bartons are p/p king. But if you want HT and a bit more performance the 2.8C is also an excellent value. (overclocked of course)

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
The title of this topic is "Do we still have situations where Intel processor is superior?":-

If your talking about the budget section then AMD wins hands down because the Celeron processor is only able to run office applications and abit of internet surfing. The AMD Duron on the other hand also offers good gaming performance which the Celeron lacks.

"It is very obvious from these tests which line of budget processors is worth the money. When we can find a 1.6GHz Duron for just over half the price of a 2.6GHz Celeron and get better performance consistently in almost every test we ran, the choice is clear."

Budget CPU Shootout: Clash of the 'rons





If your talking mainstream then yeah Intel have some good P4 products however the xp2500 mobile can do 2.4ghz-2.5ghz easily which ofcourse would give it a big advantage over any mainstream intel processor.

Show me an Intel Pentium4 processor costing £60 which could hope to beat my 2.5ghz Athlon XP!

"The results speak for themselves. High performance doesn't necessarily have to be limited to the Athlon 64 or top-end Pentium 4 CPUs. What's more, it can be achieved with a £70 CPU."

Look at the xp2500 mobile beat a 3ghz Pentium4!




As for high end, well the Athlon64 3400+ is in a class of it's own because Intel doesn't have a 64bit processor!

Ya you should crank it to 2.6. I think you guys on the other side of the lake ar'nt getting the good steppings. I had an email discussion with Tim Smally, author of another mobile baton review (GB based) and he said you're not getting IQYHA's and IQYFA's. I offered to broker him one but he found one in continental europe. He was fascinated by the overclocks the guys over at overclockers forums are getting. Anyway no doubt the moblie bartons are p/p king. But if you want HT and a bit more performance the 2.8C is also an excellent value. (overclocked of course)

BTW my xp2500-m is:- iqyha0402tpmw

I know I could push it abit harder but it's running really well at 2.5ghz and it doesn't get hotter than 42c!

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
This again?

Why not?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
This again?

Why not?

Yeah... you're right... I guess there's nothing better to do... there's just not much left of this horse... few parts still laying around on the ground... I guess you can take a few whacks at those...

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
This again?

Why not?

Yeah... you're right... I guess there's nothing better to do... there's just not much left of this horse... few parts still laying around on the ground... I guess you can take a few whacks at those...