• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Intel VS AMD

S

spiky6667

Banned

Ok I know this might sound stupid,

But my friend has An AMD XP2000 and he rekons his cpu his better than the Intel Northwood, and I say yeah right, but I would like to know the truth,

which has better performance,
which is better value..

I know Im just try to start a fight here !


INTEL rule. HAHA
 
Well, currently avalible fastest AthlonXP and P4/NW are about same performance-wise. There's numerous of reviews avalible about them, why don't you go read some...
 
It all depends if you overclock. If you overclock a northwood to around 2.3ghz (133fsb) you kill any Athlon out right now.

 
OK. Since fighting was mentioned. FOX recently debuted celebrity boxing. If we had an AMD vs Intel matchup - who would be in the ring representing each?
 


<< It all depends if you overclock. If you overclock a Northwood to around 2.3ghz (133fsb) you kill any Athlon out right now. >>

Kill? How about beat it in benchmarks that really don't reflect your everyday use of your system. It's gotten to the point where on all but a handful of apps there really isnt that big of a difference. P4 Northwoods run cooler, the XP's are faster per MHZ (and hotter) The XP 2000+ is actually it's performance rating as it only runs at 1.67 GHZ yet it keeps pace with a P4 Northwood which runs at 2.2 GHZ.
 


<< OK. Since fighting was mentioned. FOX recently debuted celebrity boxing. If we had an AMD vs Intel matchup - who would be in the ring representing each? >>

Back in the mid-90's Intel and AMD engineers used to have a paintball evening where we'd play a variety of indoor paintball games like elimination and "capture the flag". It started using only "newhires", but a lot of the first year newhires showed up every year. It ran for 2 or 3 years. Intel always got pummelled - although the 3rd year we enforced a rule that we all used the same bad (rental) weapons and that match was a lot closer.

As far as the original question - there are a lot of benchmarks out there in various articles. It should be easy to find a few which prove either point of view. To which you can then get into the arguement of which is the "better" benchmark.
 


<< Back in the mid-90's Intel and AMD engineers used to have a paintball day where we'd play a variety of indoor paintball games like elimination and capture the flag. It ran for 2 or 3 years. Intel always got pummelled - although the 3rd year we enforced a rule that we all used the same bad (rental) weapons and it was a lot closer.
>>



HAHA, AMD's geeks are better shots than Intel's geeks!

😀
 


<< HAHA, AMD's geeks are better shots than Intel's geeks! >>

It certainly was true that they had some great paintball players. We got slaughtered the first and second years - we practiced the third year and evened out the equipment rules and it was very close. But the first year, they actually sent some guys from their team onto ours (we gave them some blue Intel t-shirts to wear) to make it a little more even because it was such a slaughter.
 
That's a cool story PM! Now I think it'd be best if this thread dies a quick death 😉
 
Hopefully if everything goes through well with my engineering degrees. I could help out team Intel as I am a semi pro paintball player on team Beach Paintball, although I don't know if I could deal with rental equipment, knowing that I have an angel sitting at home.
 
not usually, i rarely nef. i meant to post actual content too 😉. the non-nef part of that post was supposed to be:

regarding "better" benchmarks, think about which applications you plan on running. although intel chips are faster at quake and divx encoding, I do neither. AMD chips were (are?) faster at Unreal Tournament, which I do play, so in my case, UTBench would be a better benchmark. in both 3dsmax and linux kernel compiles the athlon was also faster, and I play with 3dsmax/compile a lot. at the time of my purchase, I would have had to pay a significant amount more for an equivalent P3 in the benchmarks that interested me (this was at the time of an athlon 700).

so... think about what you plan on using the computer for. If you do a lot of DiVX encoding, that is a better benchmark. if you dont ever do it, it can be treated with the same value of a synthetic benchmark: almost zero.



<< I think you are a nef >>

 
I've looked at more benchmarks of the two processors than most. The Pentium 4 is all about bandwidth and Intel-specific optimization SSE2. On FPU work in particular it can do half the work per clock than AMD chips i.e. Sandra 2002 without SSE2. That isn't just a selective reading of an unrepresentative few benchmarks. Any site that uses FPU intensive software that isn't the latest beta finds that so.
sciencemark
COSBI and FPUmark99
[Other applications]http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000285[/l]
Now games use a lot of bandwidth, and the graphics cards manufacturers work at such a pace that they can incorporate SSE2 into their drivers. But otherwise, software takes a long time to develop, and much of it is very expensive compared to the processor alone. I don't see myself replacing perfectly good software with a new version to support a specific processor. Sure, if you play FPS games and rip movies and mp3s the Pentium 4 is just fine. But if you want to get serious with developing a project or using SMP, the Athlons are the way to go now.
The common P4 review spoils balance where they:
a) concentrate on games
b) quote Sysmark 2001 from Bapco and 3DMark2001. Bapco are part of Intel, their address has always been the same. Madonion are also affiliated. Sysmark 2001 attempts to simulate multitasking by running a version of WME in the background that will not use any optimization for AMD chips.
c) use WME not patched for AMD optimization
d) use very latest applications and betas not representative of what users may own, in their desire to appear current.

There is not need to become distressed if you have a Pentium 4 and are satisfied in it. The above is a simple distillation of the facts. To deny them would be to deny all the experiences of the Pentium 4 that run in parallel with these published reviews from several sites. Processors are a tool to be judged on performance and value, they are not cybernetic freudian attachments.
 
IN short, AMD is faster when you buy it and use it like that. However, if you overclock and i dont see why the hell you would leave free performance alone, the Northwood is faster. I dont want to go into details.
 
Does it really make that much of a difference as far as performance? For even the heaviest variations as far as the benchmarks, the top models have a performance difference of, on average, 10% maybe. This is, of course, providing a wide-array of benchmarks from FPU intensive tasks to Q3A. The arguement is really moot when it comes to "better processor". It's subjective and anyone who would claim their opinion as absolute as far as "this one is better" probably also think Pepsi is an abomination and Coke is a drink of the gods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top