Is AMD misrepresenting the comparison chart ?

[designit]

Is AMD misrepresenting the comparison chart or am I wrong?
I went to AMD website and saw a link to their comparison table.
They show AMD CPU and Intel?s side by side. Everything looked right until I scrolled to the bottom of the table that shows the Memory/CPU bandwidth.
Under AMD it shows 8GB/s for CPU and 6.4GB/s for the RAM and adding it up to give a total of 14.4GB/s(6.4+8). But adjacent to this figure you see Intel?s 6.4GB/s for CPU and no number for the RAM. I then went to Intel?s site and found out that Intel?s lowest Memory is 6.4?GB/s for dual, up to 8.5 for 533 RAM.. Adding the CPU and 400MHZ Ram gave me 12.8GB/s(14.9GB/s for 533RAM). I got a bit confused why AMD only shows Intel?s CPU Bandwidth in their comparison chart. I went to other links there for other AMD CPU?s comparison tables, and everywhere I went it shows both bandwidth for AMD but only CPU Bandwidth for Intel.
I brought this up to their customers service attention but as of yet (3 weeks) no reply from them. I also went to their forum and brought this subject to member?s attention in a questioning format. Immediately after 20 viewers and no respond My post was gone, no trace of it. Again I posted the question but this post was also eliminated from the forum.
I would really appreciate it if you enlighten me on why AMD comparison tables only shows Intel?s CPU bandwidth but under AMD column both bandwidth?s are noted.
I also would appreciate it if any of you go post on their forum and see if your post regarding this will be eliminated or stays. the links to AMD tables below
Thanks

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...ion/0,,30_118_9485_13041^13042,00.html

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...ation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^9492,00.html

 

[Hacp]

You don't add the CPU and the ram, since Intel uses the Front side bus system which uses the northbridge to communicate between the ram and the processor. AMD's controller is internal, so thats why you add the CPU plus RAM. Its a known fact that AMD has more bandwith than Intel does. AMD did not misrepresent THAT much, although I do agree that they should include DDR2 533 at least. I hope this enlightens you a little bit.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The comparison chart is pointless except for marketing, the only part of it that really matters is the thermal difference (110 max vs. 130 max).

Click the CPU tab at the top of this page and read an article or two to see the real-world performance differences.

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: Hacp
You don't add the CPU and the ram, since Intel uses the Front side bus system which uses the northbridge to communicate between the ram and the processor. AMD's controller is internal, so thats why you add the CPU plus RAM. Its a known fact that AMD has more bandwith than Intel does. AMD did not misrepresent THAT much, although I do agree that they should include DDR2 533 at least. I hope this enlightens you a little bit.

Then Intel is misrepresenting according to what you say. I have seen on intel site or dell, that both,CPU and Ram bandwidth's are added up to give final total 12.8 on 400MHZ Ram.
Let me provide you the link...when i find it.
Thanks

 

[DaveSimmons]

From your other thread it looks like you aren't really interested in performance, just in "proving" that intel is "better."

It is for video encoding, if that's what you care most about having top speed at.

It is, for heavy mutlitasking of many CPU-intensive tasks at once, given cheaper (but slow) dual-core and given slower per-application single-core that pulls ahead in multitasking via HT.

For pretty much every other application, and most especially for gaming, intel offers less performance per dollar spent.

 

[Hacp]

Ya, I just clicked on the actual links and I realiezed how exagerated AMD was being. They mentioned hypertransport but didn't mention hyperthreading. They also only took ddr into account, not ddr2. And finally, they said put negative comments on very neutral items, like limited Motherboard support. But hey, thats marketing. Intel does it too.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Ya, I just clicked on the actual links and I realiezed how exagerated AMD was being. They mentioned hypertransport but didn't mention hyperthreading. They also only took ddr into account, not ddr2. And finally, they said put negative comments on very neutral items, like limited Motherboard support. But hey, thats marketing. Intel does it too.

Only the $1,000 P4 dualie offers hyperthreading, intel disabled it in the cheaper ones.

 

[Hacp]

So? In the next one comparing AMD 64 to Intel, AMD mentions that they have SSE3 support for 754, yet fail to mention that it is only in semprons. Also in that page, Hyperthreading isn't mentioned, yet they manage to mention the integrated memory controller twice (Northbridge+integrated memory controller. Almost the same thing) No ones perfect, and both companines leave information out to trick you. Its just that AMD has the better product right now, thats why people are supporting it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Agreed hyperthreading belonged on the _second_ link (but not the first) if AMD's marketing department was interested in a complete listing of differences instead of just differences that favored them.

I also agree on the " both companines leave information out to trick you," that's sadly part of the definition of marketing.

 

[Some1ne]

I agree, both sides are going to play things in their favor...that's why it pays to get information from third-party sites like anandtech and tomshardware which do not put (nearly as much) partisan spin on things, rather than trying to dig up information from the chip companies themselves.

 

[designit]

DaveSimmons
820D does not need hyperthreading that much since it is dual. The benchmark I see shows there is not much of a factor. And Hyperthreading is in all new Intel's P4, the cheapest being p4 520 at about $175.
Look I am not here to downgrade AMD and promote Intel.
I tell you this , if AMD's dual was at about $220 I probably would buy it instead. I like this idea of dual core and the new 64 OS.
The irony is when way back Intel was more expensive and performed better, many bought AMD for lesser performance and cost.
Today I see the reverse side of this. Intel's dual is cheaper, be it AMD in many area's perform better but expensive. So, why are so many here p offed when I am applying the same concept= cheaper and does better than AMD single CPU so I am interested in it. What is wrong with that?
If some of you were objective you would have agreed and give me and others better advise for my money.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The P4 duals are definitely a better value, but only for a very small set of users. The right way to look at them is as special-purpose chips rather than general-use.

Certain people want to run one CPU-intensive task (usually encoding to divx, or downloading infringement content from P2P) while also playing games that only place a moderate load on the other CPU core. Some few other users run niche SMP-aware applications like rendering.

For that one class of user, a P4 D-820 with 2x2.8 GHz at $248 is a great deal. Gaming will only be as fast as an $83 Sempron, and you'll pay $100+ extra for the motherboard and memory, but you'll have the second core do other things while you game. If 2.8 GHz gaming is too slow you could instead pay $332 for 3.0x2 D-830.

Many more users only multitask lightly or not at all while they game and don't really need a second core. For them, a single A64 offers a much better value since $193 buys you an A64 3200+ that offers a huge jump in gaming power over the 820, and beats the 830 and 840 as well.

For people wanting even better gaming performance, $267 buys them a 3500+.

People right now are starting to think dual even though the task they usually most need speed for (games) takes a tremendous drop in price / performance vs. buying single core.