Is Intel really all that bad?

[Gamingphreek]

intels 6 series runs very cool, just as cool or COOLER than an A64, when you start ocing, that sucker starts getting hot.

THere is no other way to say; "You are full of crap if you believe that". Like i said earlier, the Single Core Intel chiops at Idle have a higher TDP than an A X2 at full load.

I definitely would not put the Intel chipsets above the Nforce chipsets. Maybe the 865 and 875 back against Nforce 220 and what not but not now.

BOna Fide, i never flamed you. HIghlight in my post where i flamed you, or insulted you.

-Kevin

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
If you're a heavy multi-tasker and you had only the choice of a single-core cpu, Intel 6xx series every day.

This is exactly the reason Intel is worthless to most AT users.

Why would we spend more money on something that is only better in *HEAVY* multitasking and P4 optimized encoding/decoding applications?

Why, when we can pay 1/2 as much for something that is overall faster in 90% of applications???

Boggles my mind when I keep hearing the Intel/AMD debate. AMD has won, get over it. Intel, start making better chips.

EDIT: Better chips at a lower price is what I meant. Well, maybe not...

Okay. At stock voltage, what could your Venice oc to? Now, how would that compare to my Intel 640 @ 4ghz at stock voltage 1.4v in all applications. Win 90%? LOL

Boggles your mind b/c you don't have an open-mind.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

intels 6 series runs very cool, just as cool or COOLER than an A64, when you start ocing, that sucker starts getting hot.

THere is no other way to say; "You are full of crap if you believe that". Like i said earlier, the Single Core Intel chiops at Idle have a higher TDP than an A X2 at full load.

I definitely would not put the Intel chipsets above the Nforce chipsets. Maybe the 865 and 875 back against Nforce 220 and what not but not now.

BOna Fide, i never flamed you. HIghlight in my post where i flamed you, or insulted you.

-Kevin

nVidia Chipsets/Drivers still have a number of bugs. I just updated my Nvidia drivers to the new ones released today and it hosed my whole system. If I didn't have my laptop, I would have been forced to do a complete reinstall.

If you go to the motherboard forums, numbers of folks have raid, sata, ide issues due to the nVidia chipsets. Go to any other forum at this site or any other, do you find folks having issues with their Intel chipsets? Let me know.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

intels 6 series runs very cool, just as cool or COOLER than an A64, when you start ocing, that sucker starts getting hot.

THere is no other way to say; "You are full of crap if you believe that". Like i said earlier, the Single Core Intel chiops at Idle have a higher TDP than an A X2 at full load.

I definitely would not put the Intel chipsets above the Nforce chipsets. Maybe the 865 and 875 back against Nforce 220 and what not but not now.

BOna Fide, i never flamed you. HIghlight in my post where i flamed you, or insulted you.

-Kevin

I think you might be full of crap. I did a google search and found this interesting graph that shows that Intel 630-650 have the same TDP as an A64. However, they do say "Tests have shown that comparable Intel values would be 10% to 15% higher to be comparable with AMD?s TDP values - or the other way around." Even then, the TDP's of the Intel 630, 640 and 650 are pretty good.
Manufacturer Specified Thermal Design Power

Full Article

Again, I think you're lumping all Intel processors into the same boat when it's not true. If you can provide me a link that proves your point, please do. Thx

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

intels 6 series runs very cool, just as cool or COOLER than an A64, when you start ocing, that sucker starts getting hot.

THere is no other way to say; "You are full of crap if you believe that". Like i said earlier, the Single Core Intel chiops at Idle have a higher TDP than an A X2 at full load.

I definitely would not put the Intel chipsets above the Nforce chipsets. Maybe the 865 and 875 back against Nforce 220 and what not but not now.

BOna Fide, i never flamed you. HIghlight in my post where i flamed you, or insulted you.

-Kevin

I think you might be full of crap. I did a google search and found this interesting graph that shows that Intel 630-650 have the same TDP as an A64. However, they do say "Tests have shown that comparable Intel values would be 10% to 15% higher to be comparable with AMD?s TDP values - or the other way around." Even then, the TDP's of the Intel 630, 640 and 650 are pretty good.
Manufacturer Specified Thermal Design Power

Full Article

Again, I think you're lumping all Intel processors into the same boat when it's not true. If you can provide me a link that proves your point, please do. Thx

No offense Caveman and I dont mean to single you out or anything but I'd like to provide a link to something that kinda disproves what you are saying, it's one of the few intelligent articles to come out of Toms Hardware, http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/20050713/energy_crisis-15.html

Good article especially concerning cost and noticed how much power those Pentium 6XX series uses? ALOT more than the A64

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

intels 6 series runs very cool, just as cool or COOLER than an A64, when you start ocing, that sucker starts getting hot.

THere is no other way to say; "You are full of crap if you believe that". Like i said earlier, the Single Core Intel chiops at Idle have a higher TDP than an A X2 at full load.

I definitely would not put the Intel chipsets above the Nforce chipsets. Maybe the 865 and 875 back against Nforce 220 and what not but not now.

BOna Fide, i never flamed you. HIghlight in my post where i flamed you, or insulted you.

-Kevin

I think you might be full of crap. I did a google search and found this interesting graph that shows that Intel 630-650 have the same TDP as an A64. However, they do say "Tests have shown that comparable Intel values would be 10% to 15% higher to be comparable with AMD?s TDP values - or the other way around." Even then, the TDP's of the Intel 630, 640 and 650 are pretty good.
Manufacturer Specified Thermal Design Power

Full Article

Again, I think you're lumping all Intel processors into the same boat when it's not true. If you can provide me a link that proves your point, please do. Thx

No offense Caveman and I dont mean to single you out or anything but I'd like to provide a link to something that kinda disproves what you are saying, it's one of the few intelligent articles to come out of Toms Hardware, http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/20050713/energy_crisis-15.html

Good article especially concerning cost and noticed how much power those Pentium 6XX series uses? ALOT more than the A64

Thanks for the link but that is a 660 that they're using for testing. And from what I've posted, the 660 is in a different TDP class than the 630, 640 and 650. As I said earlier, you can't lump all Intel cpus as hot pieces of crap.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

intels 6 series runs very cool, just as cool or COOLER than an A64, when you start ocing, that sucker starts getting hot.

THere is no other way to say; "You are full of crap if you believe that". Like i said earlier, the Single Core Intel chiops at Idle have a higher TDP than an A X2 at full load.

I definitely would not put the Intel chipsets above the Nforce chipsets. Maybe the 865 and 875 back against Nforce 220 and what not but not now.

BOna Fide, i never flamed you. HIghlight in my post where i flamed you, or insulted you.

-Kevin

I think you might be full of crap. I did a google search and found this interesting graph that shows that Intel 630-650 have the same TDP as an A64. However, they do say "Tests have shown that comparable Intel values would be 10% to 15% higher to be comparable with AMD?s TDP values - or the other way around." Even then, the TDP's of the Intel 630, 640 and 650 are pretty good.
Manufacturer Specified Thermal Design Power

Full Article

Again, I think you're lumping all Intel processors into the same boat when it's not true. If you can provide me a link that proves your point, please do. Thx

I thought Intel and AMD rate their processors differently. I thought AMD's spec means the processor will never exceed the wattage given if it's running at default voltage and speed. And I thought Intel gave the typical, meaning that's the norm, but not the max. So while the FX-55 is rated at 104 watts, and the Pentium 4 670 is rated at 115 watts... the FX-55 will never exceed 104 watts under the heaviest load possible... but the P4 670 will typically put out 115 watts under loads, and possibly more under heavy loads.
(assuming stock clock speeds and voltages of course)

 

[Capt Caveman]

Jeff, you are correct.

"The TDP values Intel is specifying are not actually the maximum power dissipation but instead are targets for cooling design. AMD however gives the maximum power a processor is dissipating under worst conditions. Tests have shown that comparable Intel values would be 10% to 15% higher to be comparable with AMD?s TDP values - or the other way around."

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

intels 6 series runs very cool, just as cool or COOLER than an A64, when you start ocing, that sucker starts getting hot.

THere is no other way to say; "You are full of crap if you believe that". Like i said earlier, the Single Core Intel chiops at Idle have a higher TDP than an A X2 at full load.

I definitely would not put the Intel chipsets above the Nforce chipsets. Maybe the 865 and 875 back against Nforce 220 and what not but not now.

BOna Fide, i never flamed you. HIghlight in my post where i flamed you, or insulted you.

-Kevin

Actually, I think he's right. If memory serves me correct, I read a review (probably AT) that covered the new series. Their idle temps were a lot lower over the 5xx series. They did some heavy tweaking on power savings. However, once you start overclockng, it nullified the power savings, so thus the temps started to go up quite a bit like an older Prescott would. I may be wrong, since I'm only going off memory here. Someone else ought to know.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: BouZouki

I also get an AWSOME chipset, probably better than the Nforce chipset, not as much as it used to though.

Some things intel has a bad rep about is temps, wrong, intels 6 series runs very cool, just as cool or COOLER than an A64, when you start ocing, that sucker starts getting hot.

bullsh!t. My winnchester runs at 53C max load (F@H 24/7) with 1.6vcore on stock cooling. If you can get a prescott to run that cool at default with stock I'd be suprised. System temps are 36C too.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/L3p3rM355i4h/loadtemps.JPG

proof.

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

intels 6 series runs very cool, just as cool or COOLER than an A64, when you start ocing, that sucker starts getting hot.

THere is no other way to say; "You are full of crap if you believe that". Like i said earlier, the Single Core Intel chiops at Idle have a higher TDP than an A X2 at full load.

I definitely would not put the Intel chipsets above the Nforce chipsets. Maybe the 865 and 875 back against Nforce 220 and what not but not now.

BOna Fide, i never flamed you. HIghlight in my post where i flamed you, or insulted you.

-Kevin

Most of you probably dont even own a 6 series P4.

Do you own a x955 or x915 chipset?

I own a Winchester, P4, and an old S754 Clawhammer 3400+, one of the first A64's.

Just because you have been "brainwashed" that ALL P4's are hot, thats to bad.

Yes, some versions of the Prescott core run very hot, I will not disagree on that but the latest 6 series does no longer have this problem, there have been many prescott cores, 5 series, 6 series, etc.

You think the Nforce is better than Intel chipsets?

BS, complete BS.

I'm not saying the Nforce is bad, I actually think its FANTASTIC BUT, the Intel chipset is also VERY good, it is on par or better than the Nforce, very stable and no overclocking issues.

Call it all BS if you like but I stand by my post:

*The 6 series isn't as bad as people think

*The 6 series is not as hot as people think

*The 6 series is not that far behind gaming wise

*The A64 is the best for gaming and the best bang for your buck CPU

*Intel is excellent at multitasking, HT is excellent

*DDR2 has dropped in price and is now affordable, it's timmings have reduced to lets say, 3-2-2 which isnt that bad.

*If you play at 1600x or 1920x, the cpu will not play as large as a role making the P4 even closer or equal to the A64 gaming wise and you will get the great multitasking of the P4.

But hey, it's all BS so whatever.

EDIT: I should have mentioned, I run all my CPU's with either XP-90's or XP-120's, I can't give you temps with the stock heat sink, I can tell you that the 6 series and A64 temps are not far apart, not at all... And I have seen a 5 series prescott before, the temps were higher no doubt. Bottom line, the 6 series is cooler than the 5 series and previous versions.


EDIT2: Many people complain about power drawage, I cant argue with that but I will say, EVERYONE should have a GOOD PSU, always, one of the most importent things in your system, I always equip my PC's with high quality PSU's so I could care less about power, with 7800GTX's and SLI, and other high end hardware sucking so much juice, who shouldn't have a powerfull PSU when running a top natch system?

 

[Leper Messiah]

power draw directly correlates to heat. That energy has to go somewhere...

and you still didn't show me a prescott running cooler than my overjuiced winchester on stock.

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
power draw directly correlates to heat. That energy has to go somewhere...

and you still didn't show me a prescott running cooler than my overjuiced winchester on stock.

Google?

07/16/2005 03:40 AM, i'm not going to show you pics this time to convince you, thats why I reccomend google, google is your friend.

Then again, I dont blame you for not believing me.

Most of the people here run AMD, probably dont own Intel.

I love both my A64 and Intel, I have seen most people can reach near or pass 4 ghz with the 6 series, I love using this machine to rip DVD's.

Try an Intel and feel the smoothness, you will feel it.

It does start getting hot when you start pumping voltage through them.

 

[Leper Messiah]

IDK why you say AMD's aren't, I have 4 IMs open, 8 IE windows, I'm folding, and WMP. No lag...

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
IDK why you say AMD's aren't, I have 4 IMs open, 8 IE windows, I'm folding, and WMP. No lag...

They're fine for light multi-tasking, but when you get a CPU intense application running it tends to hog CPU time and the Windows task scheduler allows it to unless you've set the CPU intense application to low priority.

 

[Leper Messiah]

*cough* F@H *cough*

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
*cough* F@H *cough*

*cough* low priority *cough*

 

[Leper Messiah]

nope. CPU is constantly pegged.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

nVidia Chipsets/Drivers still have a number of bugs. I just updated my Nvidia drivers to the new ones released today and it hosed my whole system. If I didn't have my laptop, I would have been forced to do a complete reinstall.

If you go to the motherboard forums, numbers of folks have raid, sata, ide issues due to the nVidia chipsets. Go to any other forum at this site or any other, do you find folks having issues with their Intel chipsets? Let me know.

You mean besides the Intel chipsets that were recalled? I've had a few issues, yes...some very serious.
I too had a crash with the new Nvidia drivers...then I figured out that it was pilot error...
I let it update my audio when I don't have Nvidia audio on-board...though I think they should have disabled that, it was still my own damned fault.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Matt2
My Xp-90 should be here any day.

When it gets here, you better believe I'll be running 2.8GHZ. Then your friend and I will compare numbers.

I paid $140 for my chip and I can only assume he paid at least $210-$250

Plus, I'll bet there are a lot more 3000+ Venice chips out there @ 2.6-2.8GHZ than there are P4s @ 4GHZ+

Almost all 600 series pentium 4s will do 4ghz+ with the right setup. Ive personally seen 1 that wont. (ive seen 6 above 4.0)

 

[TStep]

My opinion on the OP's title question: No, I don't think Intel is bad at all.

I'm not sure of the age demographic here, but when you look back even just 10 years and see what has accomplished, it is truly astonishing. The problem when asking a question such as this on the boards is that the responses will be in direct comparison to the competitor, not the overall performance in general. When looking at the performance of the P4 in comparison to any offering from 5 years ago, there is a substantial jump in performance.

No doubt, AMD has the upper hand in performance (especially on the gaming front), but AMD also seems to be slowly moving away from the $50 wonderchip as well, and getting what the cpu's are worth. IMHO, the AMD buyer is moving from "95% performance of an Intel setup for 60% of it's cost" more toward "slightly more performance at the same cost". I believe this is the way the general consensus of the board feels. Therefor, when your question is asked, it is analyzed not in the context of general performance, but under the microscope of the performance differences. So the response will invariably be in favor of AMD. My 2 cents.

<--------Have owned, currently own, and will continue to own at least one system of each flavor.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
IDK why you say AMD's aren't, I have 4 IMs open, 8 IE windows, I'm folding, and WMP. No lag...

LMAO. Of course you don't have any lag, you're not really multi-tasking. Yes, your cpu is running at 100% but F@H is a low priority process. Thus, when anything else needs more processing power, F@H stops running and gives up the cpu draw. How about trying to encode some video, running a sql database w/ 8 connections to the internet updating and querying the database, AIM, 10 firefox tabs, folding and seti(both of which aren't really doing anything, low priority).

You obviously haven't used a cpu w/ hyperthreading. And my 640 (w/ XP-120 not stock cooler) ran much cooler than your cpu at load, 44-46c.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Zebo
And yea they are pretty lame. Use lots of power run hot and many guys need water cooling to get them to run 100% when OCing.

<PLONK>

Wrong. Only biased AMD users who have no clue how to use Intel chips would have issues like that

Now, seriously. Prescott-2 (6xx series) are not that bad. They do run hotter and use more juice than A64 but they are both faster and cooler than the 5xx series (original Prescott).

And sorry, there are TONS of 4GHz+ running on AIR... Thanks for playing!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
THere is no other way to say; "You are full of crap if you believe that". Like i said earlier, the Single Core Intel chiops at Idle have a higher TDP than an A X2 at full load.

Lies, Lies, and more lies. TDP isn't specified by load.

I definitely would not put the Intel chipsets above the Nforce chipsets. Maybe the 865 and 875 back against Nforce 220 and what not but not now.

Suit yourself. Anyone with half a brain knows Intel chipsets are the benchmark by which all others are measured. Nvidia? Come on.

 

[spazo]

Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
power draw directly correlates to heat. That energy has to go somewhere...

and you still didn't show me a prescott running cooler than my overjuiced winchester on stock.

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=9&artpage=1199&articID=245