The reason why Intel is better than AMD

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Brunnis


Why buy a slower and hotter CPU, if the total cost at the system's end of life will be the same as the faster and cooler one? It makes no sense at all.

Exactly.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Faxtor
Check these benchmarks out between the Pentium D 805 and X2 3800 overclocked! This should stop all the senseless bickering.

Pentium D 805 vs X2 3800

Props for finding a benchmark. I couldn't find one outside of HKEPC which only featured Smithfields.

I'm a little surprised the X2@2.5 beat the 805@3.8 on so many benchmarks, including everything that wasn't related to PCMark. Definitely better bang/buck on the X2, or even a 920 I'll bet.

 

[mhahnheuser]

The 805 is only Intel's sweetner to get user's accross to dual core platform. It's not a serious competitor for the Athlon 3800, it's performance even against the i630 is lamentable due to the halving of the cache being split between the cores. Hyperthreading is ok in that its cheap and has some dual core advantage. The huge no's of them do give Chipzilla a leading edge in driving the software market to multi threaded apps compared to the comparative lul in 64 bit software development. We have both the 630 (SLI config) and X2 3800 (AGP) here and performance between the systems is neck and neck. Both setups are expensive and in my experience hardly of any use for the average Jo Blow. The 630 though is hot, bloody hot, you nearly need to call the fire brigade when you fire it up. 2 X PCIE cards and 2 X SATA 2.0 HDD's add to the inferno. But believe me it goes. It's rock stable, and believe it or not clocks up to 3.6 on air, and will throttle back if it gets too hot. We'll be testing both sytems with simultaneous CAD rendering and CD burning operations, as we beleive that this is enough to crash a Hyperthreaded CPU, we'll see how a genuine dual core handles this. I'm only interested in the gaming benchmarks, the only rendering I do is around the house, so some seconds here or there is of no consequence, the only PC I want to know about is the one that can be most easily upgraded to add new technologies to, so needing only to change CPU and Mobo to upgrade from Socket A 2800+ tickles me the right way. Now I can get some extra juice out of my great AGP card. And the 2800+ ain't no slouch either, if it had 64 bit and or dual core or even hyperthreading, or AMD did the decent thing and released some 400 MHz FSB Semprons, I'd have kept the bloody thing it alittle longer. But I guess that's why they didn't.

 

[Bobthelost]

The purpose of the 805 isn't to compete against the 3800X2, it's to grab the crowd of people who want a cheap dual core CPU. As such it's a fairly good buy, there simply isn't a comparable AMD chip at the moment.

As to the higher costs of running a P4, if you're a casual user and not running folding @ home then it's negligable.

 

[nyker96]

well what do you expect it's for sales people. Probably made by a sell's person who makes up some nice sounding stats for the presentation. It's not about truth, it's about business and lies are allowed tactics as long as us consumers believes it. That's why you hardly wanna talk to a sale's dude if you get some real facts on your own elsewhere.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Tux, it's an issue now because somehow, Intel's low-end dual core processor winds up chewing up more power while providing less performance than AMD's low-end dual-core processor. People, well some people anyway, tolerated the infamous "space heater" 1.4 ghz Thunderbirds because they smoked every P3 ever made AND the 1.4 and 1.6 ghz Williamette P4s. People paid the power bills willingly for the performance. Traditionally, low-end CPUs cost less to buy AND less to operate because they had low clock speeds. Thanks to the Prescott-era Netburst implementations, that has changed.

There is no reason to buy a "budget" processor with inferior performance if that proc is gonna hit you in the wallet over the life of the proc. Even at an estimated $2-$4 per month of electrical costs, it makes no sense to get an 805 over an x2-3800+, especially when budget PC-buyers often hold on to hardware for long periods of time. It's not unheard-of for people to own the same box and same hardware for years on end.

Would it also be reasonable to expect that the target audience for these budget processors wouldn't be the same people who fold 24/7 (which is where the $2-4 number comes from)

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Would it also be reasonable to expect that the target audience for these budget processors wouldn't be the same people who fold 24/7 (which is where the $2-4 number comes from)

The target market for the 805 is very small indeed (that is it would be if it weren't for consumers ignorance on CPUs).
1. First, dual core doesn't make it better...with the exception of a very small number of circumstances.
2. For the desktop and workstation, the 805 should probably be compared to the Sempron...the Sempron 3400+ sells for 15-20% less and probably performs better in single threaded apps and worse in multi-threaded apps. So unless someone is multitasking all of the time (extremely rare at this price point) the 805 would be a poor choice.
3. The only market where the 805 shines (and what it was probably designed for) is the bargain basement server that runs multithreaded apps. I would bet that Dell had a lot of input into this chip, as this is their biggest server market (IIRC, Dell sold fewer than 10 servers priced over $50k in all of last year).

 

[DVK916]

Well their Core Duo seems to be very competitive. At a price/performance point of view it beats the X2. Perclock it is about just as fast, but price wise it is much cheaper.

 

[openwheelformula1]

Core Dual is promising and may be an good indication of things to come. Add EM64T and give me a reasonable priced motherboard and I am all over it. Currently they are still priced too high. $250 for 1.66ghz, $300 for 1.83ghz and $400 for 2.0ghz. (Newegg)

 

[mhahnheuser]

Originally posted by: DVK916
Well their Core Duo seems to be very competitive. At a price/performance point of view it beats the X2. Perclock it is about just as fast, but price wise it is much cheaper.

Quite right, and Intel know they have found AMD's Achillie's heel in that they are making Dual core very sexy and the thing to have, and AMD can't respond as they're in process of die shrinking and getting to 300mm wafers in their fabs so aren't able to match Intel's aggressive pricing strategy with the X2. Best form of defense is attack, isn't it?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Would it also be reasonable to expect that the target audience for these budget processors wouldn't be the same people who fold 24/7 (which is where the $2-4 number comes from)

The target market for the 805 is very small indeed (that is it would be if it weren't for consumers ignorance on CPUs).
1. First, dual core doesn't make it better...with the exception of a very small number of circumstances.
2. For the desktop and workstation, the 805 should probably be compared to the Sempron...the Sempron 3400+ sells for 15-20% less and probably performs better in single threaded apps and worse in multi-threaded apps. So unless someone is multitasking all of the time (extremely rare at this price point) the 805 would be a poor choice.
3. The only market where the 805 shines (and what it was probably designed for) is the bargain basement server that runs multithreaded apps. I would bet that Dell had a lot of input into this chip, as this is their biggest server market (IIRC, Dell sold fewer than 10 servers priced over $50k in all of last year).

1. I'm still a believer that a dual core cpu will allow for a better experience even for the average user. People tend to multitask and every so often will end up running one process that would typically ramp a single core to 100% utilization. I'm not too familiar with outlook but my professor even said that when he's doing something with it (syncing it up or whatever) his computer would lag up and he wouldn't be able to do anything until it finished. But then he got a P4 with HT and he could actually go do other stuff while waiting for it to finish. My 3200+ is honestly the last single core processor I will own.
2. Yes I believe an 805 should be compared with a sempron since they are both targeting the bargain bin of computing.
3. Sure, I'll take your word on this. Regardless, I still find it funny that the theoretical maximum$3/month increase in electricty spending has played such a large role in deciding what processor to buy. I mean, seriously, I have no idea if my PSU is more energy effecient than another PSU. I guess if I did more research I could've saved myself some more money over the lifetime of the system.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: DVK916
Well their Core Duo seems to be very competitive. At a price/performance point of view it beats the X2. Perclock it is about just as fast, but price wise it is much cheaper.

Huh?
1. The only Core Duo that even comes close to the X2 3800 is the T2500...and it sells for $400 (as opposed to the X2 which sells for $300).
2. Core Duo is 32 bit only

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

1. I'm still a believer that a dual core cpu will allow for a better experience even for the average user. People tend to multitask and every so often will end up running one process that would typically ramp a single core to 100% utilization. I'm not too familiar with outlook but my professor even said that when he's doing something with it (syncing it up or whatever) his computer would lag up and he wouldn't be able to do anything until it finished. But then he got a P4 with HT and he could actually go do other stuff while waiting for it to finish. My 3200+ is honestly the last single core processor I will own.
2. Yes I believe an 805 should be compared with a sempron since they are both targeting the bargain bin of computing.
3. Sure, I'll take your word on this. Regardless, I still find it funny that the theoretical maximum$3/month increase in electricty spending has played such a large role in deciding what processor to buy. I mean, seriously, I have no idea if my PSU is more energy effecient than another PSU. I guess if I did more research I could've saved myself some more money over the lifetime of the system.

Each to their own beliefs...but look at the target market for the chip and try to uderstand what software they will be using...
1. It won't be the corporate desktop, they usually go for the cheapest chip you can get that will get the job done (this is the only reason that Celerons still exist, and a major reason why Intel didn't lose more marketshare).
2. Consumers in that range will be Mom/Pop computers and starving students for the most part...M/P will go for the cheaper option, though they need a smidge more performance so they can play with the photo albums...and students tend to prefer games (Sempron).
3. Enthusiasts might make a go of it, we shall have to see how well it holds up for OC...

I too will never go to single core again, but then I don't plan on buying the cheapest platform either (and I'd bet you wouldn't trade your 3200 in on an 805...).

 

[DoubleL]

Well I just did a full upgrade for a guy, Took out a Asus A7V133 850, Put in a 550 watt power supply, Asus P4P800, Pentium 4 3 GB Pres. 512 MB TwinX 3200 Corsair, Running the old 3DMark 2001, The old A7V133 did about 3,000 something, The new Intel did 3590, So is this guy oing to think Intel is better

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: DVK916
Well their Core Duo seems to be very competitive. At a price/performance point of view it beats the X2. Perclock it is about just as fast, but price wise it is much cheaper.

Huh?
1. The only Core Duo that even comes close to the X2 3800 is the T2500...and it sells for $400 (as opposed to the X2 which sells for $300).
2. Core Duo is 32 bit only

I could have sworn the T2500 was cheaper than the X2 3800. Infact I could have sworn the T2600 was cheaper than X2 3800 as well.

 

[khha4113]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: DVK916
Well their Core Duo seems to be very competitive. At a price/performance point of view it beats the X2. Perclock it is about just as fast, but price wise it is much cheaper.

Huh?
1. The only Core Duo that even comes close to the X2 3800 is the T2500...and it sells for $400 (as opposed to the X2 which sells for $300).
2. Core Duo is 32 bit only

I could have sworn the T2500 was cheaper than the X2 3800. Infact I could have sworn the T2600 was cheaper than X2 3800 as well.

ZipZoomfly has it cheapest for $416

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: TuxDave


1. I'm still a believer that a dual core cpu will allow for a better experience even for the average user. People tend to multitask and every so often will end up running one process that would typically ramp a single core to 100% utilization.

Most of the average users doesn't even know the specs of ther computer. They don't care about it.

 

[kb3edk]

Originally posted by: khha4113

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: DVK916
Well their Core Duo seems to be very competitive. At a price/performance point of view it beats the X2. Perclock it is about just as fast, but price wise it is much cheaper.

Huh?
1. The only Core Duo that even comes close to the X2 3800 is the T2500...and it sells for $400 (as opposed to the X2 which sells for $300).
2. Core Duo is 32 bit only

I could have sworn the T2500 was cheaper than the X2 3800. Infact I could have sworn the T2600 was cheaper than X2 3800 as well.

ZipZoomfly has it cheapest for $416

Which is still over $100 more than the X2 3800+. I don't think it will be that way for long... Intel really has its back against the wall right now and we should expect some MASSIVE price cuts from them very soon, especially on all Netburst architecture CPUs, they are desperate to roll back AMD's market share gains. For all of Intel's engineering mediocrity they have got a ton of cash in the bank and can afford to sell CPUs at a loss for a long time if that turns out to be necessary. Since Joe AOLsurfer and Grandma Solitaire only care about price when it comes to PCs, sadly, it would probably be a winning strategy

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: kb3edk

Which is still over $100 more than the X2 3800+. I don't think it will be that way for long... Intel really has its back against the wall right now and we should expect some MASSIVE price cuts from them very soon, especially on all Netburst architecture CPUs, they are desperate to roll back AMD's market share gains. For all of Intel's engineering mediocrity they have got a ton of cash in the bank and can afford to sell CPUs at a loss for a long time if that turns out to be necessary. Since Joe AOLsurfer and Grandma Solitaire only care about price when it comes to PCs, sadly, it would probably be a winning strategy

Selling at a loss is illegal, it's called "Predatory Pricing"...

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: TuxDave

1. I'm still a believer that a dual core cpu will allow for a better experience even for the average user. People tend to multitask and every so often will end up running one process that would typically ramp a single core to 100% utilization. I'm not too familiar with outlook but my professor even said that when he's doing something with it (syncing it up or whatever) his computer would lag up and he wouldn't be able to do anything until it finished. But then he got a P4 with HT and he could actually go do other stuff while waiting for it to finish. My 3200+ is honestly the last single core processor I will own.
2. Yes I believe an 805 should be compared with a sempron since they are both targeting the bargain bin of computing.
3. Sure, I'll take your word on this. Regardless, I still find it funny that the theoretical maximum$3/month increase in electricty spending has played such a large role in deciding what processor to buy. I mean, seriously, I have no idea if my PSU is more energy effecient than another PSU. I guess if I did more research I could've saved myself some more money over the lifetime of the system.

Each to their own beliefs...but look at the target market for the chip and try to uderstand what software they will be using...
1. It won't be the corporate desktop, they usually go for the cheapest chip you can get that will get the job done (this is the only reason that Celerons still exist, and a major reason why Intel didn't lose more marketshare).
2. Consumers in that range will be Mom/Pop computers and starving students for the most part...M/P will go for the cheaper option, though they need a smidge more performance so they can play with the photo albums...and students tend to prefer games (Sempron).
3. Enthusiasts might make a go of it, we shall have to see how well it holds up for OC...

I too will never go to single core again, but then I don't plan on buying the cheapest platform either (and I'd bet you wouldn't trade your 3200 in on an 805...).

I wouldn't trade it for anything at the moment. I don't like the Intel offerings right now and I don't feel like shelling out that much cash for an X2.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: kb3edk

Originally posted by: khha4113

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: DVK916
Well their Core Duo seems to be very competitive. At a price/performance point of view it beats the X2. Perclock it is about just as fast, but price wise it is much cheaper.

Huh?
1. The only Core Duo that even comes close to the X2 3800 is the T2500...and it sells for $400 (as opposed to the X2 which sells for $300).
2. Core Duo is 32 bit only

I could have sworn the T2500 was cheaper than the X2 3800. Infact I could have sworn the T2600 was cheaper than X2 3800 as well.

ZipZoomfly has it cheapest for $416

Which is still over $100 more than the X2 3800+. I don't think it will be that way for long... Intel really has its back against the wall right now and we should expect some MASSIVE price cuts from them very soon, especially on all Netburst architecture CPUs, they are desperate to roll back AMD's market share gains. For all of Intel's engineering mediocrity they have got a ton of cash in the bank and can afford to sell CPUs at a loss for a long time if that turns out to be necessary. Since Joe AOLsurfer and Grandma Solitaire only care about price when it comes to PCs, sadly, it would probably be a winning strategy

What about the cost of ownership over 4 years??? Ok I'll stop.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
Haha its just funny to read what a load of crap, o well, maybe they should of ran a game and then said

"well as u see the amd is getting more frames, but our intel machine is producing more quality frames which results in a more quility gaming experiance, and this also allows u to see slideshow images of the game better"

because its actually running about the same speed as a power point on the intel machine ?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Sounds like FelixTheCat works for Intel, and this is his lifes work ! Where are you Felix ?

or the bush administration... either or.

 

[kb3edk]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: kb3edk

Which is still over $100 more than the X2 3800+. I don't think it will be that way for long... Intel really has its back against the wall right now and we should expect some MASSIVE price cuts from them very soon, especially on all Netburst architecture CPUs, they are desperate to roll back AMD's market share gains. For all of Intel's engineering mediocrity they have got a ton of cash in the bank and can afford to sell CPUs at a loss for a long time if that turns out to be necessary. Since Joe AOLsurfer and Grandma Solitaire only care about price when it comes to PCs, sadly, it would probably be a winning strategy

Selling at a loss is illegal, it's called "Predatory Pricing"...

Yeah that's a good point, I forgot that was illegal. Still, it's probably really hard to find out how much money Intel is selling CPUs for through the OEM channel, I bet it is some ridiculously low figure. I guess we'll have to see how well AMD does with its antitrust lawsuit.

 

[BrownTown]

selling at a loss can't always be illegal since console makers do it all the time, and companies like WallMart sell some items at a loss in order to bait people into their stores during holidays. Also, lots of companies sell items at a loss in order to clear out space. Like if you have a bunch of clothes that went out of style...

So somewhere a judge has to make a judgement call as to where the line is between selling stuff at a loss in order to knock another company out of the market and selling at a loss in order to get profits in other ways (Like selling a console cheap and then selling games for 60$).