The reason why Intel is better than AMD

[jazzboy]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
Just gotta ask this, how does a 805D beat a X2 3800+?

Probably in some random sandra benchmark.

 

[BrownTown]

price/performance it destroys the X2 3800+, especially when both are overclocked.

 

[anandtechrocks]

Pretty pathetic. Conroe better be all it's hyped up to be or all my remaining respect for Intel will be gone...

 

[BrownTown]

too bad Intel don't give a cr@p about your respect, they just wants the $$$, and so far they been pretty sucessfull at getting it...

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
price/performance it destroys the X2 3800+, especially when both are overclocked.

Say what? Since when has the 805D proven to be a good overclocker, much less one that "destroys" the x2-3800+ in a price/performance contest?

Good luck getting a 805D to go past 3.5 ghz without exotic cooling. Hell, I'd take the 3800+ over the 805D at stock speeds to(in terms of price/performance).

 

[BrownTown]

well, since the 805 costs half as much as the X2 3800+ the 3800+ would have to perform twice as good in order to be even with the 805. So, I eagerly await your benchmarks in which the X2 3800+ beats the 805 be more than 100%...

not really sure how fast 3800 does SuperPi 1M, but 805 does it in 50 seconds, so i guess the 3800 must get at least 25 seconds on stock right?

 

[JC]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

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

Im too busy for noodnicks like you.

After all we all know Intel is the shizzle!

Intel. Catch Up? :beer:

 

[SpeedZealot369]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
well, since the 805 costs half as much as the X2 3800+ the 3800+ would have to perform twice as good in order to be even with the 805. So, I eagerly await your benchmarks in which the X2 3800+ beats the 805 be more than 100%...

not really sure how fast 3800 does SuperPi 1M, but 805 does it in 50 seconds, so i guess the 3800 must get at least 25 seconds on stock right?

You can't see anything definitive from one benchmark. But I'm not surprised intel is doing this, I always pictured them as the "suits" and AMD as innovative and creative guys making the world a better place

 

[DrMrLordX]

Good job cherry-picking one relatively meaningless benchmark off the only site that seems to have run any benchmarks on the 805 at all. Also, good job in ignoring the differences in power consumption between the two chips, especially when they're overclocked. Over time, ANY Smithfield is going to cost more to own than an X2 due to power consumption, never mind the additional cooling costs that come into play when you overclock those heaters. Paying ~$140 for a sub-par processor that's going to chew up lots of power is not my idea of good price/performance unless you're planning on leaving the machine turned off most of the time, which stunningly enough, many of us do not.

You want a benchmark where the x2-3800+ performs twice as fast as the 805D? Too bad, I can't produce that. The 805D is such a yawner that nobody's even bothering to benchmark it(overclocked or at stock) on reputable hardware sites, much less English-language hardware sites.

Instead, I'll give you this:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/athlon%2064%20x2%203800_08010580841/8106.png

Here's Anandtech's PC Worbench 5: Mozilla 1.4 benchmark from their X2 3800+ article. Notice how thoroughly the X2 3800+ trounces the Pentium D 830? And that's a Smithfield at 3.0 ghz using a 800 mhz FSB! How well do you think an 805 would do in that benchmark? We'll probably never know, because neither Anand nor anyone else cares much about the 805. And yes, I just pulled that benchmark out to prove that I can cherry-pick benchmarks, too.

I've also heard the chatter than the 805 is easy to overclock, yet I'm seeing very few results beyond the 3.7 ghz OC on HKEPC. That ranks up there with some of the fabled amazing 820D overclocks out there that few, if any people could reproduce without phase change.

 

[SpeedZealot369]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Good job cherry-picking one relatively meaningless benchmark off the only site that seems to have run any benchmarks on the 805 at all. Also, good job in ignoring the differences in power consumption between the two chips, especially when they're overclocked. Over time, ANY Smithfield is going to cost more to own than an X2 due to power consumption, never mind the additional cooling costs that come into play when you overclock those heaters. Paying ~$140 for a sub-par processor that's going to chew up lots of power is not my idea of good price/performance unless you're planning on leaving the machine turned off most of the time, which stunningly enough, many of us do not.

You want a benchmark where the x2-3800+ performs twice as fast as the 805D? Too bad, I can't produce that. The 805D is such a yawner that nobody's even bothering to benchmark it(overclocked or at stock) on reputable hardware sites, much less English-language hardware sites.

Instead, I'll give you this:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/athlon%2064%20x2%203800_08010580841/8106.png

Here's Anandtech's PC Worbench 5: Mozilla 1.4 benchmark from their X2 3800+ article. Notice how thoroughly the X2 3800+ trounces the Pentium D 830? And that's a Smithfield at 3.0 ghz using a 800 mhz FSB! How well do you think an 805 would do in that benchmark? We'll probably never know, because neither Anand nor anyone else cares much about the 805. And yes, I just pulled that benchmark out to prove that I can cherry-pick benchmarks, too.

I've also heard the chatter than the 805 is easy to overclock, yet I'm seeing very few results beyond the 3.7 ghz OC on HKEPC. That ranks up there with some of the fabled amazing 820D overclocks out there that few, if any people could reproduce without phase change.

PWNEGE

 

[BrownTown]

so even in the best benchmark you could come up with the AMD wouldn't win by mroe then 100%? Comeon dude, well ALL know the 805s performance sux ass, the point is that it is deffinitely not half the performance of a X2 3800+, therefore in a price/ performance comparison it wins. And even if you arent looking at it from that direction 805 delivers ENOUGH performance for pretty muc hanything a normal user would need. Nobodys saying you should get one if you are one of those people that obsesses over those last few FPS, or someone who actually uses tons of intensive apps. The point is that it delivers acceptably good performance for most people, and its price is unbeatable. AMDs dual cores are only for enthusiest people, whereas Intel's dual cores are in pretty much everyones price range. IF you want great performance go AMD, if you want a good value go Intel...

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
price/performance it destroys the X2 3800+, especially when both are overclocked.

Wrong. When you need a $200 mobo to OC it to 4.2 ghz, the price/performance goes out the window. At 3.4, the X2 3800 destroys it. So either way the X2 3800 wins. I know. (see sig)

 

[BrownTown]

i doubt you could get it to 4.2 on ANY motherboard, but you dont have to, because it costs half as much, so a 3.5G 805 would mean that for the 3800+ to win it would have to compete with a 7G dual core Intel, which i somehow doubt it will...

the argument is stupid anyways, nobody uses price/performance, people have a price, and then they see what processor has the best performance in the price range. For anyone whoes price is less then the cost of a 3800+ (which is most people), then Intel has no competetion in the dual core arena.

 

[Markfw]

You aren;t listening Browntown.The motherboard must be included in the price/performace and cooling.

805 $150
mobo $200
extra cooling $50 (HSF)

Total $400

X2 3800 $290
mobo $85

Total $375

So the X2 3800 is cheaper AND faster.

Now if you want to compare stock, thats another matter. 2.66 805 is destroyed by the X2 3800 at stock, by 30% or more !. So if price is all you care about (not including the extra power bill) then maybe the 805 is the crap you want to buy. Not anybody I know.....

 

[BrownTown]

well its good to know that all your friends are rich, 'cause mine aren't, and would apreciate having decent performance for a budget price. Putting in the 50$ fan and 200$ motherboard makes no sense becasue if you buy this processor then your not gonna buy an aftermarket cooler, or a mobo at 200$. The point is still that if you have money then get AMD its better, if you don't then get Intel its cheaper, and for most people its good enough. There is no real need to further discuss the topic. We all know that the AMD is better, and we all know that the 805 is cheaper if you buy a decently priced motherboard. Any further discussion is based solely on individuals perceived performance needs,..

EDIT: it should be noted that all Intel motherboards nowadays are designed for 800mhz FSB, so overclocking the 805 with its 20x multiplier means you arent even getting to the motherboards rated speed till 4G, it seems therefore that the overclocking shouldn't require as expensive a motherboard as you would suggest since the FSB will actually be running less then 800mhz.

 

[hans007]

while the sales literature may not be well truthful, most sales litarature is like that. i work at an internet security company and all we do is tell everyone that viruses and phishing attacks are everywhere and ready to kill you if you dont buy our product..

that said.

a $200 intel motherboard vs. $85 athlon motherboard is an unfair comparison. the most expensive 945p based motherboard for intel on newegg is $149 the cheapest is a much cheaper $75.

sure that are 955x and 975x boards out there. but you cant say $85 for a el cheapo athlon 939 board vs. that absolute most premium $200 975x board with sli etc.

i mean if it were fair, you could put say a nforce4 sli 16x dual board, with all the trimmings and it would be $200 as well.

not to mention 805s can be bought for $135 at some stores already ($142 at newegg).

so you basically are just as bad as the intel sales people in your plugging of amd. i mean, i tend to think all sales people are bad. when amd's cpus sucked balls the amd sales people did the same thing. but dont fault the hardware and make up stupid price comparisons just to support your own argument.


and 805 + mobo can be had for as low as $210 or so. that is as cheap as an athlon 64 3000 retail with a motherboard or mabye $10 more. and even you have to admit, a dual 2.66 is a very compelling alternative to a single core athlon 64 3000. maybe not from the overclockign standpoint.

but for $210 i can honestly say the 805 combo might be the better deal.

 

[Markfw]

OK< YOu expert, go try and OC that 805 to 4.2 ghz on an $85 mobo. I have an 820, and it won;t get past 3.4 ! All the big OC's on 820's and 805's are on that $200 mobo.. Yes, it sure doesn;t make sense to spend $200 on a mobo for a $150 cpu. But without it, you have a real slug that won;t OC for ******.

 

[YYD]

You must count also the electric company bill you have to pay running a Pentium "D" in the long run respect an AMD X2. AMD X2 means less power consumption, less total cost, high raw performance.

 

[dmens]

Goddamn you're thickheaded mark. Most people don't overclock. If someone is not willing to pay more than $200 for a dual, they'll get a cheapo 805, because they don't care about performance at that price. Get over it. Your exotic computing habits and budget is nowhere close to average. Here's a hint, personal anecdotes like "mark post generator: I can afford to blow $2k/month on boxen to run folding 24/7, hence people who buy intel are idiots" are retarded.

Oh btw, I recall posting the math, but I'll do it again: 100W differential 24/7 = $8.86 a month (PGE rate, Feb 06), and that is a pretty generous overestimate of the draw difference on full load. And since people who buy 805/820 don't do full load 24/7, the real cost difference is basically zilch.

If you hate the 820 so much, just get rid of it and spare everyone your self-evident posts about how bad the 8xx is, because everyone already ****** knows.

 

[aLeoN]

^^
Guys! Guys! This is what Intel is doing to us, tearing our e-lives apart!

The only way Intel is better is if they pay us to think so, not by childish trash-talking!

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: YYD
You must count also the electric company bill you have to pay running a Pentium "D" in the long run respect an AMD X2. AMD X2 means less power consumption, less total cost, high raw performance.

yeah that $3 a month is killer.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
price/performance it destroys the X2 3800+, especially when both are overclocked.

Based on that rationale, I imagine that the Sempron destroys the 805D...but it's all just guessing (unless you know of a good review that I missed?).

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: dmens
Goddamn you're thickheaded mark. Most people don't overclock. If someone is not willing to pay more than $200 for a dual, they'll get a cheapo 805, because they don't care about performance at that price. Get over it. Your exotic computing habits and budget is nowhere close to average. Here's a hint, personal anecdotes like "mark post generator: I can afford to blow $2k/month on boxen to run folding 24/7, hence people who buy intel are idiots" are retarded.

Oh btw, I recall posting the math, but I'll do it again: 100W differential 24/7 = $8.86 a month (PGE rate, Feb 06), and that is a pretty generous overestimate of the draw difference on full load. And since people who buy 805/820 don't do full load 24/7, the real cost difference is basically zilch.

If you hate the 820 so much, just get rid of it and spare everyone your self-evident posts about how bad the 8xx is, because everyone already ****** knows.

yeah i own an 820 (soon to be 920) and well i dont o/c. 99.5% of people do not overclock or have like 5 systems like mark. for general public the 805 is a great cpu, it wont use up THAT much power at 2.66 (the leakage is low at low speeds, as it leaks exponentially higher at much higher speeds). so the peak load difference might only be like 40-50 watts anyway. plus for a lot of normal people they will likely love the 805. cant you see your uncle running a 805 with integrated 950 video, surfing the web, with one core doing nothing but running norton internet security, his google desktop, his itunes, and copying his dvds, weather software , stock streamer, while the other core can easily be used to say browse 10 firefox tabs, and run bittorrent.

stuff like that is what dual core is for, and as people with dual cpus will always say, even a slow dual cpus faster has a certain "smoothness" to it, and a sempron or single core cheap cpu will not have that smoothness. its just like that "seat of the pants" speed in a car, vs raw hp.


also i'd like to mention amd isnt exactly doing great on wattage going forwards as it is. the fx60 and 950 (and i'd presume 955ee since its only 60mhz more than a 950) draw about 3 watts difference at load for a comparable system (accofding to gamepc.com's fx60 review). the idle difference i believe is something like 40 watts because the enhance speedstep on the b1 revision of the 9xx series doesnt work (but it will on c1 revision).


amd cpus are still better for thinks like games, or a transactional very latency dependant server, but most of the general public doesnt run an ibm db2 server in their home which is what the 805 is geared to. most of the general public also isnt hardcore gamers. and even if they were it is not like intel's cpus cannot play games at all, they will still be "enough" for most people who are not counting every 1/10th of a frame and posting it on anandtech. so i can see the 805 being a very successful cpu. i'm sure eventually it'll be like a 915 or 905 cpu as well and cost even less at 65nm (i'm fairly certain the 805 is just to get rid of excess inventory... it isl ike the x800GTO of intel cpus)

 

[openwheelformula1]

Just because the average Joes don't utilize their computers to the max doesn't mean the average Joe shouldn't get more for his money. FX-60 and 955EE aren't your average Joe's appetite either. Your average Joe would consider Athlon64 3200+, X2 3800+, 520, 630, 820, and 920. Actually AMD IS doing great on wattage and efficiency. Just because FX-60 draws similar wattage to 955EE does not discredit the rest of AMD's offerings. AMDs are not just better for "things like games", it's better on almost every benchmark if you set the price as a fixed variable. Dollar for dollar AMD is a far better buy especially at such a down time for Intel. Now Conroe could change everything, that's the time you Intel hardcores can state: "AMD isn't exactly doing great on wattage going forward as it is.." In the mean time, give credit where credit is due.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
Just because the average Joes don't utilize their computers to the max doesn't mean the average Joe shouldn't get more for his money. FX-60 and 955EE aren't your average Joe's appetite either. Your average Joe would consider Athlon64 3200+, X2 3800+, 520, 630, 820, and 920. Actually AMD IS doing great on wattage and efficiency. Just because FX-60 draws similar wattage to 955EE does not discredit the rest of AMD's offerings. AMDs are not just better for "things like games", it's better on almost every benchmark if you set the price as a fixed variable. Dollar for dollar AMD is a far better buy especially at such a down time for Intel. Now Conroe could change everything, that's the time you Intel hardcores can state: "AMD isn't exactly doing great on wattage going forward as it is.." In the mean time, give credit where credit is due.

yeah i am giving credit , they do make great chips right now. i wouldnt have said "going forward" if i didnt mean that.

SOME of their new chips are compelling alternatives just because well for dual core they are the low price leader. 820s are being sold with discounts to companies now, so a full 820 machine is pretty cheap and would not be a horrible alternative to say a 3500+ if the full machine's cost was equal.

i do think though that for the super low end a sempron is much much better than a celeron. and for the high end gamer you really have to go AMD. but the midrange i think intel is doing ok , as well as laptops.