the truth about INTEL vs AMD

[NOS440]

redpriest_ Well you have just proves yourself a complete LIAR to me. I bet you are not telling the whole truth maybe at this point your systems are fine But in all reality you had to of had some problems with them. Quit trying to blow smoke up everyones A$$ because we don't believe you everyone knows and most admit to the problems with the first Athlon systems that did exist. AGP !!!!!! Super bypass !!!!!!!! Power Supplies !!!!! Picky Memory !!!!!!!!!!!!! and on and on and on.
So go blow smoke up someone else A$$ !!!!!!!!!!


Also when are you going to show me your Athlon stomping my P-3s Butt on my finely tweeked VIA motherboard.

 

[robinhung]

For $45 you can buy a Duron600 and o/c it to 1G which you can never do with an Intel PIII, that's for sure!
Yeah, Intel may run faster, but not on all softwares. The point is running at 1G, speed is not a problem anymore. Invest the remain of your money to a better monitor, video card or games is wiser.
You have 1G cpu, what else do you want?

 

[IaPuP]

I'm trying to end this thread...

A few comments for NOS440.

You complained about the lifespan of the KX133 chipset. Then in the next post, you exhalted the P4. Keep in mind that the initial chipset on the P4 is expected to last about about 8 months. Quite a bit shorter than either the KX133 OR the AMD750 lasted. Keep that in mind...

Next, if you say that you care about nothing but performance- regardless of how difficult it is to obtain, I encourage you to go out and buy a 1.1Ghz TBird. Since you complain about having to use a pencil to overclock, let me point something out. It is quite accepted that the KT133 can run 110-115 MHz FSB virtually all the time. With this 115MHz FSB, you can overclock this chip to 1265MHz. You will probably get closer to 1.2Ghz max, but that is plenty to beat out even a 1.13Ghz PIII. Despite the fact that you don' care about cost, that this 1.1Ghz chip would cost you about the same as a PIII-800 which is doubtful to reach 1Ghz, let alone 1.265Ghz.

I encourage you to look at Anand's reviews of the TBird vs the CuMine.

[*]"To start things off, the Athlon boasts a 14% performance improvement at 1.2GHz over 1GHz under SYSMark 2000. "
[*]"1.2GHz Athlon still manages to pull away to offer the highest x86 gaming performance available. "
[*]"1.2GHz offering manages to pull away from everything else with ease. "
[*]"1.2GHz Athlon continues to command a healthy lead"
[*]"The 1.2GHz Athlon continues to provide a 10% lead over the 1GHz Athlon as well as the 1GHz Pentium III"
[*]"slap in the face to Intel"

Now I'm going to list all the test results just 1Ghz TBird vs 1GHz PIII- I will list which wins and by how much. Maybe then I'll add them up at the end Note: I left out the tests that weren't CPU limited. They're sorted by how much each chip won.

SPECvp- DX-6: Athlon +31.6%
SPECvp- Awadvs: Athlon +15%
SPECvp- MedMCAD: Athlon +11.3%
SPECvp- ProCDRS: Athlon +7.8%
Expendable: Athlon +2%
CC Winstone 2000: Athlon +1.7%
High End Winstone: Athlon +1.4%
UT 1024x768x32: tie
SysMark 2000 Win98se: PIII +0.5%
UT 640x480x16: PIII +1.3%
Q3A 640x480x16: PIII +2.7%
SPECvp- DRV07: PIII +6.7%

Note: When the PIII wins it never wins by more than 7% and averages 2.8%. Athlon, however, prevails 64% of the tests and generally beats the PIII by 10.1%.

In some reviews, the PIII beats the athlon more frequently, but almost never by more than 5% where the Athlon beats the PIII occasionally by 30%.

Additional resources:
See Tom's Hardware MPEG encoding- TBird is best.
Sharkey's- TBird 1ghz and PIII run neck and neck
HardOCP: Athlon wins by a large margin.

Is that enough to convince you?
Ok- now step back and realize that I've been talking about a 1Ghz TBird- selling for under $300 and 200MHz slower than the top-of-the-line.

I won't argue that the PIII is worthless but trying to convince someone that the PIII is worth twice as much money is flat lying.

Eric

 

[Ape]

AMD is on the move up. Intel may be in for a battle. We see with the recall of the 1.13 PIII. Intel is trying to keep up and they are releasing products too fast. It may be time for them to move to the back seat and work on product reliability. Ape Out.

 

[IaPuP]

Hey Ape: I think first we saw that with the delay of the i820MTH and then its recall. Then the Itanium delays, then the 1.13 recall, then the cancelation of Timna then the delay of the i850.

They're pushing too hard. AMD has been sitting on its 1.2Ghz Athlon since the first stepping of the TBird was released back.... quite awhile ago. They just released it now because of economic interests. It is better for a company to release chips incrementally, in large volumes than in clumps and in low volumes (like the 1Ghz battle was last year).

Eric

 

[frustrated2]

Don't forget that the p3 is at the end of its trail and it is still competing and beating(in some things)the brand new highly technically advanced t-bird so I would probably say that the p4 could be something special. Remember that amd might not be sitting on the 1.12ghz t-bird because they want to the t-bird will only scale so high as well and it could be that they are having trouble getting it to run faster. Know one really knows either way. But notice that the you don't hear of a 1.12 t-bird being overclocked to 1.16 or 1.18 or anything like that.

 

[Dexion]

ACtually I've seen 1.2Ghz Tbirds reaching 1.6Ghz with extreme cooling. And since Tbird is going into 0.15 micron process along with a new 133FSB(266 double data rated) with DDR SDRAM, I can't see the platform at the end of its stages. If you recall, the Pentium 3 core is basically a Pentium Pro(5-6 years ago?) core, of course with lots of changes, the base architecture is still there. Whereas the Athlon core is still relatively new when it came on our shelves 2 years ago. I can easily say that the K7 core is still premature.

 

[redpriest_]

NOS, you just can't handle the fact that I didn't have a single problem with my GA-7IX motherboard. The invitation is open. You can see it running on a POS 235 watt supply that was probably made in the late 80's, along with generic PC100 RAM.

It runs FINE.

 

[IaPuP]

frustrated:

Most hardware sites showed the 1.2Ghz TBird overclocking successfully to 1.3Ghz and some said it ran to 1.33Ghz.

Remember when the 1Ghz Cumine first came out? Nobody got it to run past 1080Mhz. Just didn't happen without supercooling. Yet Intel still pushed out a 1.13 chip a few months later.

AMD is sitting on its hands for economic reasons. Athlon has gone through 3 core revisions- PIII went through 1 every year or so. Sometimes less. Seems like Athlon is right on track to last a long time. Maybe not 6 years like the P6 but at least 4 years.

Eric

 

[NOS440]

redpriest_ Let me type this again I do not question if you have your system working fine now. What I question is that it never gave even the least bit of trouble like you say. I will say it again "I THINK YOUR A LIAR"

 

[Zephyr]

Actually I'm inclined to believe AMD will skip 0.15 and go straight to 0.13 since they can do so without retooling Fab 30. If Intel does it AMD wil follow... and they're likely to make the transtion smoother than Intel like they did with the 0.25 -> 0.18

 

[IaPuP]

Hey NOS- listen up. I've built probably 300 computers. Maybe 20 times I've had to stop and diagnose a problem. Generally just a faulty component having nothing to do with the manufacturer. Several times it was when we were first discovering incompatabilities between the MVP3 chipset and the TNT graphics card and several times it was with the AMD750 and the GeForce card.

So beyond the motherboards (which are now fixed), can you give me any hard facts why the AMD is less stable than your exhalted Intel system other than "I didn't know what I was doing".

I've already shown you the Performance numbers (addressed specifically to you) and you declined to comment. I'm assuming that means you concede on that point.

Eric

 

[NOS440]

IaPuP actually in this long thread some how I missed your post I never concede anything (I'm like Al Gore in that respect LOL !!!)


I never stated that the 1.2 ghz Athlon was slower than a 1 GHZ P-3. I stated Clock for clock in real world Apps that I use IT IS SLOWER !!!!! those are the facts. The Athlon is way faster at synthetic Benchmarks and Applications that most people don't ever use the P-3 is faster in the Apps that Mater to me and most PC users.


I have NEVER said or implied that the T-bird is unstable or hard to setup (I have no experience with it and have stated so). All my comments are toward the Classic Athlon and the troubles that I and everyone I know had with them. I still stand by the Statement that the Motherboards and the Athlon itself was at Fault period nothing you or anyone else can say will change this so GIVE IT UP (or concede .

Besides the P-4 is coming in monday and going to steam roll over the T-Bird in no time so watch out. Again I'm sure that the T-Bird will win at Mflops and synthetic benchmarks LAMO !!!!!!

OH AND ONE MORE THING THIS THREAD WAS OVER YOU STARTED IT BACK UP !!!!!!!

 

[Zephyr]

NOS:

"I never stated that the 1.2 ghz Athlon was slower than a 1 GHZ P-3. I stated Clock for clock in real world Apps that I use IT IS SLOWER !!!!! those are the facts. The Athlon is way faster at synthetic Benchmarks and Applications that most people don't ever use the P-3 is faster in the Apps that Mater to me and most PC users."

I find that quite amazing... it would occur to me that the Athlon1200 beat the PIII 1000 in both synthetic as well as real world benchmarks. But hey .. don't take my word for it read this articel (old but obviosly you haven't read it yet)

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1336

Are Q3A and UT syntethic benchmark???

Frustrated.. I really wish I could take your post seriously.. but if you actually realized that no such thing as a "1.12 GHz Tbird" actually exist but that it's a 1.2Ghz it would help

 

[IaPuP]

NOS: THAT is EXACTLY what i was getting at.

You were bothering me because you were talking about how you buy the fastest thing you can regardless of cost. You just admitted that the TBird 1.2Ghz is the fastest processor available (will overclock higher too).

That contradicts your original assertion.

When someone else challenged you on it earlier you said something about only buying the most stable system (since you couldn't dispute you had the fastest system) but now you've said there is nothing less stable about the AMD platform.

I'm not trying to attack you. I'm only attempting to make a logical argument.
I can't understand how you couldn't factor price into it either... :-/

As for the P4...

You are confused. From the marks I've seen, the P4 performs ADMIRABLY on the exact synthetic benchmarks you just were discrediting but actually looses much of its clock normalized performance on "real world" applications.

In the days of the K6-2, Intel spouted their Spec FP numbers as supreme. When the Athlon came out it started publishing (yes actually publishing) its Quake 3 benchmark results (?!?) because they were the most favorable test for their CPU. They came out and said synthetics are useless. But now, reviewers are "encouraged" to use the most SYNTHETIC of the Spec benchmarks (Spec cfp) which is at least half just a FSB/mem bandwidth test.

Neither CPU "blows away" the other and I think the imporant thing to keep in mind is the price and the future upgradability. When the motherboards become available in a month or so, the i850+DRDRAM (which will cost a minimum of $300 premium over an AMD760) will not be a huge benefit over the AMD chip in performance but will cost approx 2-3x as much. The i850 with this current socket setup will be phased out in 7 months where the AMD760 should last until Palomino since AMD has no plans to change its pinout.

But like you said, price does not matter to you. If price didn't matter to me, I might buy a P4 with the expectation of completely replacing my system (DRDRAM included) in 6 months but I don't have the luxury of spending that much money.

P4 1.5 & i850: $950 CPU + $250 motherboard + $450 memory (256MB DRDRAM) = $1600
TBird 1.2 & AMD760: $400 CPU + $120 motherboard + $ 200 memory (256MB DDR) = $720

Less than half the price.

And I didn't start it up again.
it was on the first page of the forum when I picked up on it.

Eric

 

[NOS440]

Well Quake 3 and 3d mark are loaded on my system so if any of you AMD ZEALOTS want to compare scores than lets go. Synthetic benchmarks mean nothing to me at all... I never back down and thats that. If I bother you thats just tough quit whining.


35 to 50 % improvement in Q3 is a bad performance for the P-4 ????

What Intel spouted about whatever is not what I'm talking about and has nothing to do with me.

I say again cost is not a major factor in my buying decision when I buy anything. My decision is based on will I be happy with the product. My experience with the original athlon tells me I will have a hard time ever being happy with a AMD product.

You talk about life span the life span of the KX133 was about 3 months and is not entirely VIA's fault it is AMDS partial responsibilty to make OEMs and VIA aware of future requirements. After all the AP133a chipset will run processors from 3 years ago to current from Intel and this is true of the BX too or LX for that matter.

Actually I never ever jump on the new stuff anymore I learned my lesson with the Athlon so I agree with you there. I do find it to be annoyng that the original chipset and processor will be incompatible in 8 months or so.


Zephyer read please :" I stated Clock for clock "

 

[NOS440]

Zephyer read please :" I stated Clock for clock "

also quit being a Petty its pretty much a given that frustrated's 1.12 was a typo man you petty child.

And no Quake 3 and UT are not synthetic they are applications that can actually be used and are by thousands of People.

 

[NOS440]

Oh and also the prices you are quoting are what the A$$holes at the sights that shouldn't even be selling these yet are trying to screw people who are impatient.

These prices aren't that bad look at the price of the Athlon 1 Ghz was at release 1200 bucks LOL

 

[Zephyr]

What constatly amuses me is how all important clock-for-clock has become all of the sudden to some people.. will it stay this important after the P4 is released?

Besides the relevance of that comparison is hardly very interesting. The ability to ramp clock speed is a feature in itself. That is in fact the greatest feature of the P4 compared to the P3 IMHO. There are IMHO two comparisons that are relevant..

1) the highest preforming product from either company pitched agains eachother

2) the preformace/$-spent analyzed over the whole product line of either company pitched against eachother

...in both cases AMD wins hands down!!!!

As for the P4... it will do great in very memory bandwith depending apps like Q3A... but these actually only account for a very little share of the apps out there, relevant to an typical everyday user.

 

[NOS440]

Also show me where you can buy these T-bird parts at the prices you quote like 200 for DDR memory and 120 for a motherboard that can't even be bought yet. And I just checked its 488 for a 1.2 t-bird as usual the AMD ZEALOTS are lying to prove there points.

 

[NOS440]

Zephyer your statement would mean something if I was a person that goes out and always buy's the latest speed grade proccessor. But like most Overclockers I alway's buy the lower grades and OC them to close to the highest grade so the top of the line mhz wise doesn't mean anything to me.

Also the performance of quake 3 when the processor and all system resources are stetched to there limits is where the boy's are seperated from the men and means everything to me. hell most of the apps we all use like web browsing and such work fine on a 500 mhz processor it the graphics apps and games that really use the Processor the most and what count to me.

So in both cases AMD loses hands down which is proven over and over in market share LOL!!!!!!!!!1

 

[NOS440]

IaPuP I guess your right you didn't start it back up Zephyer did sorry I opened your email notice first and just assumed you started it back up/ It was dead and burried for 2 days

 

[frustrated2]

Zephyr I really wish that I could take your posts seriously. It would really help if you would realize that there is no such thing as a syntethic benchmarks

"Are Q3A and UT syntethic benchmark???"

 

[frustrated2]

BTW: Could all of you AMD zealots please tell me what a ZEALOT is????????

 

[NOS440]

LOL