The Truth:Are AMD's as responsive as Intels

[Zim]

Originally posted by: Vinny77
I have been a long time intel user and supportor...

I didn't realize that AMD and Intel were like football teams. Personally, I have no allegiance to either one and choose each chip on its merits. That said, I know what you mean. I use a P4 HT at work and it does feel "snappier" than my home system (see sig.). I've got more crap on my home system though, so I wouldn't come to any big conclusions from that. I honestly think you'll be disappointed with the performance of any new system. What you've got there is pretty good.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Zim

Originally posted by: Vinny77
I have been a long time intel user and supportor...

I didn't realize that AMD and Intel were like football teams. Personally, I have no allegiance to either one and choose each chip on its merits. That said, I know what you mean. I use a P4 HT at work and it does feel "snappier" than my home system (see sig.). I've got more crap on my home system though, so I wouldn't come to any big conclusions from that. I honestly think you'll be disappointed with the performance of any new system. What you've got there is pretty good.

Well some people may think AMD makes an inferior product. For example, if you were to pick between rosewill memory and OCZ memory at the same price which would you pick? Would you kick yourself if you found out tha the rosewill memory had TCCD on brainpower PCBs??

 

[xtknight]

I say my A64 3500+ is a lot more responsive than my P4 2.6 GHz on a single-threaded basis. When I'm running multiple programs, the P4 HT inches out the lead me thinks.

The end result of instructions per second is probably greater with the A64 anyway after you count in the instructions per clock.

 

[Mday]

Originally posted by: Vinny77
I have been a long time intel user and supportor and I am looking into buying a new system to upgrade my current one in my signature.

I am looking to get a

Asus A8N32-sli deluxe
and
Operton 165

Ive always considered intels to feel smoother than amd's in everyday desktop applications as well as in games. To me Intel chips just feel smoother, and AMD chips seem to feel slow and possibly clogged. Not sure if its the architecture or somthing else. My brother currently has a AMD xp 2500+ system and it feels horribly slow compared to my current system. But my computer is faster, but I still get that general feeling of it being less responsive.

Ive never used a AMD 64 system, but from what I have read they are pretty much the same feeling as the XP, they play games great but still have that general feeling that I have been talking about, them being less responsive and somehow clogged. In my reading many have said, if you need multitasking and a very responsive system do not go for a single core AMD, as they have this general feeling I am trying to explain.

so in general the current Intels dont really offer me a great improvement on my current system. so its either I keep what I have or I get the system which I listed above with the Operton 165.

I know for a fact that AMD chips are better for gaming, My true concrean is everything else, and my main concerin is that feeling of an AND sytem feeling less responsive and somehow clogged, do the Operton Dual core and the X2 series processors from AMD have this feeling of what I am talking about. Im not trying to bash AMD, I just wnat to get the best product for my personal needs.

these response issues you are talking about have very little to do with the processor. it's more the OS set up, amount of RAM and HDD performance. as for your gaming performance, unless you're comparing 2 machines with identical everything (except mobo and processor), it's more video card dependent and RAM (depending on the game).

dollar for dollar, you will not notice any differences. but dollar for dollar, the AMD system will get you a beefier system. whether or not you can recognize the beefiness depends on whether or not you're biased or you're running benchmarks with a stopwatch.

 

[caz67]

I made the move and iv'e never looked back. I find AMD superior in almost everyway for my particular needs

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Bottom line, best bang for the buck for you, get more ram, upgrade the videocard.

QFT

My "gaming rig" will be 2 years old come December. It uses a Northwood P4 2.53GHz overclocked to 3.33GHz. Right now I have it sitting next to my A64 system overclocked to roughly an equivalent 3400+. Both have 1GB RAM. Until last week both had the same video card (MSI 5900XT). Heck, they almost have the same HDD (Maxtor 250GB, one with 8MB cache, one with 16MB). Which one is faster? I honestly couldn't say...

As RussianSensation said, upgrade RAM and video card. Find a deal on a used AGP 6800GT - some people are cross-grading to PCIe and since the 6800GS cost about $200, the cost of a used "equvalent speed" 6800GT shouldn't be more than that... eventually. Get a RAM upgrade by adding a 1GB dual channel kit - you'll have 1.5GB RAM.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Well some people may think AMD makes an inferior product. For example, if you were to pick between rosewill memory and OCZ memory at the same price which would you pick? Would you kick yourself if you found out tha the rosewill memory had TCCD on brainpower PCBs??

I have a strong belief that kicking myself not only looks really silly, but it hurts too! (besides, my doctor told me to stop it...)

 

[five40]

OP I totally agree. I have an old XP2500@3200 and a 2.5ghz P4 (no HT) and the P4 is MUCH smoother. There is no spyware on either. The have the same RAM, same size HD's. The athlon has a much better video card. Ripping a CD on the XP and trying to listen to music is impossible. With the P4 it's not a problem at all.

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: five40
OP I totally agree. I have an old XP2500@3200 and a 2.5ghz P4 (no HT) and the P4 is MUCH smoother. There is no spyware on either. The have the same RAM, same size HD's. The athlon has a much better video card. Ripping a CD on the XP and trying to listen to music is impossible. With the P4 it's not a problem at all.

What you're describing would be chipset/IO related problems and not CPU related. I guess it doesn't really matter which component it is, but it might be interesting to know anyway.

 

[Zap]

Seems like the people reporting AMD systems not as responsive as Intel systems are comparing socket A to Intel, not socket 754/939/940.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: five40
OP I totally agree. I have an old XP2500@3200 and a 2.5ghz P4 (no HT) and the P4 is MUCH smoother. There is no spyware on either. The have the same RAM, same size HD's. The athlon has a much better video card. Ripping a CD on the XP and trying to listen to music is impossible. With the P4 it's not a problem at all.

you've got some other problem there... i can do both on my xp333 with a xp1700 oc'd to 2.2ghz... not to mention my xp2500 @ 2.4ghz box... i will admit that my k7s5a's with 1.4 tbirds have a little trouble doing multiple things at once, but it's more the weak disk controller than the chip...

maybe dma got disabled on your disk controller?

 

[IlllI]

Originally posted by: Vinny77
Ive always considered intels to feel smoother than amd's in everyday desktop applications as well as in games. To me Intel chips just feel smoother, and AMD chips seem to feel slow and possibly clogged.

not been my experience. in fact quite the opposite

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: Viditor
however, I can imagine that the OP "feels" faster or "smoother" on his P4 because the HT can bypass the Windows scheduler quite often...

HT doesn't bypass the Windows scheduler. HT makes it possible for the CPU to internally schedule instructions from separate threads for execution in parallel, using parallel execution units.

This issue about AMD single core CPUs being less responsive is not something that I've ever noticed myself. It should probably also be noted that the effect of extra thread swapping in the non-HT CPU shouldn't really be detectable to any user. If a demanding application is running in the bakground, it's another story, though many multitasking performance problems probably can be blamed on poor scheduling in Windows.

Anyway, a dual core CPU like the Athlon64 X2 or Opteron will have better resposibility than a P4 with HT, so there's no need to worry.

Don't even bother. They can't understand a word you said. Most fanboys can't even read. They just find a chart showing their brand with a higher score than a competing brand and assume that it means blanket superiority.

Hell, outside of games I've never noticed a difference between a stock 1700+, a 2.8ghz venice, a 2.85ghz san diego, , a 2.9ghz dothan, a 3.8ghz p4-d or a 4ghz p4-b . I dont bench and I do my encoding work in a big pile overnight.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Lithan

Originally posted by: Vinny77
I have been a long time intel user and supportor and I am looking into buying a new system to upgrade my current one in my signature.

I am looking to get a

Asus A8N32-sli deluxe
and
Operton 165

Ive always considered intels to feel smoother than amd's in everyday desktop applications as well as in games. To me Intel chips just feel smoother, and AMD chips seem to feel slow and possibly clogged. Not sure if its the architecture or somthing else. My brother currently has a AMD xp 2500+ system and it feels horribly slow compared to my current system. But my computer is faster, but I still get that general feeling of it being less responsive.

Ive never used a AMD 64 system, but from what I have read they are pretty much the same feeling as the XP, they play games great but still have that general feeling that I have been talking about, them being less responsive and somehow clogged. In my reading many have said, if you need multitasking and a very responsive system do not go for a single core AMD, as they have this general feeling I am trying to explain.

so in general the current Intels dont really offer me a great improvement on my current system. so its either I keep what I have or I get the system which I listed above with the Operton 165.

I know for a fact that AMD chips are better for gaming, My true concrean is everything else, and my main concerin is that feeling of an AND sytem feeling less responsive and somehow clogged, do the Operton Dual core and the X2 series processors from AMD have this feeling of what I am talking about. Im not trying to bash AMD, I just wnat to get the best product for my personal needs.

You're very dumb. Amd's SLAUGHTER Intels in minimum FPS, which is where the "stuttering" feeling in games comes from. Your brother probably has malware from all the porn he surfs on his computer, and you blame amd out of some sad need to feel superior to people who made smarter choices than you did.

Frankly, all the reports of amd's feeling less responsive in desktop tasks than intels are from fanboys who expect that morons like themselves will believe it. Anyone who knows the first thing about computers knows that the only pauses they could be describing are hard disk spin-ups which have nothing to do with the cpu.

More politically correct way of sayin it

Real Gaming Challenge: Intel vs. AMD

The results speak for themselves. The average frame rate across all six games for the Athlon 64 system is 61fps, while the Pentium 4 averaged 54fps. That's a 13% difference?not tiny, but not large enough to bowl us over. What is more important, we feel, is how often a game runs slowly enough that you can feel it. This methodology is consistent with the one used by a new performance analysis tool in the works at Intel. We picked arbitrary performance thresholds, but these are numbers based on years of game playing experience. We picked frame rates at which you actually notice an impact on how the game feels, not the absolute minimum required to play and enjoy a game. This is where the Athlon 64 really kicks the Pentium 4 in the teeth. Our P4 system spent almost a third of the time, across all games, beneath our target minimum FPS. The Athlon 64 system, on the other hand, spent only 14% of its time there. This is a difference of a whopping 121%!

Clearly, the results we get from timedemo-style benchmarks in our processor reviews aren't far off the mark. If anything, you could say they're kind to Intel. By focusing on average frame rate in the playback of pre-recorded or scripted demos, we find AMD processors are typically 15-25% faster in gaming scenarios. Focusing on the amount of time spent beneath a minimum FPS threshold makes the situation look far worse for Intel, as they spend more than twice as much time beneath the limit.

 

[TheStu]

I moved from an Abit AN7 with a 2500 XP-M oc'd to 2.42 (220 on the RAM) My video card died, and I have been wanting to try out P4s for a while so I picked up a 2.4c with an Asus Micro-Atx (the name is long and all alpha-numericy.... it has integrated everything) Board. The Ram is now in Single channel and twice as much, but to be completely honest I dont feel much of a difference between the two systems. Although admittedly, if i had a decent onboard audio solution or sperate card, and a seperate video card things would be awfully different.. especially if i was running the RAM in dual channel.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: BlvdKing
I agree with Duvie:

1) X2's
2) P-D
3) P4s with HT
4) A64's (single cores)
5) Pentium-M
6) XP / P4b's and a's

I agree as well with a slight modification, my pentium-m is more responsive than my non-HT pentium-4's, while not quite as responsive as a p4 with HT or a dual core.