Whats with the debate about AMD vs Intel in the PRICE/PERFORMANCE segment? - AMD is the clear WINNER

[McCarthy]

I don't get the VIA bitching either. I have a KT133A chipset with the 686B southbridge. By the accounts you read around here there's absolutely no way whatsoever my computer can even boot without crashing, muchless run, muchless run for weeks at a time like it does.

Buncha spoiled brats who crashed their computers once before they read the manual and installed the 4in1's from the CD (yeah, 4in1's have improved, but the ones on the CD worked too) and haven't been able to get over it. The ECS board I used to build a system wanted the drivers from the CD too. Amazing! That MS might supply you with chipset drivers doesn't mean it's a better chipset, it means someone's got more friends at MS than someone else.

Cool? Pfft. Look at the wattages. P4 puts out as much heat. Quiet? My Panaflow on my 1600+ is doing just fine. Hard to assemble? Seems that's the same with either, except I suppose you can be three shades to the wind and install a heatsink on a P4 with a hammer. Other than that, what's the difference in assembly? Or installing software? Or using the thing? Ok, if you have a Live! card and a 686B you're not going to like life. Even before that "bug" which was as much one as the other I'd decided a Santa Cruz was a lot better way to go.

Some of you people really need to buy Macinstoshes and go away. When people complain for not days, not weeks, not even months but going on years about little problems with certain combinations on an ENTHUSIAST/TWEAK forum it's a bad sign at best.

Annoyed,
--Mc

 

[Dulanic]

AMD is what I call value.... I got a 8K3A with a Athlon XP 1600+ CPU... $66 and MB was $75... all I did was put in my CPU, set it to 1.85, set the FSB to 175, and had a CPU that was faster then a 2200+ and only cost $66!!! KT133 caused me a few problems, but this KT333 is solid as rock.

 

[Soulkeeper]

the athlon spanks the P4 with seti times
my 1.8 P4 northwood does seti packs in about 4 hr 20min (in linux running the windows version with wine and increasing the priority or nice level)
my uncles' athlon xp 1700+ puts um out just above 3 hours from in windows screen saver mode *** actually i saw one in at like 3hr15min with the cmd version on high priority****

i agree with these last two guys here too
stop the whining and AMD = value

 

[spanky]

Originally posted by: .paldo
Put your flamesuit on and let the flame began..

 

[Viper96720]

Yeah and Ford rules Chevys and Honda's rule everything else lol
All Hail Cyrix the chip that's not much faster than what is in my wheelwriter.

 

[BFG10K]

A lot of you folks seem to be buying into the hype without doing the proper research...

Not really. I don't think anyone here denies that for pure price/performance AMD is the clear winner. However there are many other significant reasons to go with Intel over AMD and when you include those in the total package, Intel is currently the way to go IMO.

the athlon spanks the P4 with seti times

I suppose that's an advantage if you like looking for Aliens but for the rest of us that like things like playing 3D games, we'll take the P4.

 

[amdskip]

AMD rulz, nuff said

 

[Rectalfier]

I would agree with you if you said, "AMD is the clear winner in the Price/Performance segment without overclocking."


The P4 is still better value. I bought my 1.6A for 213(Canadian) over two months ago and it's been running rock solid for the whole time at 2672Mhz. All of this running at a 668Mhz Front Side Bus. The 2.533 with 533 bus is stomped on by this beauty of a chip. Most people can get to 2.4 with a 600Mhz bus. I will not give up this chip untill CPU's are in the 4000Mhz/PR range. Intel is the best choice for overclockers.

 

[Rectalfier]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This debate just gets worse and worse as time goes by. The problem is that even something as "scientific" as what is a good CPU is a very subjective thing. Some people might prefer certain features like SSE2, some people may be looking for the best FPU, some may want to not spend very much and get a good CPU for the money, some may want the best rig they can buy for whatever the cost...

There is no best CPU for everyone. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages. Anyone who tries to tell you that a single solution will work best for every person is full of it.

Quick Thread Summary (in no particular order)
AMD is great
No, Intel is great
FUD about VIA "instability"
FUD about AMD heat
Infinity owns Subaru (???)
Irrelevant comparisons of bus speeds for two different CPU designs
More VIA FUD
AMD is great
Intel owns AMD
blah, blah, blah

I agree with you. Both Cpu's have their advantages, and disadvantages in overclocking, cost, and performance in different apps. I was worried when I got a P4 because no one could give me an idea of how a P4 performs in Tribes2, I was glad to find out that Tribes2 likes the P4 very much so. Tribes2 runs so much better on my P4 than my friends XP 1700 KT266A setup. It's so much faster, that my friend commented that it's much much faster than his system. I reccomment a P4 for any Tribes2 player.

Do research on what programs you use, and which processor is best fit for those programs price and performance wise. There's no point going around making wild statements and accusations about which processor is the ultimate.

 

[Wingznut]

Ok, I've read this thread a number of times... And I'm still not sure what Gog is trying to say.

Whats the purpose of buying a 1.6A P4 and oc'ing it for $155 when you could just get a Athlon XP 2000+ for $123???

Don't forget to add in the cost of a hs/fan to the price of the 1666mhz Athlon. So, that would make the price about even. So, we'll say that the Athlon's cost is really around $150.
But since were nitpicking about a couple of dollars, the P4-1.6a can actually be obtained for $143.

A 1.6A P4 that has been overclocked to above 2ghz levels will still not be able to outperform the XP 2000+ that runs at stock speeds.

What applications are you referring to? Many applications, the P4 will perform better than the Athlon. Are you thinking of one, in particular?

It will perform on par with a non overclocked 1.8A P4.

What will? The overclocked P4, or the 1666mhz Athlon? I think you are referring to the Athlon, as the comparison with a higher clocked P4 wouldn't make sense. That being said, a P4-1.8a is only about $10 more than the Athlon. Overclock it, and it's not even a competition.

If you don't believe me you can check out benchmarks at Sharkyextreme, where they have an article on the topic.

Happen to have a link? I couldn't seem to find the article.

But why do you care what cpu another person buys, anyway? I mean, do you care if the next guy buys Crest instead of Colgate? How about Cheer instead of Tide? As I've said 100 times before... I guess I just don't understand the zealotry.

I apologize if I misunderstood any of what you were saying... As I stated above, many parts of your post aren't all that clear (with the exception that you are obviously upset that many people are excited about the P4 now.)

 

[Lucky]

a quality HSF can be had in SVC GC-68 for $6. You dont need to spend $30.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

But what about us poor people in the UK? Over here, a Retail XP2000 (with HS/F) costs £116.
A Northwood 1.8 costs £164 (the 1.6a appears to have disappeared.)
I was considering the jump from AMD to Intel but the price/performance difference seems much greater over here

 

[chilled]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
But what about us poor people in the UK? Over here, a Retail XP2000 (with HS/F) costs £116.
A Northwood 1.8 costs £164 (the 1.6a appears to have disappeared.)
I was considering the jump from AMD to Intel but the price/performance difference seems much greater over here

Actually the retail 1.8a costs £136......
The price difference of £20 doesn't seem too bad to me, but all components are soooo much cheaper in the US!!!!
So we in the UK are ripped off, whatever we choose to buy....

 

[xpr8]

Originally posted by: Viper96720
Yeah and Ford rules Chevys and Honda's rule everything else lol
All Hail Cyrix the chip that's not much faster than what is in my wheelwriter.

Dude, Cyrix ownz all of you (at least in the 486 days).

 

[holdencommodore]

AMD has always had the great price/performance in my book.... that's why i have so many AMD systems .


Oh and Holden rules over Ford

 

[galt]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This debate just gets worse and worse as time goes by. The problem is that even something as "scientific" as what is a good CPU is a very subjective thing. Some people might prefer certain features like SSE2, some people may be looking for the best FPU, some may want to not spend very much and get a good CPU for the money, some may want the best rig they can buy for whatever the cost...

There is no best CPU for everyone. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages. Anyone who tries to tell you that a single solution will work best for every person is full of it.

Quick Thread Summary (in no particular order)
AMD is great
No, Intel is great
FUD about VIA "instability"
FUD about AMD heat
Infinity owns Subaru (???)
Irrelevant comparisons of bus speeds for two different CPU designs
More VIA FUD
AMD is great
Intel owns AMD
blah, blah, blah

You just saved me 15 minutes. Could you please do your summary for other threads too? Thanks =)

 

[LarryJoe]

Gog - you need to qualify your statements a bit more to be taken seriously. Telling folks to go and read a sharkey's review is almost comical. You do need to take chipsets and ram into consideration when comparing the two chips and platforms. Also, the 1.6A P4 is getting old in terms of the hot chip to buy. You choose to compare the bottom of the line (interms of clock speed) Northwood, with the top of the line AMD offering. Fact is, AMD is stuck at the moment with their 2000+ and 2200+ chips that are almost no fun for us hardware freaks that love to juice things. They run hot and do not overclock well. You should put price aside somewhat and think about future pipelines.

BUT, ok, I'll take the bait, a 1.6A at 2.2 or 2.4 (which most can do) with RDRAM PC800 running at PC1000 speeds will blow the doors off the top 2200+ AMD offerings. As far as price, $30 is not a lot to spend on the entry of an architecture (Northwood) vs. the end of the line/yield of AMD. As far as proof, sine your proof was to "can check out benchmarks at Sharkyextreme", I will be lazy too and tell you to look around a bit, inlcuding Anand's reviews.

All in all, I guess I am contributing to this pointless thread, so I took your flame bait.

LJ

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
the athlon spanks the P4 with seti times
my 1.8 P4 northwood does seti packs in about 4 hr 20min (in linux running the windows version with wine and increasing the priority or nice level)
my uncles' athlon xp 1700+ puts um out just above 3 hours from in windows screen saver mode *** actually i saw one in at like 3hr15min with the cmd version on high priority****

i agree with these last two guys here too
stop the whining and AMD = value

I dont know about you buy my P4 rig avgs less than 3 hrs per WU and seen it go as low as 2 hrs 36 minutes in a WU

1.8 @ 2.4 here


also i bought my 1.8A for about 175 over 6 months ago what is the price now 160 now thats what i call resale value

you definitely cant say the same about AXPs

 

[Athlon4all]

As far as I'm concerned, the only CPU'sw that AMD's best can't compete with are the 2.4B and 2.53, and with current pricing, the 2200+ matches vs the 2.26, and the only benchmarks where the XP is behind the 2.26 by more than 10% are SSE2 3D Rendering and SYSmark 2002 ICC. Same can be said about the 2.0A vs the 2100+, and at the low end, well, if u oc the 1.8A to 533fsb (or 1.6A to 600fsb), then that bests all the XP's, although if u onyl hit 533fsb with the 1.6A then well, it does get tougher. The 1.6A 533fsb oc puts it between a 2.0A and 2.26, but the turth is, that the XP in the same price as the 1.6A can't competye with that oc. so thats my take.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Actually the retail 1.8a costs £136......

Dammit jim, why can I never find things cheaply? (Is that excluding VAT, btw - if not, where is that from?)

 

[andreasl]

If Intel sold their CPUs for $2, AMD would sell theirs for $1 and claim better price/performance

 

[jonmullen]

Problems with Via chipsets and Soundblaster Live cards. I hear alot about the problem, but no specifics. I have an KT266A board with a Sb Live! card and have never had any problems. I don't really care what people buy. Just don't dis Via. After all they were the first to bring the Pentium DDR. Personaly if I were to go Intel I would get a SiS board. But hey thats just me.

 

[dexvx]

I looked at sharky's magical benchmarks. The p4 1.6@2.133 is beaten by a 1.8a at stock speeds. Why? Look at the test system setup. The 1.6a @2.133 was on a i845 board with a RADEON 8500 @290/290 where as the 1.8a at stock speeds was on a SiS645DX with a GEFORCE4 TI4600.

He said:

Please note that while we have combined the benchmark scores to save space, the Pentium 4-1.6A and 1.8A use two totally different platforms (i845/Radeon 8500 vs. SiS 645DX/GF4 Ti 4600) and should not be directly compared.

 

[Gog]

Shoot, the first time I read the article that comment wasn't there. Thanks for pointing that out Devx...

Guys, my argument essentially is that if you are within a certain budget, dollar per dollar the Athlon XP is a better buy. There have been who knows how many comments posted on how AMD is losing out to Intel due to the new lower speed Northwoods that oc well, but the fact of the matter remains that AMD is still more than competitive in this area.

In comparing the two processors, your average testbeds would be an 845 or Sis chipset versus the KT333. We aren't talking about RDRAM or 400DDR because these are either not available or too expensive. With the 1.6a, the average oc is about 2ghz, most can't take anymore. And even though the chip is oc'ed to a speed of 2ghz, it will not function on par with a packaged 2ghz chip...

Now what is the purpose of spending extra money and effort (in oc'ing it) on the Intel 1.6a when you could get the same or more performance for less money from a stock Athlon XP 2000+.

 

[Wolfsraider]

Originally posted by: Gog
Shoot, the first time I read the article that comment wasn't there. Thanks for pointing that out Devx...

Guys, my argument essentially is that if you are within a certain budget, dollar per dollar the Athlon XP is a better buy. There have been who knows how many comments posted on how AMD is losing out to Intel due to the new lower speed Northwoods that oc well, but the fact of the matter remains that AMD is still more than competitive in this area.

In comparing the two processors, your average testbeds would be an 845 or Sis chipset versus the KT333. We aren't talking about RDRAM or 400DDR because these are either not available or too expensive. With the 1.6a, the average oc is about 2ghz, most can't take anymore. And even though the chip is oc'ed to a speed of 2ghz, it will not function on par with a packaged 2ghz chip...

Now what is the purpose of spending extra money and effort (in oc'ing it) on the Intel 1.6a when you could get the same or more performance for less money from a stock Athlon XP 2000+.

"We aren't talking about RDRAM or 400DDR because these are either not available or too expensive"
i assume you are talking 1066 rdram and legit ddr400?imho too expensive is a relative instance to the buyer and as such should'nt be used in a blanket statement.
since this seems to be saying that you won't pony up the cash for better performance does that make your statement good for the rest of the world?or does it mean that while you are entitled to your opinion and how you justify your expenditures,but to each his own as we all have personal preferences.
and i am not trying to cause you strife but what gives ?

should we have to listen over and over to people who can't justify the added cost of better performing parts dictating which "in their opinion" parts are the best for the rest of us?

also experience is a great teacher so i ask you have you ever overclocked a 1.6a to even 2 ghz levels and tested the results against a 2ghz athlon?or are you just going by benchmarks someone else ran?

here you state:In comparing the two processors, your average testbeds would be an 845 or Sis chipset versus the KT333. We aren't talking about RDRAM or 400DDR because these are either not available or too expensive. With the 1.6a, the average oc is about 2ghz, most can't take anymore. And even though the chip is oc'ed to a speed of 2ghz, it will not function on par with a packaged 2ghz chip... are you asking about comparing sdram and ddr 333 since you eliminated rdram?

what i'm simply asking is

why does it matter to you how people spend their money because it seems you need justification for your purchases. be happy with what works for you and have an open mind to what is available since not all of us are in a certain budget or even average lol

here is a question for you

if you had the lifestyle to afford what you wanted how would you make these same choices?

diversity is the spice of life

cheers gog