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

[Wingznut]

"And even though the chip is oc'ed to a speed of 2ghz, it will not function on par with a packaged 2ghz chip..."

I'd love to hear your explanation of that statement.

 

[VFAA]

No need to flame or argue this. AMD is the clear winner in price/performance.
Done.
Move on.

 

[AndyHui]

And even though the chip is oc'ed to a speed of 2ghz, it will not function on par with a packaged 2ghz chip...

???

Well, that's correct actually. The overclocked processor will be running on a higher FSB and then perform higher than a stock 2.0GHz processor.

 

[WarCon]

When reading this thread I had a strange vision of two warriors arguing which ones "sword" was the longest, but when it came right down to it both got the job done. And you know that old saying, it isn't how long it is - its how you use it.........

 

[Booster]

I tend to agree that AMD became not a performance leader, but the best bang for the buck value solution right now. It's better price/performance-wise to get an Athlon XP for the same money than a severely crippled P4 Celeron. Plus, you get an uncrippled CPU that's a lot more pleasant to own, IMO. It would take some time before the ClawHammer arrives that AMD will become the performance and value leader once again. And I agree that VIA chipsets aren't the best and they're killing AMD sales. Some of them are/were pretty good (VIA Apollo Pro133A/T, KT266A), others are suck (Apollo Pro133, KT133A, KT266). I think SIS is a whole lot better now.

 

[dexvx]

Too bad SiS wont release an Athlon counterpart to the 648.

Makes me wonder how the 658 will perform.

 

[pyjujiop]

The SiS746 for AMD platforms is supposed to be out sometime in August, but I haven't heard of any motherboards that are supposed to make use of it yet. As an AMD user and VIA hater (using a Leadtek 7350KDA), I hope we see some good products based on it.

 

[pitupepito2000]

I am an AMD fan and I think they are the best CPU in the market and I can't wait for AMD to take the crown back as the fastest processors.

 

[Macro2]

RE:"Well, that's correct actually. The overclocked processor will be running on a higher FSB and then perform higher than a stock 2.0GHz processor."

I really don't think that's what he mean't. OTOH it depends how you OC. Multiplier or bus.
In the case of bus you are indeed correct.

 

[Curley]

Originally posted by: merlocka
nForce2 might change things, but after getting my a$$ kicked by VIA motherboard problems on the systems I've built for people the last couple years I'll pass on AMD for now. My personal A7V with T bird has been pretty stable, but I've had my share of SBlive troubles with it.

I still can't believe that I ever replaced BX boards with VIA boards. Someone shoot me.

I'm not an AMD hater but I'm just no fan of VIA. I always build AMD systems with AMD chipsets. I like to run intel processors with intel chipsets. I really feel for you merloka. I would always stand my ground when it invloved the BX board. Since RDRAM has gone down, I run a few I820 chipsets with PIIIs and I have to say it is really a snappy configuration especially since the boards can be had for $20.00 to $50.00 with AGP4 and 133 FSB.

Secondly, I am a memory freak. I run RDRAM. So when the arguement of price/performance comes up I always ask what is the price difference between RDRAM and real, true CAS2 DDR memory. I'm talking the true stuff, it is hard to find and just as expensive. I don't want to hear about DDR that can do CAS 2, I'm talking about real CAS 2 stuff. You can build a solid AMD system for a good price but I think the real price difference is no more that $100.00. Some of the most stable systems I've built were AMD with AMD chipsets because the stability is better, some of the VIA boards run faster, but the AMD chipsets save me a lot of headaches and phone calls.

Anyway, the debate goes on.

 

[SteelCityFan]

Originally posted by: Booster
I tend to agree that AMD became not a performance leader, but the best bang for the buck value solution right now. It's better price/performance-wise to get an Athlon XP for the same money than a severely crippled P4 Celeron. Plus, you get an uncrippled CPU that's a lot more pleasant to own, IMO. It would take some time before the ClawHammer arrives that AMD will become the performance and value leader once again. And I agree that VIA chipsets aren't the best and they're killing AMD sales. Some of them are/were pretty good (VIA Apollo Pro133A/T, KT266A), others are suck (Apollo Pro133, KT133A, KT266). I think SIS is a whole lot better now.

I always find it amusing that people hand the AMD Clawhammer the performance lead months before it even hits the market. Could you please provide benchmarks of the Clawhammer vs the Future P4 at the time of Clawhammer release. I would LOVE to see these. Please share your inside information. I assume you do work for Intel and AMD right? FYI, Intel has some pretty significant upgrades to their P4's and to their chipsets coming in the near future.

Also, don't forget that when the Clawhammer comes out, it will get much of it's speed improvements from Intel's SSE2 instructions.

 

[apoppin]

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

The only "clear winner" is the CONSUMER.

 

[BlvdKing]

The XP 1600+ is a great value at the moment. Alot of people are getting a 2200+ out of a $68 CPU. I also can't wait to see some Hammer benchmarks...

 

[VFAA]

Originally posted by: guapo337

Originally posted by: FishTankX
To unlock the true performance of the AthlonXP, you must use high quality RAM (266 CL2/333 CL2) and the Via KT266A/KT333 chipset. And you know the general sentiment on Via. Via has too many problems.. and bugs.. and headaches..

personally, i have NO IDEA where the "via is bad" sentiment comes from.. i have a shuttle ak31a kt266a motherboard, and i have to have a problem that is the chipset's fault.

I agree. I'm still on a VIA KT133A chipset and I never had a problem with my system. Check my rigs for details.
I think a lot of people here on ATOT crap out on VIA & AMD as well as other things for no reason. They read an article on HOCP or AT and go and buy whatever the authors say. I remember the times where every Jack, Jim & Sally here run and got a Duron 600MHz because it could overclock to 1GHz+. It was the best bang for the money at the moment. It wasn't until Intel released it's P4 Northwood line of processors where they've taken the crown for fastest CPUs from AMD. Let's not BS, we all know it.
Also, I'd like to know how VIA sucks? Is it because they release VIA 4in1 drivers every 2 months or so? Well have I got news for you, take a look at Nvidia for ie. Don't they have new drivers out every a couple of months or so? You could easily say they suck becuase they have to release new drivers so often. They don't. New drivers improve performance more over the old drivers and take care of some minor problems encountered by 1 out of 10,000 users. And if you benchmark VIA you'll see what I'm talking about.
So everybody is running to get a P4 1.6A because it can overclock to 2.4GHz+ (AMD Duron 600MHz @ 1.0GHz deja vu?). That's cool with me. Share your happiness with us but don't toss dipers at AMD or VIA or even Pioneer DVD ROMs (which a lot of you said are very noisy, heck I got one and it's more quiet than my Plextor 16/10/40a).
If you look at my rig, I have built a server that consists of Intel parts. Why did I go with Intel? Because I listened to you peeps on how very stable Intel is and all that crap. I won't touch that subject with a 10 foot pole as I know my problems with my server and its stability come from the Intel 810 chipset in my Intel mobo. I know I have some minor problems with this setup but another Intel user of the same parts will say he hasn't had a slight problem. That's because it happens randomly.
I'm going for the AMD XP 2100+ processor in a few weeks. Just waiting till the price drops a little bit.

 

[Gog]

Alrighty folks, here is another benchmark to put this debate finally to rest.

BENCHMARK

Look under the 3dmark2001se 10x7x32. The overclocked 1.6a at 2.1ghz scores 6816. Their benchmark machine is running a relatively new and competitive chipset (compared to my antiquated 760), the SiS645. They ran their test using a Geforce 3 ti 200 at stock speeds. My setup at the same resolution scores about 6900.

So there you go, I believe I proved my point. Why bother buying a more expensive chip (the 1.6a) and spend time overclocking it just to end up with performance below a chip that is less expensive, the Athlon XP 2000+!!!

VIVA AMD !!!

 

[WarCon]

But what does that same 1.6A do when its overclocked to 2.5 or 2.6?

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: Gog
Alrighty folks, here is another benchmark to put this debate finally to rest.

BENCHMARK

Look under the 3dmark2001se 10x7x32. The overclocked 1.6a at 2.1ghz scores 6816. Their benchmark machine is running a relatively new and competitive chipset (compared to my antiquated 760), the SiS645. They ran their test using a Geforce 3 ti 200 at stock speeds. My setup at the same resolution scores about 6900.

So there you go, I believe I proved my point. Why bother buying a more expensive chip (the 1.6a) and spend time overclocking it just to end up with performance below a chip that is less expensive, the Athlon XP 2000+!!!

VIVA AMD !!!

Dear god, when will the 3dMark2001se benchmarks stop being held in such high esteem. There's so much more to a system than its 3dmark score, I'm sure you know that.

Kramer