StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Obviously AMD has a stigma in OZ that it doesn't have here, though Intel does dominate the marketplace.
I like Intel too, but frankly AMD offers better bang in most cases, and that's why my last one was AMD based. I didn't check mobo costs, but I think perhaps Intel mobos generally cost more too (maybe I'm wrong).
No, that's the exactly reason why people get AMD - because that statement is opposite from reality. AMD is the underdog and has competitive pricing to match that. If you have $100 to spend in almost all cases the AMD will give you more computing power.
I like Intel too, but frankly AMD offers better bang in most cases, and that's why my last one was AMD based. I didn't check mobo costs, but I think perhaps Intel mobos generally cost more too (maybe I'm wrong).
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
No, the + indicates a rating. the Barton 3200+ runs at 2.2 ghz, but clock for clock it trounces an Intel, which is why they give it a rating of a 3200+, so in anand's own words a barton 3200+ (though running at 2.2 ghz only) will be similar in power to an intel, losing in some cases, and winning in others. Keeping the 64 bit cpus out of it, the AMDs are MUCH cheaper.
Even more so. $75 buys a barton 2500+, or a P4 1.5
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,037
- 32,526
- 146
You have it bass ackwards
With over 80% market share it is quite obvious that everybody chooses Intel.
10% can be, and in some games out is the difference between playable FPS or not, if my Halo and FarCry performance drops 10% from where it's at I would not be pleased. HT is an excellent feature for anyone who does heavy multitasking or DC projects and should certainly weigh heavily in a purchasing decision if those capabilities are a requirement. Something you are overlooking though is that while A64 and P4c offer very equitable performance for similar money, the sub 100$ CPU market belongs to AMD, Celery is a joke that Intel can laugh about all the way to the bank. What the thread topic really seems to be asking is why so many in these forums choose AMD, from reading thousands of posts here the common theme seems to be that it's because a student, or anyone on a tight budget for that matter, can put together a fast AMD/nF2 combo with SoundStorm for close to what a Intel P4 2.4-2.8c costs alone. Since the system is expected to handle stereo system and home theater duties along with gaming and studies due to limited space in dorm rooms for instance, it becomes the best price/performance solution for them.
The standard argument of "you have to buy an expensive cooler to overclock AMD" is no longer the case. A retail 2500+ will reach 3200+ or higher speeds with stock cooling just fine now. Then the common response is that a overclocked P4c 2.4-2.8 is substantially faster than a the overclocked 2500+ given the avereage overclock for each, true, but to use your own argument against you, is that difference enough to make the "real world" performance an issue? I'd say no, based on the observation that most around here using overclocked sktA nF2 systems aren't scambling for cash to upgrade to P4c or A64 because their games aren't playable, or their DVD backups or MP3 ripping, DIVX encoding kept them from finishing their home work or other tasks.
Now, my personal response is that I chose A64 over P4c for several reasons
1. Some here have in the recent past issued a challenge for AMD enthusiasts to put their money where their mouth is and pony up for a A64 since at the time buying their $50 1700+ CPUs and overclocking to 2.2-2.5ghz, which everyone was doing, wasn't helping AMD's bottom line. So if we wanted to support them we should buy their $200+ CPUs and show you do indeed wish to help them remain in business. I do, so I did!
Heck, I even bought a AMD 8151 chipset based board and would still be using it if Ali's SATA controller wasn't junk.2. HT isn't a pressing concern for me as I have 3 boxen and a notebook.
3. I've had a desire to own a Hammer generation CPU for at least 2 yrs now=wish fulfillment. You can't put a price on that baby! :sun:
4. A64 offers the best gaming performance available and it scales well when overclocked, which I had every intention of doing. It's currently@2.4ghz 6:5 because my ram won't handle 1:1 so I have stock 400DDR speed but 400mhz extra clock and despite AMD deciding the extra 512kb cache is worth 200mhz I know damned well it's faster than a 3400+ overall. That creates a nice price/performance ratio that I'm satisfied with.
To conclude, I feel it's a largely subjective topic since things like value and performance depend on usage and perception, not just hardware sites benchmark comparisons. I feel both companies offer excellent value in the mid to high end and that AMD is the superior value in the ultra budget sector.
Intel's marketing budget approaches AMD's revenue.
No way they will ever market like Intel. Plus intel has a few companies that advertise heavily (Dell/Gateway) in their back pocket.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,037
- 32,526
- 146
Intel is just too much money for what you get. And I might also add that this forum and the main site runs on AMD processors.
Bleep
Bleep
What makes people choose a specific CPU brand over another??? Some will buy what the salesman give them, because they don't know anything about computers. Some will buy what their friends use, regardless what it is. Some will buy the cheapest. Some goes for the market leader. Some people aim for the most expensive... but the bottom line is that advertising pays off, and it is commonly the biggest actor that can affor most ads.
Facts:
- AMD is the underdog, and
- INTEL is the market leader
- If AMD and no other CPU manufaturer other than Intel were around, leaving the whole market to Intel, CPU prices would be MUCH higher.
- AMD and Intel uses different architectures, making MHz-wise comparsions useless. (Still, this gives Intel the marketing edge since they use the higher clocked architecture, and uneducated people likes high numbers.)
Also, in my opinion, the claims that AMD is better for gaming and Intel is better for encoding is way overstated. The difference isn't that big. A 5% performance drop in gaming is not an issue (the GPU is FAR more important here...) neither is a 5 minutes gain in a 90 minutes encoding project.
It all boils down to two factors: bang-for-the-buck and religion! Both Intel and AMD has their fanboys and most computer interested people are young and on a budget.
Still, AMD gets you more value. And I guess that this is the main argument and the most important right now.
It should be in all computer interested peoples interest to keep AMD on the track, since AMD are keeping the CPU-prices at a reasonably level.
(It's easy to say, but I would probably be standing by Intels side if the situation were the opposite with AMD as the big market leading gigant.)
I'm not stupid and I'm not blindly buying AMD whatever the cost. If AMD where clearly a bad choice I wouldn't go for it. But if I were to buy a rig today, it would be an AMD-based.
(And, when we are talking value. Maaaaany home PC's all over the world could perform significantly better if their owners took better care of them, regardless of CPU brand. Maintaining, tuning and cleaning your system is VERY important. And this don't cost a hing, besides time.)
Just my thoughts...
Facts:
- AMD is the underdog, and
- INTEL is the market leader
- If AMD and no other CPU manufaturer other than Intel were around, leaving the whole market to Intel, CPU prices would be MUCH higher.
- AMD and Intel uses different architectures, making MHz-wise comparsions useless. (Still, this gives Intel the marketing edge since they use the higher clocked architecture, and uneducated people likes high numbers.)
Also, in my opinion, the claims that AMD is better for gaming and Intel is better for encoding is way overstated. The difference isn't that big. A 5% performance drop in gaming is not an issue (the GPU is FAR more important here...) neither is a 5 minutes gain in a 90 minutes encoding project.
It all boils down to two factors: bang-for-the-buck and religion! Both Intel and AMD has their fanboys and most computer interested people are young and on a budget.
Still, AMD gets you more value. And I guess that this is the main argument and the most important right now.
It should be in all computer interested peoples interest to keep AMD on the track, since AMD are keeping the CPU-prices at a reasonably level.
(It's easy to say, but I would probably be standing by Intels side if the situation were the opposite with AMD as the big market leading gigant.)
I'm not stupid and I'm not blindly buying AMD whatever the cost. If AMD where clearly a bad choice I wouldn't go for it. But if I were to buy a rig today, it would be an AMD-based.
(And, when we are talking value. Maaaaany home PC's all over the world could perform significantly better if their owners took better care of them, regardless of CPU brand. Maintaining, tuning and cleaning your system is VERY important. And this don't cost a hing, besides time.)
Just my thoughts...
HardWarrior
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 4,400
- 23
- 81
Well, if you don't want to get flamed you should consider not using words like "obsession" when asking for input. Your choice.
My transition to AMD was based on two things:
1. AMD CPU's were and are designed with gamers in mind. Intel is just starting to take us seriously as potential buyers.
2. AMD was, until recently, the hands down choice in the bang-for-buck category.
If AMD drops the ball and Intel CPU's and MB's begin to offer features and a price-point that appeals to me I can easily jump ship.
apoppin
Lifer
I dunno . . . I chose Intel.
For ME, it was the best choice at a particular instant in time when I needed a (relatively) budget (hi-end) system.
It could have just as easily have been an A-64 system
My P4-2.80c easily o/c'd to 3.4Ghz and is no slouch in any performance department . . . i don't feel ANY disadvantage for having chosen Intel over AMD . . .
LtPage1
Diamond Member
- Jan 15, 2004
- 6,311
- 2
- 0
its pretty close speed for a hell of a lot less money. so yeah, it is because theyre cheaper. i mean, the 1200$ top of the line intel is pretty damn close to 3400+ for about a third of the price. also, theres a fanboy aspect to it. most general users havent even heard of intel.
I feel AMD has price/performance covered on all ends.
I bought a low volt XP-M 1700+. I run it at 2.09 (2600+). It only costed me $63, and I'm sure that if I had better ram, it could go even farther.
The XP-M Barton 2400+ for $77 is another example of an awesome chip with a good amount of cache, overclockability, performance, etc. Under $100, if you were to go intel, you'd end up with a Celeron that gets beat by an XP 1600+ half the time.
On the higher end, if you were to get an intel 2.8c for ~$170, you'd be better off spending about $40 more getting a Athlon 64 3000+ because of the overall higher perfformance and the future 64 bit path.
Overall, AMD offers much better chips for the dollar. And AMD platform chipsets such as the nForce 2 are stellar.
I bought a low volt XP-M 1700+. I run it at 2.09 (2600+). It only costed me $63, and I'm sure that if I had better ram, it could go even farther.
The XP-M Barton 2400+ for $77 is another example of an awesome chip with a good amount of cache, overclockability, performance, etc. Under $100, if you were to go intel, you'd end up with a Celeron that gets beat by an XP 1600+ half the time.
On the higher end, if you were to get an intel 2.8c for ~$170, you'd be better off spending about $40 more getting a Athlon 64 3000+ because of the overall higher perfformance and the future 64 bit path.
Overall, AMD offers much better chips for the dollar. And AMD platform chipsets such as the nForce 2 are stellar.
apoppin
Lifer
Not necessarily . . . that IS what my previous post was about.
The "future 64 bit path" is useles to me as there isn't anything real NOW for me - by then both Intel and AMD will have 64 bit mainstream in both of their offereings. I don't care to be a beta tester for Win32-64.
With the Intel proc you can COUNT on a substantial O/C - I am getting ~3.4ghz with default voltage (in MB monitor; not Abit IC7's undervolted BIOS); most A64 o/c'ing is held back to ~10% by the immature MB solutions (so far).
When I went on this forum last month and asked for advice on UPgrading, NO ONE could definitively point to one system (a64 3000+ vs. P4 2.80c) as superior . . . so, I went with the CHEAPER system which was Intel.
price / performance is not a concern as far as the CPU is concerned. i just love :heart: intel. except the celery.
Speaking mainly about the year 2001 - 2003 athlon XP's and also about the current A64, the reasons for going for amd are simple.
Up until the launch of P4C and even after the P4C AMD was equal to or better than Intel in many areas. Intel kills in synthetic bandwidth benchmarks, and i usually ignore the results of all synthetics including 3dmark, but when you look at desktop apps, and games its clear that they are on par with each other.
With the launch of the P4/RDRAM platform in late 2000, it was clear that a 1.2ghz Athlon on SDARM was better all around. Factor in cost and overclockability and you have a winner. Disregarding price it was still better in nearly all categories.
When the P4 moved to SDRAM that was for the budget segment, and OEMs. Performance and price were not a factor at all.
Up until the transition to DDR I had a Dell RDRAM based P4 socket 423 system. I went with Intel and got a DDR i845E system, but at the time the new XP's were out and were on par if not better than intel in all markets.
Intels hold on the general public is where the perception of 'quality' comes from. Intel systems are by no means bad products, but they are also by no means intinately superior in every way imaginable to man kind. Its the advertising and massive market share. Most people dont look at benchmarks are really compair system specs, all they see is '3ghz, 512 ram, 120GB hard drive' and a price tag.
Anyways, after Intel went with DDR and got some PCI and AGP locks the platform was revitalized. AMD still had a performance lead, but Intel was now nearly as inexpensive when buying 1.6A and 1.8A's. What got intel back in performance and arguably gave it a lead was dual channel DDR and the 800mhz FSB. After the launch of that platform Intel was usually on par with AMD or faster. On the other hand AMD had the Nforce2, PCI/AGP lock and soundstorm. NF2 kept the enthusiasts on this board and the internet in general VERY happy, but for the mainstream intel was back because the performance gap was closed.
I dont know really where i am going with this. but Intel is only percieved as better because its in the majority. AMD was usually better than Intel during the entire XP generation, but lost alot of steam during the last half of 2003.
Now with the A64 you get a surperior performance, cheaper price and 64bit compatibility. Also AMD will be keeping DDR1 for quite a while while intel is going to make a push for DDR2. That will keep AMD's prices down and probably keep the enthusiasts happy, though the main stream may go for Intel because its Intel.
Up until the launch of P4C and even after the P4C AMD was equal to or better than Intel in many areas. Intel kills in synthetic bandwidth benchmarks, and i usually ignore the results of all synthetics including 3dmark, but when you look at desktop apps, and games its clear that they are on par with each other.
With the launch of the P4/RDRAM platform in late 2000, it was clear that a 1.2ghz Athlon on SDARM was better all around. Factor in cost and overclockability and you have a winner. Disregarding price it was still better in nearly all categories.
When the P4 moved to SDRAM that was for the budget segment, and OEMs. Performance and price were not a factor at all.
Up until the transition to DDR I had a Dell RDRAM based P4 socket 423 system. I went with Intel and got a DDR i845E system, but at the time the new XP's were out and were on par if not better than intel in all markets.
Intels hold on the general public is where the perception of 'quality' comes from. Intel systems are by no means bad products, but they are also by no means intinately superior in every way imaginable to man kind. Its the advertising and massive market share. Most people dont look at benchmarks are really compair system specs, all they see is '3ghz, 512 ram, 120GB hard drive' and a price tag.
Anyways, after Intel went with DDR and got some PCI and AGP locks the platform was revitalized. AMD still had a performance lead, but Intel was now nearly as inexpensive when buying 1.6A and 1.8A's. What got intel back in performance and arguably gave it a lead was dual channel DDR and the 800mhz FSB. After the launch of that platform Intel was usually on par with AMD or faster. On the other hand AMD had the Nforce2, PCI/AGP lock and soundstorm. NF2 kept the enthusiasts on this board and the internet in general VERY happy, but for the mainstream intel was back because the performance gap was closed.
I dont know really where i am going with this.
but Intel is only percieved as better because its in the majority. AMD was usually better than Intel during the entire XP generation, but lost alot of steam during the last half of 2003.Now with the A64 you get a surperior performance, cheaper price and 64bit compatibility. Also AMD will be keeping DDR1 for quite a while while intel is going to make a push for DDR2. That will keep AMD's prices down and probably keep the enthusiasts happy, though the main stream may go for Intel because its Intel.
What is the current market share? Intel has what, over 80%, 90%? In any event, it is a huge segment of the market. I don't think that anywhere close to "everyone" is buying AMD.
Personally, I buy AMD because for what I do, mostly business/office-type applications with some gaming, the Athlon tends to spank the P4. And spanks it for less money.
\Dan
Personally, I buy AMD because for what I do, mostly business/office-type applications with some gaming, the Athlon tends to spank the P4. And spanks it for less money.
\Dan
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
AMD has amazing price/performance ratio. However, one thing must be made clear. P4 2.4 C > Barton 2500+, 2.6C > 2600+, 2.8C > 2800+, 3.0ghz > 3000+, 3.2ghz > 3200 + pretty much in everything but gaming. And for some people encoding rendering and other applications which take advantage of HyperThreading like Photoshop, the performance increase on teh Intel side vs. Athlon XP is HUGE. Otherwise XP is amazing.
Mind you I have both AMD and Intel systems and I can assure in where AMD wins its by 5-10% tops, where P4 wins its often by a lot more (in the areas where P4 is a lot stronger).
P4 3.2 vs. 3200+ XP = P4 3.2 wins 22 times vs. 4 for 3200+ xp @Xbit Labs
"We would also like to stress that AMD?s current rating system used for processor marking should not be considered a proper comparison criterion. The enhancements introduced in the new Pentium 4, such as 800MHz bus and Hyper-Threading technology, made this processor indisputably faster than Athlon XP 3200+."
Intel 3200 wins 10 tests vs. AMD 3200+ wins 1 test @ Anandtech
"With the introduction of the 800MHz, Intel has put the nail in the Athlon XP's coffin - whatever chances AMD had at regaining the performance crown with the Athlon XP were lost when Intel introduced the 865PE and 875P platforms."
Intel P4 3200 vs. Athlon XP 3200 + (Intel - 21 wins approx.; AMD - 0 wins)
"In our extensive benchmark tests, the P4 is always in the lead"
I agree with this statement:
"To be fair, it must be said that AMD offers a good performance/ price ratio with its Athlon processors, but it still cannot quite keep up with the Intel CPUs."
Intel 3.2 vs. Athlon XP 3200+ @Digit-Life = Intel 17 vs. AMD 2 wins
Note: the tests where Intel architecture is signficantly better Intel wins by a lot.
MP3/Lame +12,6
MPEG4/DivX +9,6
WinAce +19,9
WinRAR +29,3
3ds max +9,2
Photoshop +11,7
CPU RM/Solving +30,3
CPU RM/Rendering/2threads +33,5
Now for those users who don't use these specific applications AMD is the better choice no hands down. But for some users these gains are significant.
And don't forget all the programs that benefit from HyperThreading like 2 instances of SETI complete in under 3hr for me on a 3.2ghz p4. In the future some games are supposed to take advantage of Hyperthreading like half life 2.
Here is proof AMD CPU is amazing for gaming and at high resolutions CPU speed is almost irrelavant
Now Barton XP-M 2500+ @ 2.4ghz or higher is still an awesome choice. But if you want to talk about Overclocking at the moment, a 2.8C @ 3.5ghz will still be faster than even XP-M @ 2600mhz.
Price Comparison on Newegg:
XP-M 2500+ OEM @$95 need $10 for a cooler => total $105 at least (you might need a better cooler)
Overclocker's motherboard - Abit NF7-S Retail@102 (includes shipping)
Total: $207
P4 2.8C Retail @ $183
Overclocker's motherboard with same features Abit IS7 Retail@96 (includes shipping)
Total: $279
Price Difference: $72.
And you can save extra $30 by buying a Barton 2500+ and getting it to 3200+.
But for some $100 isn't so significant, especially when you consider that Intel 2.4/2.6/2.8C@3.2+ghz is faster than Athlon XP 3200+ at 90% of the tests and in some it's not even close.
P.S. I am not an Intel fanatic, I just buy what suits me the best for the price. If $100 for others is hard to justify for an Intel system than thats fine. But let's make things clear == Intel P4 "C" is faster than Barton XP.
2's two types of users. biased or value for money. value for money concious will probably always go the AMD route. the biased users such as myself would rather die than use AMD.
it's almost like... Ford vs GM in a way. Ford rocks btw
it's almost like... Ford vs GM in a way. Ford rocks btw
I build both AMD & Pentium systems and can say that head to head, AMD kicks Intel's butt and has been doing so for a very long time. Overclocking is much easier with AMD, and I agree with Vernor that the better motherboards out there are AMD style.
But, like I tell my customers, if you have the money to throw away, we can get Intel, no problem. Then you can say you have "Intel inside". When it comes time to upgrade, you will be paying that 40% more for Intel again...
But, like I tell my customers, if you have the money to throw away, we can get Intel, no problem. Then you can say you have "Intel inside". When it comes time to upgrade, you will be paying that 40% more for Intel again...
I will admit, that i tend to lean towards Intel over AMD, despite the price/performance difference.
I hope that AMD, can shake it up to Intel with regards to sales. It will mean cheaper cpu's all round.
That can only be a good thing for us all.
HardWarrior
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 4,400
- 23
- 81
Actually, the price-point ratio is starting to shift towards Intel, but their CPU's still leave a bit to be desired compared to AMD.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 403
-
Facebook
Twitter