Intel Vs. Amd

[lynx]

How about just comparing performance, then clock speeds are unimportant. If your computer has a speed of 400Mhz, but it outperforms mine with 20Ghz, are you going to tell me that mine is better in some ways? I don't think so, unless of course mine costs half the price.

That's what it's all about, performance/price. The ONLY exception is when one produces a chip with performance that the other just cannot match.

Edit: it doesn't even matter if one calls it a 5000+ and its performance compares to the oppositions 3000, the cheaper one is better, so even names don't matter.

[jbrockz]

ok..i may be a little out of sync here since i didn't read this thread from post one...but here goes.

FSB is often more important then clock speed [one reason being you can overclock ]. FSB speeds are the speeds at which the different devices inside the pc communicate and if this is not good enough speed, it serves as a bottleneck to the actual performance of the devices. as for the caches [l1, l2] they are also important bacause they provide info [for lack of a better word] beforehand so whatever device is asking the processor for some processed instruction doesn't have to wait. [noob, so pardon me for not using technical words] example, intel is gonna make special edition P4s with a lot more cache [3mb but not sure].

all in all, cache and fsb dictate the decision over clock speed.

[theprisoner]

caches and FSB goes to intel. The AMDs are still running a 400mhz front side bus to Intels 833mhz.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by theprisoner@22 September 2003 - 00:05
caches and FSB goes to intel. The AMDs are still running a 400mhz front side bus to Intels 833mhz.

800MHz fsb on top Pentiums, no?

also, isn't it a testament to amd that they can be so close to Intel's performance with half the fsb...?

[_John_Lennon_]

Originally posted by theprisoner@21 September 2003 - 19:05
caches and FSB goes to intel. The AMDs are still running a 400mhz front side bus to Intels 833mhz.

Yeah, I thought it was only 800..............




But Matrix guy, very nice post, alot of comparison factors, which evened and leveled out the playing field nicely for proper comparison.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I do want to factor in FSB, but I&#39;m not exactly sure how I&#39;d go about it. Maybe just a separate comparison: <number> <unit>/FSB MHz ?

But I think AMD would absolutely destroy Intel in a comparison like that, and I don&#39;t think it&#39;s quite accurate.

Hmm... sample...

Intel: 533MHz (yes, the one in this comparison is only 533MHz)
AMD: 400MHz

OpenGL Benchmarks (1024x768 / 32 bit / 85Hz)
Intel: 351.3 FPS
AMD: 311.2 FPS

Intel = 0.66 FPS/FSB MHz
AMD = 0.78 FPS/FSB MHz

Yeah... AMD would probably just end up with a higher score.

I dunno, though. Someone out there has to have done a similar, but more complete comparison. I wish I could find it, though.

[clocker]

Ya know...after six pages I think it still comes down to "How much money have you got?".

[jbrockz]

i agree with clocker...in the end it boils down to the depth of your pocket and your personal preference.

[johnboy27]

I will likely stay with AMD due to the price difference. I can&#39;t justify spending 2-3X as much for an intel that is in my opinion not much if it is at all better.
Just my 2 cents worth though as I am by no means as knowledgable as some of the others in this forum.