Pentium Vs Amd [Archive] - FileSharing Talk

adamp2p

07-25-2003, 07:23 AM

This is a very commonly asked question.

What it comes down to is your budget.

AMD is the best bang for buck. Period.

Intel Pentium 4 is at the end of its life, is optimized for most programs, and is very cheap if purchased refurbished from a major computer manufacturer, like Dell Inc.

The real issue is your budget. What is your budget? Let us know so we can help you make a decision. Probably read through some articles regarding benchmarks to make your decision.

Keikan

07-25-2003, 07:33 AM

Is there any AMD's equalvalent to the Pentium 4 3ghz 800mhz? and any of those special features like "hyper threading" (is that even any good)? I use my computer for gaming

ilw

07-25-2003, 07:36 AM

AMD Athlon "Barton" XP3000+ 333FSB
Or
AMD Athlon "Barton" XP3200+ 400FSB ?

No AMD's have hyperthreading, hyperthreading does produce some performance increase (not a huge increase) if the program has been designed to use it and some future (and i think some coming out fairly soon) games will be designed to use it

Keikan

07-25-2003, 07:51 AM

Bang for it's buck.... now someone correct me A AMD Athlon XP 3200+ 2.2ghz 400fsb is more pricey than a Penitum 4 3.0ghz 800fsb what...? so that means amd is better cuz its more pricier or what how is AMD more bang for its buck?

ilw

07-25-2003, 07:59 AM

the 3000 doesn't quite match the Pentium 3GHz so i mentioned the next one up which is the 3200. however the 3200 is supposed to compete with the Pentium 3.2 GHz which is about 200quid more expensive than the AMD 3200.

Lamsey

07-25-2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Keikan@25 July 2003 - 08:51
Bang for it's buck.... now someone correct me A AMD Athlon XP 3200+ 2.2ghz 400fsb is more pricey than a Penitum 4 3.0ghz 800fsb what...? so that means amd is better cuz its more pricier or what how is AMD more bang for its buck?
AMD's Athlon XP 3200+ is very new, while the P4 3.06GHz HT has been around for a while. So the initial high price of the new Athlon is yet to drop down below the level of the Intel chip, which it will.

Keikan

07-25-2003, 08:03 AM

I live in canada and the highest processers are the ones i listed above but still how is AMD a bang for its buck I don't get it in a way unless your talking about those 2800+ processers i mean like :huh: i don't get it. I mean like you said 3000+ don't match up so i really don't get it...

ilw

07-25-2003, 08:05 AM

I think u might be mixing up the older 3.06 and the newer 3.0 Ghz
and like i said the 3200 is supposed to compete with the intel of the same rating ie 3.2Ghz , but its definitely behind in performance

yeah at the moment AMD's 2 highest chips are cheaper buy not as good as their Intel equivalents. So bang for buck they're close. Anything below a 3000 and the AMD is almost identical to the Intel, but loads cheaper so u get more for ur money

Neo 721

07-25-2003, 06:48 PM

I would recomend to everyone to just wait for the new AMD 64 bit opterons to apear in numbers because theres bound to be a noticable performance increase, going from 32bit to 64.

3rd gen noob

07-25-2003, 06:56 PM

when i bought my new system i went for amd

it wasn't anything to do with money at all, i just thought amd was better for gaming.
at the same clock speeds for amd and pentium, the amd owns the pentium (i don't like that word, but it's fitting).

pentium's ethos in chip design seems to be "no replacement for displacement" (or "no replacement for high clock speeds"), whereas amd aim for high efficiency from lower clock speeds.

this amd vs intel battle is very much like american cars vs the rest of the world.

americans are content churning out 8 litre engines producing 450hp, while japan, italy, uk etc are producing smaller engines with similar power outputs (e.g. McLaren F1: 6.1 litre, 627bhp. ferrari enzo: 6.0 litre, 660bhp. nissan skyline r34-gtr: 2.6 litre, 300bhp)

bigdawgfoxx

07-30-2003, 12:47 AM

ok basicly the AMD says like 2800XP+...and it makes people think its clocked at like 2.8 Ghz....NOT it might be clocked at around 2.5 or 2.6...but not 2.8...Intel on the other hand tells you straight out...3.2 means 3.2....and the 3.2 intel whoops the amd 3200....im always having an intel sticker on my case :D :D

adamp2p

07-30-2003, 07:04 AM

Okay I will sum it up for you...

Let's take a quick look at the Intel Celeron Line. What garbage...

No offense big dog and others with the celeron, but 128 kb of level 2 cache is puny. What is comes down to with performance/cost ratios is you can get a an excellent performing AMD chip for the price of a Intel Celeron at whatever gigahertz.

With most configs, it is actually cheaper to buy a new computer from a manfacturer, unless, of course, you buy AMD. That is the only way to beat the market.

As far as across the board performance, nobody will argue that Intel is the leader. But what is comes down to this: is the difference really noticeable enough at this juncture? The answer is no.

Keikan

07-30-2003, 07:17 AM

Why are we looking at Celeron nody told me why AMD is better. :ph34r:

Lamsey

07-30-2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@30 July 2003 - 01:47
ok basicly the AMD says like 2800XP+...and it makes people think its clocked at like 2.8 Ghz....NOT it might be clocked at around 2.5 or 2.6...but not 2.8...Intel on the other hand tells you straight out...3.2 means 3.2....and the 3.2 intel whoops the amd 3200....im always having an intel sticker on my case :D :D
clock speed (gigahertz) is not the way to measure the performance of a CPU.

Keikan

07-30-2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Lamsey@30 July 2003 - 01:39
clock speed (gigahertz) is not the way to measure the performance of a CPU.
Thats what the AMD site says but anyways so the AMD 3200+ 400fsb IS better than the Intel pentium 4 3.0ghz 800fsb for gaming???

ilw

07-30-2003, 09:16 AM

nope in all the benchmarks the Intel 3GHz spanks even the amd 3200 silly. By Toms hardware benchmarks they reckoned the 3200 should be called a 2800

bigdawgfoxx

07-30-2003, 01:52 PM

I know clock speed isnt it all and you need to look at benchmarks....but if your comparing those 2 you might not want to...ull fall in love with intel immediatly..hahaha but like my point was just that 2800 doesnt mean 2.8 like alot of people think

lynx

07-30-2003, 05:44 PM

@bigdawgfoxx: what's a pentium celeron ?

Do you mean an Intel celeron 566 ?
Or they could use Amd naming and call it a pentium 350-.

Amarjit

07-30-2003, 06:10 PM

Intel have a higher cache, AMD pose 256-512KB but Intel have 1MB Level 2 cache. Intel clock speeds tend to be higher, I haven't seen an AMD clocked at 3.06GHz. And as well as that Intel have better overclocking facilities, I have seen a 3.06GHz Pentium Xeon overclocked to 3.71GHz, that's 650MHz!

Pitbul

07-30-2003, 07:13 PM

AMD is inferior to Intel power wise but AMD is cheaper. i have read sites where they tested them and yes Pentium are the highest power quality there is but AMD are cheaper price wise i myself will always use Pentium up until sony releases the Cell (1 teraFLOPS YAY!!!) :D . if u want performance go with Pentium if u r on a budget go to AMD.

bigdawgfoxx

07-30-2003, 07:15 PM

the CELL?? 1 TERAFLOP?? what the hell???

Cl1mh4224rd

07-30-2003, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by ilw@30 July 2003 - 10:16
nope in all the benchmarks the Intel 3GHz spanks even the amd 3200 silly. By Toms hardware benchmarks they reckoned the 3200 should be called a 2800
The Athlon XP 3200+ is 2.2GHz, and uses the new Barton core. I've heard it's not giving the performance increase that AMD was hoping for.

bigdawgfoxx

07-30-2003, 08:07 PM

I dont think 3200+ is 2.2 Ghz...give it a LITTLE more credit then that..even though i dont like amd much lol

Pitbul

07-30-2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@30 July 2003 - 12:15
the CELL?? 1 TERAFLOP?? what the hell???
its a Sony/IBM Processor first to be implemented into the Ps3 then later into Computers, will be capable of i TeraFlop look up that if u want more info.

Lamsey

07-30-2003, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Amarjit@30 July 2003 - 19:10
Intel have a higher cache, AMD pose 256-512KB but Intel have 1MB Level 2 cache. Intel clock speeds tend to be higher, I haven't seen an AMD clocked at 3.06GHz. And as well as that Intel have better overclocking facilities, I have seen a 3.06GHz Pentium Xeon overclocked to 3.71GHz, that's 650MHz!
AMD and Intel have different caching systems... what is present in L1 cache in a P4 is also present in L2, whereas in AMD systems they use a system that doesn't allow duplication between caches.

Which is more efficient? Look at AMD's performance per clock cycle and you will see.

mogadishu

07-30-2003, 10:46 PM

Who actually needs a 3.0 ghz? The AMD is much much cheaper and is quite fast..

Lamsey

07-30-2003, 10:52 PM

Who needs a top-of-the-line processor anyway?

at my local supplier:

AMD Athlon XP 2000+ = £40
AMD Athlon XP 3000+ = £189

over four times the price for only 1.5 times the performance? I don't think so.

mogadishu

07-30-2003, 10:55 PM

exactly what im saying... soon we'll have 5.0 ghz processors and then well be saying 3 ghz is slow..

adamp2p

07-30-2003, 11:19 PM

Yes, yes, now let's clear up a couple of things. For one thing, only the Pentium "M" has 1 megabyte of level 2 cache. All other pentiums have 512 kilobytes of level two cache, or less.

Second, if you have been following the news, you will see that Intel is actually using AMD's strategy with the M series chips; "the clock speed is not the sole indicator of performance of the processor" is an AMD refrain.

The best AMD chip is the Barton line. The reason why it can compete with Pentium in the first place is because of not only having 512 kb of level two cache, the Barton also has 128 kb of level one cache. All of this cache implies slower clock speeds give excellent performance.

The Pentium is a better performing chip, nobody will argue about that.

But if you take at look at AMD's budget and how well they do with it, it is astounding. We owe AMD for a lot. I remember when AMD was whooping Intel's a*s. You see that is amazing when you think about it. AMD has less than 1/10 of the R&D unit that Intel has and the fact that they are so competitive gives you a hint about their efficiency. I tip my hat to AMD, although I am an Intel user. B)

3rd gen noob

07-30-2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Lamsey@30 July 2003 - 23:52
over four times the price for only 1.5 times the performance? I don't think so.
hmmm...don't think this is quite accurate...

didn't you just say that clock speed wasn't the best measure of performance?

Lamsey

07-30-2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+31 July 2003 - 00:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 31 July 2003 - 00:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lamsey@30 July 2003 - 23:52
over four times the price for only 1.5 times the performance? I don't think so.
hmmm...don't think this is quite accurate...

didn't you just say that clock speed wasn't the best measure of performance? [/b][/quote]
read my post again. :rolleyes:

3rd gen noob

07-31-2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Lamsey@31 July 2003 - 00:55
read my post again. :rolleyes:
i was simply mentioning that the performance of a 3000+ cpu isn't necessarily 1.5 times that of a 2000+

Lamsey

07-31-2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+31 July 2003 - 01:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 31 July 2003 - 01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lamsey@31 July 2003 - 00:55
read my post again. :rolleyes:
i was simply mentioning that the performance of a 3000+ cpu isn't necessarily 1.5 times that of a 2000+ [/b][/quote]
It's as near as dammit.

Forgive me for not going and looking up benchmarks, then posting that it is actually 1.466666666666666667 times faster.

(that's not a real statistic btw)

3rd gen noob

07-31-2003, 01:00 AM

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-22.html (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-22.html)

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-23.html (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-23.html)

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-24.html (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-24.html)

oh, well

i suppose a difference of 3000 in 3d mark isn't really that much

<_<

shadow master

07-31-2003, 03:17 AM

:o
Intel all the way. If you got the pockets for it.

Keikan

07-31-2003, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by mogadishu@30 July 2003 - 15:46
Who actually needs a 3.0 ghz? The AMD is much much cheaper and is quite fast..
You will want 3ghz if you don't want to upgrade that soon.

Cl1mh4224rd

07-31-2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@30 July 2003 - 21:07
I dont think 3200+ is 2.2 Ghz...give it a LITTLE more credit then that..even though i dont like amd much lol
Geez. Do a little research, would you... High-Flying: AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Squares Off Against Intel P4 3 GHz -> Comparing All Athlon XP CPUs (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030513/athlon_xp-08.html)

For those who need to be enlightened about AMD's model numbering: AMD Athlon™ XP Processor Benchmarking and Model Numbering Methodology (http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25426C_WP_FINAL.pdf) (pdf).

Cl1mh4224rd

07-31-2003, 08:16 PM

_John_Lennon_

07-31-2003, 09:35 PM

Yeah, for anyone who is still in the dark, and thinks that Intels are soo cool and sooo L33T because they have higher Mhz, I take it you havnt been informed of the speed trap you've fallen into.

Here is a link that explains things a bit.

Intel's Speed Trap (http://www.xppcentral.com/xpp/avoidthespeedtrap.asp?p=6)

3rd gen noob

08-01-2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Cl1mh4224rd@31 July 2003 - 21:16
I'd say the Athlon XP 3000+ holds its own pretty damn well for being nearly a full GHz "slower" than the top P4. In fact, it actually beats the P4 3.06 GHz chip in UT2k3.

Intel really should be ashamed...
i couldn't agree more

i was talking to lamsey though

Lamsey

08-01-2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@31 July 2003 - 02:00
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-22.html (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-22.html)

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-23.html (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-23.html)

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-24.html (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-24.html)

oh, well

i suppose a difference of 3000 in 3d mark isn't really that much

<_<
3D mark is not the way to compare CPU power; it's far more dependant on other factors such as the video card, RAM, etc. A CPU that is 1.5 times faster will not give you 1.5 times the 3dMark performance.

Try looking at the CPU benchmarks instead: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-28.html (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-28.html)

they give a much more accurate representation of the proportional relation between CPUs, and as you can see, they correlate fairly well with the model numbers, although the 3000+ lags because the SiSoft benchmarks hadn't been optimised for the 3000+ at the time of printing.

_John_Lennon_

08-01-2003, 07:58 PM

Yeah, it was also the only one of the Barton's tested at the time I bleieve.

boyzeee

08-01-2003, 08:22 PM

pentium without a doubt, athlon even the barton type are just over and over clocked original athlons, they run to hot as a result and die pre-maturely, believe me i know as i repair and build pc's and rarely get an intel processor that is knackered, amd based pc's that i get on the other hand i'd say three out of ten are the chip burnt out, normally just out of warranty but not always, if you must buy an amd then get a pretty damn big overclocking cooling fan. perfomance wise there is little between them. :rolleyes: