AMD desktop chips edge ahead of Intel

[ViRaL1]

Advanced Micro Devices' top-end desktop processors are faster than Intel's for most applications, according to benchmarks from ZDNet Germany's labs.

Full story - http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5322290.html

(Just now realized you can drag and drop URLs into the reply window)

[Timmychuck]

Its been tested before.
AMD processors always been faster then Intel processors.

[BJ_M]

Its been tested before.
AMD processors always been faster then Intel processors.

yea right -- dream on ....

both are good now and it goes back and forth ... but i remember when amd started out building cheapo piggyback chips and knockoffs ...

in fact both types of cpus are first rate -- biggest problems still to date though are the chipsets .....

[stiltman]

(Just now realized you can drag and drop URLs into the reply window)

Cool!!

Thanks

[rallynavvie]

:yawn:

[deadpac]

:yawn:

Probably because you're the biggest INTEL Wh0&e BOY!
on this board...

"But wait you're not alone all Intel and AMD fanboys
unite and as a collective shout to the heavens and
justify your POS purchases"

POS != point of sale

[vitualis]

Yawn indeed.

Most applications?

AMD faster for somethings. Intel faster for others (especially multimedia tasks and rendering which something we do here no?).

And why were they testing HT enabled P4s without it being turned on anyway?

Regards.

[Scottie]

I just got a AMD XP3200+ Barton for $275 I could have got a Pent. 2.8, 800 Mhz FSB for $250, used to be AMD was alot cheaper but dosen't seem that way now.

[rallynavvie]

Probably because you're the biggest INTEL Wh0&e BOY!
on this board...

Dunno about that, I decided to keep my AMD multiprocessor machine instead of just selling it to get parts for the new Intel one. I'm a fan of both companies' chips, just for different things. This whole argument that rages on over whose is better is bollocks.

In fact I like that each chip has its strengths and weaknesses. You base your CPU and system board purchase on what you will be most using your computer for. In my case my main purpose was to do video mastering so I went with a dual Xeon machine since their platforms are still beating the Opteron solutions. Had I wanted a gaming machine I'd have purchased an Athlon FX system. If I wanted a server I'd look into an Opteron machine. For office applications maybe just a Northwood P4. It adds to the individuality of a machine. If there were one processor that trumped them all then we'd all own one and what would be the fun in that?

[Cobra]

I used AMD simply because it's cheaper than the Intel alternative. There is no doubt that Intel CPUs are more sophisticated - they have heatspreaders and thermal throttling that actually works but then again the cheaper AMD processors deliver more performance for the money.

Purely in terms of performance, though, no benchmark can really say which is better - only real-world testing. As rallynavvie says, each chip has pros and cons.

Cobra

[indolikaa]

This thread reminds me of a good-ol' DVD-R vs. DVD+R engagement.

:yawn:

Quiet down! You Princo-burnin' Cyrix-processin Windows-3.11-networkin' LS-120-storin' fool!

[gitreel]

This thread reminds me of a good-ol' DVD-R vs. DVD+R engagement.

:yawn:

Quiet down! You Princo-burnin' Cyrix-processin Windows-3.11-networkin' LS-120-storin' fool!

Wow indo,

You sure know how to put someone in their place.

[BJ_M]

that's a compliment -- for anyone that got networking running on win 3.11 with a cyrix 486 chip

[gitreel]

that's a compliment -- for anyone that got networking running on win 3.11 with a cyrix 486 chip

Yeah, but how many people are still running 3.11?

[indolikaa]

that's a compliment -- for anyone that got networking running on win 3.11 with a cyrix 486 chip

Yeah, but how many people are still running 3.11?

Well, I haven't fired up that computer in a long time, but it still works fine enough. And I have an original Microsoft release of 3.11, still in its original cellophane, too.

The Princo comment should get his attention. I doubt he'd let that one slide without a few kind words about my meager computing horsepower.

[rallynavvie]

What I find most amusing is that you had to prod me with a PM to encourage me to counter-flame you

Foo, my Ritek-searing Pioneers whoop your T-Y using coaster-chucker anyday

And guess what? I do have a 486 Cyrix occupying an ISA slot in my old Mac Performa 640. Snap!

[rallynavvie]

Oh my, I think I just created the derogatory term "coaster-chucker". I'm sorry, I hurt my arm patting myself on the back for that one. And so it shall be known...

[miksu]

I used AMD simply because it's cheaper than the Intel alternative. There is no doubt that Intel CPUs are more sophisticated - they have heatspreaders and thermal throttling that actually works but then again the cheaper AMD processors deliver more performance for the money.
Cobra

Actually, good old K6 had heatspreader. So based on this analogy, it was actually more sophisticated than anything Intel offered. Years ago. By the way, if you you remove heat spreader from K6, it can reach much higher clock rates than it's been rated for.

Intel has thermal throttling, because dies would otherwise melt or burn Take a look at thermal power of chips. Terrible for Intel. AMD with TT can save energy, Intel requires it in order not to melt...

[Craig Tucker]

Well, I haven't fired up that computer in a long time, but it still works fine enough. And I have an original Microsoft release of 3.11, still in its original cellophane, too.

8 bundled copies of MS DOS 6.22 and Microsoft Windows for Workgroups 3.11, still in the original cellophane. Who wants to start the bidding

[BJ_M]

i don't have a pic -- but i have 24 copies of MS works still shrink wrapped that go with that (i think they actually came with win 95 or 8)

[indolikaa]

What I find most amusing is that you had to prod me with a PM to encourage me to counter-flame you

I just wanted to make sure you didn't miss the opportunity to return the favor by saying something like...

* Well at least I don't do my bookkeeping on an Apple IIc! ...or...
* VESA is dead, get it over it, dumbass! ...or...
* I don't talk to people who admit owning MicroChannel hardware! ...or...
* There is no nostalgic value to owning a 2400 baud modem, let alone running one!

[LSchafroth]

that's a compliment -- for anyone that got networking running on win 3.11 with a cyrix 486 chip

Not only did I have those running, I have TCPIP, LAT and DECnet protocols running in upper memory and had around 601K free!! That was tough to do. Good old QEMM and a lot of testing for the best results.

Then we got this new killer OS called Windows 95.........my life changed.

LS

[LSchafroth]

[quote="indolikaa
* There is no nostalgic value to owning a 2400 baud modem, let alone running one!

[/quote]

So are you saying I should get rid of my 300 Baud Atari modem?

LS

PS It still works.

[rallynavvie]

Intel has thermal throttling, because dies would otherwise melt or burn Take a look at thermal power of chips. Terrible for Intel. AMD with TT can save energy, Intel requires it in order not to melt...

Uh damn, haven't you seen the THG video of the Intel and AMD chips when the heatsink is removed?
I think it only sensible that AMD put thermal throttling on their chips. However the nice thing about not having that on chip was you could squeeze every last bit of performance that chip had and it wouldn't try to slow itself down on you. Risky but if you knew what you were doing it would be OK. Intel chips are pretty easy to OC though so that power could be regained from better cooling. But if a heatsink fell off one of my Xeons I damn well would rather have it clock itself down to off rather than it melt and take my board with it.

BTW the only poor thermal spec on the current line of P4s is from their 90nm process chips. My Prestonias run cooler than my 1900 MPs. Only the Prescotts and Noconas run outrageously hot and I don't recommend those to anyone.

The XP-Ms are great chips though, and that they work in desktop systems pretty easily is awesome. The next generation of Pentiums is supposed to be built on their scalar M technology similar to the XP-Ms so both are headed in the same direction.

Again I reiterate: different processors for different jobs.

[VinnySem]

My C64 with the Atart-compatible controller port and game cartridge slot in the back hooked to a 27 inch console TV through an RF Modulator and a datasette tape drive PWNS U ALL!!!

[LSchafroth]

My C64 with the Atart-compatible controller port and game cartridge slot in the back hooked to a 27 inch console TV through an RF Modulator and a datasette tape drive PWNS U ALL!!!

Remember the days of switching from cassette to 5 1/4 floppy? I had a program on my Atari 800 that would format them double the density, then I would cut out a notch on the other side, flip it over and use both sides!

The good ol days. I remember when I went from 300 baud to 1200. Good lord what killer techknology I had back then. hehe

LS

[VinnySem]

My C64 with the Atart-compatible controller port and game cartridge slot in the back hooked to a 27 inch console TV through an RF Modulator and a datasette tape drive PWNS U ALL!!!

Remember the days of switching from cassette to 5 1/4 floppy? I had a program on my Atari 800 that would format them double the density, then I would cut out a notch on the other side, flip it over and use both sides!

The good ol days. I remember when I went from 300 baud to 1200. Good lord what killer techknology I had back then. hehe

LS

BBS text-based RPGs... Bard's Tale by EA... Booting from a 5 1/4" floppy... 6" diagonal B&W screens... Good times, good times

[indolikaa]

Remember the days of switching from cassette to 5 1/4 floppy? I had a program on my Atari 800 that would format them double the density, then I would cut out a notch on the other side, flip it over and use both sides!

I remember charging 'older' people for the priviledge of cutting that notch in disks so they could use both sides in their Apple II drives. They were too scared they'd cut wrong or screw the disc up.

And they thought I was providing them real service.

[Capmaster]

BTW the only poor thermal spec on the current line of P4s is from their 90nm process chips. My Prestonias run cooler than my 1900 MPs. Only the Prescotts and Noconas run outrageously hot and I don't recommend those to anyone.

I went to look up whether my new home CPU is a Prescott or not. It seems Intel is going away from the code names and assigning numbers.

It's a "Processor 520" according to them. Is that a Prescott?

[BJ_M]

nope