AMD vs. Intel

[Eva_Unit_0]

,Dec 30 2003, 09:16 PM] You say that the 3.2c easily beats the 3200+ but in sisoftsandra the 3200+ wins in Drystone and the 3.2c wins in whetstone, so you cant really say that the 3.2c easily beast the 3200+ can you?

 

but heres the catch when you use hyperthreading its a whole different story, then the 3.2c beats the 3200+ in drystone and thrashes it in whetstone.

 

And of course the cost, hence why AMD is CURRENTLY the way to go for most people

 

(imagine AMD where at the same speed in GHz as Intel, intel would go out of business )

Show me a 3.2C that doesn't have hyperthreading. That's like saying "if the athlon xp didn't use its data prefetch, then the p4 would stomp all over it." Of course it would. Now don't get me wrong...I'm an AMD fan all the way (the last intel cpu I owned was a pentium 166 mmx), but I try to give credit where it's due. Remember that the athlon xp rating system compares the chip to the T-bird core, not to the p4. An Athlon 3200+ performs about the same as a p4 3.0C.

 

However, that war is pretty much dead and gone...next is athlon 64 vs. prescott. I don't see a way for Intel to even stand a chance ( me happy) If intel can't get out a killer product before 64-bit windows arrives, they're pretty much dead in the water, because 64-bit windows will truly unleash the fury of athlon 64. And we thought it was fast under 32-bit windows!

[bigred]

show you a P4 without hyper threading? pick a dell with a 3.2c... of course it has xp home edition, thus negating HT technology. not intel's fault, DELL's fault. same can be said of almost all prebuilt systems with P4 HT chips. you MUST I repeat MUST have xp pro or 2k pro to take advantage of HT.

[Paranoid]

show you a P4 without hyper threading?  pick a dell with a 3.2c...  of course it has xp home edition, thus negating HT technology.  not intel's fault, DELL's fault.  same can be said of almost all prebuilt systems with P4 HT chips.  you MUST I repeat MUST have xp pro or 2k pro to take advantage of HT.

I've seen these HP's running 2.8C chips with 256MB of PC2700 and Windows XP Home Edition. They come with Radeon 9200SE graphics cards, then people complain that they run so slow. What a waste of a pefectly good chip.

[bigred]

it's still not as bad as some of them I've seen from alienware. 3.2c, 1gb ram... blah blah blah. then they tack on home edition. problem here? again HT acts like an smp system... home doesn't support smp. home also has a memory cap (as a reason for MS to push the purchase of pro AFTER the purchase of xp home) of 512mb prior to sp1 and 1gb currently. but once again it's NOT intel's doings. it's the OEM's that are doing this to the chips.

[Dignan]

amd's fabs are in dresden (germany) and houston texas... far from 3rd world

Houstan Texas not third world, I always thought it was. J/K

 

AMD acutally does more of the production and design in the US then Intel.

 

Also, my boss just bought a dell against my reccomendations and has already purchase the upgrade to XP pro and 1gig 3200 ram instead of the 2700 that came with the 2.8C. You think spending $1800 (w/ 2 17" flat panel) on a system would get you a decent system, but you can't seem to win with prebuilds... but I guess thats why he is asking dell for a refund and wants me to build him an FX system.

[Some_Guy_]

and where are intel's made? costa rica, puerto rico and I forget where the 3rd fab is at

Malaysia.

 

I've been using Intel chips simply because that's what I'd been using since the beginning. I had plans of upgrading my old HP with (hopefully only) a new processor, so I decided I wanted a 1 GHz P3. Found out that the 810 chipset wouldn't do 133 FSB (I would never have settled for the 100 MHz version). With that, and the desire for an AGP slot, I bought a motherboard based on the VIA Apollo Pro 133T chipset. By this time, I knew P3/Celeron chipsets pretty well. My wife's machine is a Celeron just because I had a spare mobo laying around.

 

When I grow out of my system (there's really nothing that I try to do on it that it can't do), then I'm going to go AMD for the bang vs. buck.

[Dignan]

And I quote from HP's website

 

"Get more done with the Intel

[Some_Guy_]

Don't blame Intel, blame HP for that one.

[Paranoid]

That is who he's blaming. HP only makes computers for people who don't know any better. These people who think that because a processor is over 2.4GHz, it's fast, but they don't realize that the computer comes with PC2100 RAM, that integrated graphics suck, and XP Home Edition doesn't like HT technology, then complain that it runs slow.

[bigred]

this turned from bash intel/amd to bash the oems that use the wrong stuff

[Eva_Unit_0]

I think that's because we all know that no one can win the intel vs. amd war, but if there's one thing we all have in common (regardless of chip maker) is that we know prebuilts SUCK! Finally something we can all agree on, right?

[Paranoid]

Hell Yeah!!!