What CPU brand do you prefer? - Page 2

trif · 2003-03-19, 21:31

AMD has never maintained that the rating was meant to compare to "the competition". It is based on the classic Athlon, not a Pentium chip.

xtreme2k · 2003-03-19, 22:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by trif

AMD has never maintained that the rating was meant to compare to "the competition". It is based on the classic Athlon, not a Pentium chip.

I dont even want to argue you on that. WE KNOW it is against the P4. AMD say its not. But at the VERY BEGINNING they said it was.

ebx · 2003-03-19, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by xtreme2k

If it was a year ago I wouldve voted for AMD. But now I am CERTAIN that I will vote for Intel.

I make the same choice between the two.

Intel started their run from the point they release Northwood. An adding bonus is Intel CPU runs a lot cooler. Sit them side by side, you hardly hear the P4 fan.

However, the I64 and powerpc is far superior. They are just not within my reach/need and lack of fun applications.

xtreme2k · 2003-03-19, 22:13

AMD say they are only comparing PR with their old Thunderbird was ONLY to stop somebody from sueing them.

EVERY Paper AMD publishes with the XP PR rating has ALWAYS been against a P4 that is on the SAME SPEED GRADE. For example. I have around 10 PDF files there published by AMD and EVERY ONE OF THEM, gives you graphs of, XP2000+ compared to a P4 2.0GHz. XP2200+ comparing to a P4 2.2GHz.

It is SO BLOODY OBVIOUS it is compared to the P4. Even the PRICING is compared to the P4. YOu will see how CLOSELY the XP and the P4 pricing is at a MHz vs PR level. Go to some website that sells CPU. From 2400+ you will see they are priced even AGAINST a P4 so CLOSE that it is so hard to say it is 'not compared to the P4'.

8 ball · 2003-03-20, 04:05

[quote="ebx"]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xtreme2k

Intel started their run from the point they release Northwood. An adding bonus is Intel CPU runs a lot cooler. Sit them side by side, you hardly hear the P4 fan.
.

eh? ever built a 3.06GHz PIV machine? i did and i can tell you the processor is the hottest i've ever come across that was'nt o'ced. Plus you're not using the right coolers on your XP's if its too loud 8) my setup at 2.64Ghz dosen't hit 30db and my temps are about 56c loaded.

adpowers · 2003-03-20, 07:02

I was going to buy AMD about a year ago, but they delayed and delayed both Palimino and Thoroughbred. I didn't wait for the t-bred, I just got a p4 machine and super overclocked it. AMD has been disappointing recently. The desktop Hammer will probably end up coming out 1 year after it was originally supposed to be released! Also, have you guys seen the naming schemes for the Opteron (Hammer for servers)? Article: http://www.overclockers.com/tips00314/. It is really lame.

xtreme2k · 2003-03-24, 02:05

AMD is best to lie and cover up if they cannot produce what people expect. People are expecting Opteron to be at around 2GHz+ for it to at least compare to the latest Intel XEON. However at initial launch they will only be releasing 1.4 and 1.6GHz parts. Now that they cannot produce a CPU at an 'expected' speed now they need to find ANOTHER PR system to cover it up.

QuintLeo · 2003-03-24, 04:14

My Thoroughbred Athlons run a little *cooler* than any P4 I've ever worked with - despite having a LOT smaller contact area to funnel the heat THROUGH.

Earlier Athlons tended to run hotter than comparable P4s - but again, only a LITTLE.

I've not voted in the poll, as I've got quite a few and have used quite a few CPUs from both AMD *and* Intel - and tend to look at what''s more cost-effective for what I'm doing with a CPU *at the time* - which tends to vary from month-to-month, much less over the course of a year or more.

Right now, I'd say Intel has a VERY narrow lead on overall performance on the high end - but AMD is STILL blowing them away on cost-effectiveness in the low-end and mid-range single systems, and if you're willing to work with modded XPs in dual systems as well at ANY price point, SSE2 intensive work (like Prime95) excluded.

*BUT*

It still depends more on the specific APPLICATIONS you run - if your applications are SSE2 intensive, they WILL run faster and more cost-effectively on Intel hardware. If they're integer-intensive or non-SSE2 floating point intensive, AMD wins.

Usually, in both cases - there are exceptions, and variations depending on the MIX of applications.

Xyzzy · 2003-03-24, 04:30

I vote Intel...

1) Superior documentation...
2) Integrated heat spreader...
3) The retail HSF retention mechanism is a dream to work with...
4) Throttling protection... Yeah, the newer AMDs have it too, but their implementation is too slow... You can fire up a P4 sans HSF and it will immediately throttle... Do that with an XP and you have a expensive keychain...
5) The AMD price difference is almost nothing anymore, unless you stick with 1900+ or slower chips...
6) The P4 just goes really damn fast in Prime95 and Seventeen or Bust...
7) Intel has the research budget and facilities to be first on the block with all new technology... Has AMD *ever* innovated? (Hint: No, and I've been "around" for quite a while!)

That said, I have been known to build AMD boxes when I have somebody on a real tight budget wanting a box...

Would I buy a Hammer if I could buy one today? Sure, as long as it was under 200 bux and outperformed a 2.4B...

QuintLeo · 2003-03-24, 16:09

> Has AMD *ever* innovated?

2900 and 29000 series were pretty innovative for their time - and were the primary reasons AMD was selected as a second-source for 8088/8086/80286 production - which Intel did NOT want to do on their CPU designs, but IBM pretty much forced them into.

I have to agree that the integrated heat spreader is nice - but Intel did the P-III without those, the lack is NOT just in AMD's court there.

And if Hammer *isn't* innovative, I don't know *what* is.

I'd argue that the Athlon was fairly innovative in it's time, but everything Athlon (Athlon-64 not included) since the Thunderbird has been strictly evolutionary in nature.

BTW - it looks like AMD is going to beat Intel to doing CPUs on SOI - though they had to get some help from IBM to make it work *right*.
On the other hand, IBM was first to SOI by a year or two, with their Power series CPUs....

xtreme2k · 2003-03-24, 16:51

AMD might have some innovation in the CPU core. But certainly has absolutly NO innovation in terms of the physical CPU and Cooling design.

Athlon Classic copied from Pentium 2 Slot1 design
Athlon Thunderbird copied from Pentium 3 Coppermine FC-PGA design
Opteron copied from Pentium 4 mPGA design

lol. what is next.

Intel is not interested in SOI. They are interested in Strained Silicon. AFAIK they will implement SS in their 90um process.

The reason AMD requires SOI right now is not because they are 'innovative'. But because if they dont have SOI their Athlon64/Opteron will be clocked at a speed where it will not be competitive with the P4/Xeon/Itanium.

View Poll Results: Which brand of CPU do you prefer for your computer?
0, I am not currently running gimps, there is no client for my PDA.	3	0.59%
1, I believe GIMPS is a good use of my time, but am not so in to it as a hobby.	21	4.10%
2-3, I have a small home network, or have my home and work machine on gimps.	23	4.49%
4-6, I have a small network at home/a few machines at work I admin.	22	4.30%
7-15, It is an obcession, true, but one I dreadfully enjoy. This is my mark on history.	14	2.73%
16+, I have the warmest apartment/have access to a large number of business or school-lab computers. My(coworkers/students) enjoy that they are making a difference and history.	20	3.91%
C	2	0.39%
D	6	1.17%
A	7	1.37%
B	3	0.59%
E	3	0.59%
F	3	0.59%
G	6	1.17%
H	1	0.20%
I	1	0.20%
Yes! Subforums are a great idea!	7	1.37%
No! I like thing the way they are!	12	2.34%
Yes!	8	1.56%
No!	10	1.95%
There are other projects?	5	0.98%
10	1	0.20%
20	1	0.20%
25	13	2.54%
50	9	1.76%
100	2	0.39%
All of them (!)	4	0.78%
Yes, I have a lot of junk^H^H^H^Hcool stuff to sell!	9	1.76%
No, it would just create a lot of problems!	16	3.13%
6 months	3	0.59%
1 year	18	3.52%
5 years	33	6.45%
10 years	4	0.78%
never	1	0.20%
~1x	1	0.20%
~4x	6	1.17%
~16x	9	1.76%
~64x	8	1.56%
>256x	8	1.56%
0. I only love GIMPS	16	3.13%
1. Mersenne primes don't provide instant gratification	12	2.34%
2-3. I'm interested in finding aliens and the cure for cancer.	6	1.17%
4-7. I have enough machines to go around.	1	0.20%
7-10. I'm obsessed with "distributed" everything.	3	0.59%
Mathematics	7	1.37%
Computer Science/Programming	10	1.95%
Engineering	8	1.56%
Physics	6	1.17%
Other	9	1.76%
Yes, and it will be over ten million digits!	2	0.39%
Yes, but it will be less than ten million digits.	26	5.08%
No, this year will be another slump.	12	2.34%
Yes!	10	1.95%
No!	7	1.37%
What is IRC?	6	1.17%
Intel	27	5.27%
AMD	18	3.52%
Motorola	0	0%
Other	3	0.59%
Voters: 512. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Second-hand CPU vs brand new GPU	fivemack	GPU Computing	12	2017-01-11 23:05
GPU brand	kracker	GPU Computing	12	2014-04-20 15:56
Brand New to Prime95	bmorgan	PrimeNet	5	2013-02-20 22:06
what do you prefer for results?	tnerual	Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5	3	2006-10-29 11:19
Which GIMPS logo do you prefer?	Xyzzy	Lounge	6	2002-10-04 20:49

2003-03-19, 21:31	#12
trif Aug 2002 2·101 Posts	AMD has never maintained that the rating was meant to compare to "the competition". It is based on the classic Athlon, not a Pentium chip.

2003-03-19, 22:13	#15
xtreme2k Aug 2002 256₈ Posts	AMD say they are only comparing PR with their old Thunderbird was ONLY to stop somebody from sueing them. EVERY Paper AMD publishes with the XP PR rating has ALWAYS been against a P4 that is on the SAME SPEED GRADE. For example. I have around 10 PDF files there published by AMD and EVERY ONE OF THEM, gives you graphs of, XP2000+ compared to a P4 2.0GHz. XP2200+ comparing to a P4 2.2GHz. It is SO BLOODY OBVIOUS it is compared to the P4. Even the PRICING is compared to the P4. YOu will see how CLOSELY the XP and the P4 pricing is at a MHz vs PR level. Go to some website that sells CPU. From 2400+ you will see they are priced even AGAINST a P4 so CLOSE that it is so hard to say it is 'not compared to the P4'.

2003-03-20, 07:02	#17
adpowers Sep 2002 2⁴·5 Posts	I was going to buy AMD about a year ago, but they delayed and delayed both Palimino and Thoroughbred. I didn't wait for the t-bred, I just got a p4 machine and super overclocked it. AMD has been disappointing recently. The desktop Hammer will probably end up coming out 1 year after it was originally supposed to be released! Also, have you guys seen the naming schemes for the Opteron (Hammer for servers)? Article: http://www.overclockers.com/tips00314/. It is really lame.

2003-03-24, 02:05	#18
xtreme2k Aug 2002 174₁₀ Posts	AMD is best to lie and cover up if they cannot produce what people expect. People are expecting Opteron to be at around 2GHz+ for it to at least compare to the latest Intel XEON. However at initial launch they will only be releasing 1.4 and 1.6GHz parts. Now that they cannot produce a CPU at an 'expected' speed now they need to find ANOTHER PR system to cover it up.

2003-03-24, 04:14	#19
QuintLeo Oct 2002 Lost in the hills of Iowa 2⁶·7 Posts	My Thoroughbred Athlons run a little cooler than any P4 I've ever worked with - despite having a LOT smaller contact area to funnel the heat THROUGH. Earlier Athlons tended to run hotter than comparable P4s - but again, only a LITTLE. I've not voted in the poll, as I've got quite a few and have used quite a few CPUs from both AMD and Intel - and tend to look at what''s more cost-effective for what I'm doing with a CPU at the time - which tends to vary from month-to-month, much less over the course of a year or more. Right now, I'd say Intel has a VERY narrow lead on overall performance on the high end - but AMD is STILL blowing them away on cost-effectiveness in the low-end and mid-range single systems, and if you're willing to work with modded XPs in dual systems as well at ANY price point, SSE2 intensive work (like Prime95) excluded. BUT It still depends more on the specific APPLICATIONS you run - if your applications are SSE2 intensive, they WILL run faster and more cost-effectively on Intel hardware. If they're integer-intensive or non-SSE2 floating point intensive, AMD wins. Usually, in both cases - there are exceptions, and variations depending on the MIX of applications.

2003-03-24, 04:30	#20
Xyzzy Aug 2002 2×3²×13×37 Posts	I vote Intel... 1) Superior documentation... 2) Integrated heat spreader... 3) The retail HSF retention mechanism is a dream to work with... 4) Throttling protection... Yeah, the newer AMDs have it too, but their implementation is too slow... You can fire up a P4 sans HSF and it will immediately throttle... Do that with an XP and you have a expensive keychain... 5) The AMD price difference is almost nothing anymore, unless you stick with 1900+ or slower chips... 6) The P4 just goes really damn fast in Prime95 and Seventeen or Bust... 7) Intel has the research budget and facilities to be first on the block with all new technology... Has AMD ever innovated? (Hint: No, and I've been "around" for quite a while!) That said, I have been known to build AMD boxes when I have somebody on a real tight budget wanting a box... Would I buy a Hammer if I could buy one today? Sure, as long as it was under 200 bux and outperformed a 2.4B...

2003-03-24, 16:09	#21
QuintLeo Oct 2002 Lost in the hills of Iowa 2⁶×7 Posts	> Has AMD ever innovated? 2900 and 29000 series were pretty innovative for their time - and were the primary reasons AMD was selected as a second-source for 8088/8086/80286 production - which Intel did NOT want to do on their CPU designs, but IBM pretty much forced them into. I have to agree that the integrated heat spreader is nice - but Intel did the P-III without those, the lack is NOT just in AMD's court there. And if Hammer isn't innovative, I don't know what is. I'd argue that the Athlon was fairly innovative in it's time, but everything Athlon (Athlon-64 not included) since the Thunderbird has been strictly evolutionary in nature. BTW - it looks like AMD is going to beat Intel to doing CPUs on SOI - though they had to get some help from IBM to make it work right. On the other hand, IBM was first to SOI by a year or two, with their Power series CPUs....

2003-03-24, 16:51	#22
xtreme2k Aug 2002 174₁₀ Posts	AMD might have some innovation in the CPU core. But certainly has absolutly NO innovation in terms of the physical CPU and Cooling design. Athlon Classic copied from Pentium 2 Slot1 design Athlon Thunderbird copied from Pentium 3 Coppermine FC-PGA design Opteron copied from Pentium 4 mPGA design lol. what is next. Intel is not interested in SOI. They are interested in Strained Silicon. AFAIK they will implement SS in their 90um process. The reason AMD requires SOI right now is not because they are 'innovative'. But because if they dont have SOI their Athlon64/Opteron will be clocked at a speed where it will not be competitive with the P4/Xeon/Itanium.