amd vs intel.....S.S.E2 ....

slipchuck · Feb 8, 2002

in trying to decide which to go with, how much of a performance gain does the p4 get with software optimised with the new sse2 instructions (example 10%? 50?) I will be using software like photoshop and lightwave 7.
would optimised software still be faster on the equivalent A.M.D? for example p4 1800 Vs A.M.D XP 1800+

any comments would be appreciated

randy

slipchuck

help save a sick child!
www.csolve.net/~randyroi

FatBurger · Feb 9, 2002

Photoshop will definitely be faster on the Athlon, and Lightwave most likely would too (depending on the version).

Quarter Pounder Inside

AmdMELTDOWN · Feb 13, 2002

"...Lightwave most likely would too (depending on the version)."

you're full of sh!t, he said Lightwave 7. P4's wipe the floor with Athlons.

"AMD/VIA!...you are still the weakest link, good bye!"

Matisaro · Feb 15, 2002

you're full of sh!t, he said Lightwave 7. P4's wipe the floor with Athlons.

I believe he said lightwave 7, not specifically 7b, thus fatburgers statement was correct.

Have a nice day.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

AmdMELTDOWN · Feb 17, 2002

"I believe he said lightwave 7, not specifically 7b, thus fatburgers statement was correct."

Lightwave 7b is a free patch ya friggin idiot!

"AMD/VIA!...you are still the weakest link, good bye!"

Matisaro · Feb 17, 2002

Photoshop will definitely be faster on the Athlon, and Lightwave most likely would too (depending on the version).

That is what fatburger said you moron.

Lightwave 7b is a free patch ya friggin idiot!

FATBURGER SAID DEPENDING ON WHICH VERSION YOU RETARDED [-peep-], if you think 7b is the same as 7, then you need to be shot. The fact the update/upgrade is free is of NO CONSEQUENCE.

Dont call people names when you are the one whos wrong you insignifigant troll.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

AmdMELTDOWN · Feb 17, 2002

"FATBURGER SAID DEPENDING ON WHICH VERSION YOU RETARDED [-peep-], if you think 7b is the same as 7, then you need to be shot. The fact the update/upgrade is free is of NO CONSEQUENCE."

Lightwave's P4 optimisation began at ver7 and further improved with 7b ya frigging morons! both of you!

Lightwave IS faster on a P4 no matter how hard you try and say otherwise, btw have those idiots at rwt found the anti-amd code yet?

"AMD/VIA!...you are still the weakest link, good bye!"

ath0mps0 · Feb 18, 2002

Troll bait....

Matisaro · Feb 18, 2002

Photoshop will definitely be faster on the Athlon, and Lightwave most likely would too (depending on the version).

My mistake, he didnt even mention 7 at all, so unless you can prove that the p4 wins in all versions of lightwave, fatburgers statement is 100% accurate, and you are 100% troll.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

Matisaro · Feb 18, 2002

Here, trollboy, I will help.

<A HREF="http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/" target="_new">http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/</A>

A searchable database of lightwave benchmarks specifically, they allow you to sort by version, and wouldnt you know, it would appear that the amd chips win several of the versions, so, stick that in your pipe and smoke it troll.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

Matisaro · Feb 18, 2002

One more nail in your coffin you retard.(and make no mistake, im going off on you for mindlessly insulting fatburger for no reason you troll)

<A HREF="http://extremetech.com/article/0,3396,apn=6&s=1005&a=16008&app=4&ap=5,00.asp" target="_new">http://extremetech.com/article/0,3396,apn=6&s=1005&a=16008&app=4&ap=5,00.asp</A>

LIGHT WAVE 7 (non b)(lower is better)

Xp1800+ 449.6
Tbird 1.4ghz 498
P4@2ghz 526

Where are those optimisations now trollboy?

The rest deals with the SUSPICIOUS nature of the program( it should not be used as a benchmark IMO because the 7b upgrade SLOWS down the athlon scores.

Every other program I have seen which was updated for sse2 created an increase in performance ON BOTH PLATFORMS. Save for 7b, hence the suspicion around it.

Regardless, I have proved quite handily, fatburgers statement was RIGHT ON TRACK, and your flaming him was a retarded ignorant troll action, so suck it down troll.

The next time you have an urge to call people names, dont, because 99% of the time you are using flawwed logic and halfassed intel fanboyism to justify it, things which can EASILY, with a search on google, be proven wrong, and humiliating you is worth the 10 seconds it took me.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

AmdMELTDOWN · Feb 18, 2002

"One more nail in your coffin you retard.(and make no mistake, im going off on you for mindlessly insulting fatburger for no reason you troll)"

oh goody! more benchmarks showing a P4 winning 8 out of 11, thanks!

fyi, some code in LW7b has not been optimised(volumetrics) yet and should be in 7C or D.

afaik, LW7b does not slow down AMD's cpu you have no hard facts or even data to back up your troll comments.

also, the original poster clearly says that he's getting LW7 fyi, LW7 is already packaged with LW7B so both(you and fb) of your idiotic comments and arguments are nullified, well what do I expect from dumb and dumber? this is would explain why fatburger has not added anything to this, he's the smarter one.

"AMD/VIA!...you are still the weakest link, good bye!"

Matisaro · Feb 19, 2002

afaik, LW7b does not slow down AMD's cpu you have no hard facts or even data to back up your troll comments.

From same link above.

Lightwave 7 raytrace.

axp1800+ 449.6

Lightwave 7b

axp 1800+ 455.4

(lower is better for the illiterate)

Why dont you take your retarded retorts and run along little troll.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

FatBurger · Feb 19, 2002

Heh, too bad I missed all of this. Thanks for sticking up for me, Mat.

Meltdown, I obviously said it depended on the version. I know that the P4 wins hands-down in 7b, the same cannot be said for 7. Check the database you've pointed others too so often, the Athlon wins in version 7.

Quarter Pounder Inside

AMD_Man · Feb 20, 2002

One thing people seem to forget is that there is no limit to optimization. The P4 and Athlon will continue to improve in Lightwave as more optimizations are implemented. Sometimes the P4 will win, sometimes the Athlon will through these optimizations.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

Victory · Feb 20, 2002

I love AMD vs. Intel wars. They never end and people endlessly drone up this or that points to no end. Bottom line is, with either one, you'll be happy. As in most cases the one you get the better buy on will bring you the most happiness. In most cases the Athlon/Athlon XP beats the P-IV, even the new P-IVa version(socket 478), although the doubled cache improves it greatly. But for my buck I'd rather pay $245 for an XP 2000+ then $336 for a Pent IV(pricewatch.com). Overall you're getting a better bang for your buck, unless you use these for business or profit. Then the few seconds you may gain with the enhanced P-IV depending on the job may be worth it long term for you. As for me I'm using an XP, and 2 T-birds in my other home machines. At work when I upgrade our machines, bit by bit I'm going AMD. Better overall value IMHO. The other upside is that Intel has a bad habit of changing the form factor of their CPU's. Socket 370(FC-PGA), socket 423 (original Pent IV) socket 478 Pent IVa(with the new double cache, early pent IV's only had 256, while the Athlon's have 384). AMD through the on chip cache age has had socket 462, Athlon 266 FSB(official DDR support) socket 462, Athlon XP socket 462 and if rumor holds the new core(which will be an .013 micron chip like the new Pent IVa's will also be socket 462. So current motherboards will possibly accept the new AMD's slated to come out 2nd or 3rd quarter this year. The smaller die process allows more chips 'per slate' to be produced, which in essence makes them cheaper(hint: INTEL!!!) and lowers power consumption and allows for higher clock speeds due to less heat generation.

Bottom line is, get what you want. For me the peformance ratio vs. price ratio. AMD is the clear winner overall although a benchmark here and there can go either way from program to program. I also want to mention that DDR is a great alternative to RDRAM. If you buy the 'better' RAM DDR 2400-2700 rather than 1600-2100. You can virtually get the same throughput when it's turned up to 145+FSB for a another amount of savings. Pent IV is a good chip, but it's a little 'before' it's time until it's long pipelines can be adequately programmed for which is 1-2 years out. Like the Geforce 3 came out last year, and only now are we starting to see Geforce 3 enhanced games.

Bottom line I love the Athlon's, not only for price and performance, but because it keeps Intel in check, which benefits all us consumers.

Hope this helped

Can't We All Benchmark For The Good Of Mankind???

FatBurger · Feb 22, 2002

Slow down, turbo! :tongue:

"even the new P-IVa version(socket 478)"

There are Willamette (non-a) P4s for socket 478, in case you didn't realize.

"Overall you're getting a better bang for your buck,"

My 1.6a will be a better price/performance than anything AMD has, assuming it overclocks as good as people say. Without overclocking though, the Athlon is better price/performance.

"unless you use these for business or profit."

I'm missing how that changes the price/performance ratio.

"The other upside is that Intel has a bad habit of changing the form factor of their CPU's."

Very true, and don't forget that there were two Socket 370s.

"with the new double cache, early pent IV's only had 256, while the Athlon's have 384)"

Willamette P4: 8k trace cache, 256k L2
Northwood P4: 8k trace cache, 512k L2
Athlon: 128k L1, 256k L2

"The smaller die process allows more chips 'per slate'"

Wafer is the term used, and remember that the wafers are bigger too, which is another reason why they can put more chips on a single wafer.

"You can virtually get the same throughput when it's turned up to 145+FSB for a another amount of savings."

Show me where I can get PC2700 for cheaper than PC800.

"Bottom line I love the Athlon's, not only for price and performance, but because it keeps Intel in check, which benefits all us consumers."

I agree. Competition is great for the customer.

Quarter Pounder Inside

bum_jcrules · Feb 22, 2002

"Troll bait...."

Troll bit and it looks like it is staying. Someone shed some sunlight on it and turn it to stone. Maybe it will stop speaking then. Probably it will not be able to type either. That would be nice.

FB,

I guess you still have some energy left on a Friday. I haven't seen you slam someone like that in ages. How does that song go again? Oh yeah! "SLAM! Do-do-do...Do-do-do...SLAM!!!" Or something like that.

"Taurelilomea-tumbalemorna Tumbaletaurea Lomeanor" - Treebeard :lol:

Victory · Feb 23, 2002

well I'm getting the impression you didn't care much for my post. So to reply to some of your statements here I go.
Ok, 478 is 478. To this point Intels p4 has been (I use the term loosely) a lemon. Sure it's got a hell of a speed advantage over AMD right now, but what good is it doing intel? If it takes an extra 600mhz of speed and an extra 256kb of L2 cache to match an XP processor, well I don't think it's all that good. If AMD had the same speed right now with the same core, well, it'd be kicking the crap out of the P4's. So my more bang for your buck stands. A cheaper price and similiar(in some cases better, some cases worse) performance. Overall performance between the 2 chips is pretty much neck and neck when looking at the complete package, while the AMD is a good 10-20% cheaper for the same performance(i.e. more bang for your buck)
If intel is so damn good, why are they retooling the IA-64 aka Merced aka Itanium to use 32 bit encoding? Looks like they once again are backtracking(hmmm RDRAM, yes, no, yes, well DDR, no RDRAM...) to what AMD is doing by using a 32/64 bit architecture on the Hammers?????

I'll put my OC'd XP at 1606Mhz vs your P4 1.6a to the test in Sandra 2002 standard and we'll let the benchmarks speak for themselves if you want to. Hell I'll even turn it back down to 1.466(normal running speed and post numbers against your P4)

oops forgot about the 8kb of trace L1. Big deal yes if it's disabled, but since the CPU is the hotspot for speed, more L1/L2 is vital to how well it works. AMD has 128 of L1. It helps it's performance!

Business or personal. Well if say I'm DISNEY or Pixar and a Pent IV saves me 2 seconds for a 1 minute rendered clip and I make a lot of animated movies using hundreds of PC's. Well those few seconds make a hell of a lot of difference at the end result. If I'm making little clips to post on a web page, or just for kicks, well what's a few seconds a couple of times a month????

Well PC2700 is DDR333(166 x 2FSB). I'm using DDR 2400. This is a price difference. If I had 2700 DDR I'd probably be in the upper 150's and matching RDRAM speeds. My memory is 256 MB Corsair 300Mhz XMS2400 CAS 2 Model# CM64SD256-2400C2 unbuffered(Non ECC) and doesn't need to 'dual occupy' like the original pent's and P4's use which forces a user to buy 2 of each in whatever flavor you want, plus you have to terminate the 'open slots'. Too much hassle and additional cost. Plus to the fact the VIA just released an official DDR333 chipset. So that's why DDR is a more viable and cheaper way for end users to go. If I needed the little extra speed I'd be using RDRAM, but if I really needed power, I'd be heading straight off for an Alpha chip system anyhow.

I don't expect to sway anyone to go AMD or Intel. I just answered the post with an "IMHO". In the past 3 years AMD has taken 30% of the total marketshare(give or take). That's great for everyone. My opinion is that if I can build 100 PC's for my company, and save $100+ per PC and get good as or better performance I'm doing a good thing.

Now all we need is a real competitor for Windows!!!

FatBurger · Feb 23, 2002

That wasn't a slam, and because you said it is, he's all mad at me. Oh well, life goes on.

"If AMD had the same speed right now with the same core, well, it'd be kicking the crap out of the P4's."

This has been debated to the grave. If the P4 had the sam IPC as the Athlon with the same speed, it'd be kicking the crap out of the Athlon in every benchmark. It's a trade off. Saying a Geo Metro with a rocket engine would beat a Corvette is pointless, unless you actually put a rocket engine on a Geo Metro.

"Overall performance between the 2 chips is pretty much neck and neck when looking at the complete package, while the AMD is a good 10-20% cheaper for the same performance(i.e. more bang for your buck)"

I agree.

"If intel is so damn good, why are they retooling the IA-64 aka Merced aka Itanium to use 32 bit encoding?"

And how do you know Merced and McKinley were never planned to have embedded microcode that converts x86 to IA64? They could have planned that 5 years ago, and my suspicion is that they did plan that (although maybe not 5 years ago).
I also wouldn't consider it backtracking, although I'm not going to split hairs over the wording.

"I'll put my OC'd XP at 1606Mhz vs your P4 1.6a to the test in Sandra 2002 standard and we'll let the benchmarks speak for themselves if you want to."

Gladly, my OCed P4 against your OCed Athlon. What did you pay for your Athlon? I paid $166 for my P4 I think, I can double-check the exact price.
I would still be using my 1.2 Tbird, but my KT7a-RAID died :frown:

"oops forgot about the 8kb of trace L1. Big deal yes if it's disabled, but since the CPU is the hotspot for speed, more L1/L2 is vital to how well it works. AMD has 128 of L1. It helps it's performance!"

I agree, I've always said the P4 needs more L1 than L2. Intel's cache architecture is much more efficient than AMD's, but it could still use more of it.

"Business or personal."

Ok, I see what you're saying now. Thanks for explaining.

"So that's why DDR is a more viable and cheaper way for end users to go."

You still didn't prove it to me. Remember that more than one stick of SDRAM is cheaper and performs better, making a single 1GB stick instead of 2 512MB or 4 256MB not as good of an option. BTW, remember that the terminators come free with the motherboard and are already installed. No extra effort whatsoever. I paid $85 per stick for my 512MB of Samsung RDRAM. 256MB sticks of Corsair PC2700 are $137 each, almost double the price.
The KT333 chipset offers hardly any performance gains.

"My opinion is that if I can build 100 PC's for my company, and save $100+ per PC and get good as or better performance I'm doing a good thing."

And a $10,000 savings might even earn you a raise/promotion/bonus. I'd never overclock a PC for someone else. When you take overclocking out of the picture, the 1.6a and other Northwoods aren't as good a price/performance margin. I buy whatever gives me the performance I want for the best price. That's why I got the Radeon 8500, and that's why I got the 1.6a. If Thoroughbred was out right now, I most likely would've gotten that instead. Heck, I was close to getting a KT266a and XP anyway.

EDIT:
Didn't look closely enough at memory prices. OCZ PC2700 can now be had for $84 at Newegg (+$6 shipping). Not a bad price at all.

Quarter Pounder InsideEdited by FatBurger on 02/22/02 04:00 PM.

Victory · Feb 23, 2002

well since it wasn't a slam, peace!!

Anyhow a metro with a rocket engine...hmmm, that I'd like to see. True there can't be an 'apples to apples' comparision because of the different architectures, but with what the XP's do(synthetically) at a much lower clockspeed is impressive vs. the P4.

I can't say for certain that Intel didn't plan to include the 32 bit code into their new Merced chips, but from original info that I saw a few years ago, it was always planned/announced as a pure 64 bit chip. AMD from day one said their's would be 32&64bit. The performance stats i've seen have been so pitiful that I believe they realized that they had to back track and offer both. That I don't think is the chips fault so much, but the programming side. It's more advanced than what the software/programmers are capable of. The 64bit command line will be a huge boost in a few years, when programmers learn how to use it, right now its before its time. I think the same thing is basically true with the P4. The long branches that the P4 uses have to be tweaked via the software and right now it's suffering from lack of skill/knowledge.

As for the comparision of our chips. I've seen the benchmarks from numerous web sites, but out of pure curiousity I'd like to see more 'end user' benchmarks with various configurations. Not everyone builds their machines according to the benchmarks and test equipment that they see. Hmm, maybe you and I should start a web site that offers that type of 'real world' testing. We can get a whole lot of equipment from various manufacturers and play with them. Think how much fun that would be. I'll even let you be the prez, and I'll be your faithful sidekick!!

Although i'd like to see how my 1.47XP does against the 1.6a's. Then my OC'd 1.606(I can go higher with the FSB but it goes a little unstable at 1640+ in windowsME with 1628 being unstable with my mouse/net keyboard drivers. Then see how your P4 OC's and look again. I haven't touched slot/agp timing yet, nor voltages or attempted to unlock the bridges. I'm not sure how far I could get this thing to go.

I got my CPU/RAM/Mainboard at mark1computers.com(poor dealer, really slow to process orders, so I recommend to stay away except for really sweet deals) for $104. My CPU was 127.72 and my KR7A was 128.50. I could've got a lot of other brands of RAM for the $60 range including samsung, but I've been partial to Corsair and Kingston/Kingmax for the last few years. It's been very reliable and stable at higher speeds. I can't speak for Samsung since I've never tried that brand personally. My board supports 4GN ECC or 3GB unbuffered. I only use 256 since ME doesn't efficiently
use more than 256. If/when I go to XP I'll have to up 512. I can go house brand for $64 at pricewatch.com, but good ram is vital in any system so I spend a little more on that.

I can't get a promotion since I'm already head of the IT/Programming department(we manufacture robots for the plastic injection molding industry, starautomation.com)
Every year we all get bonuses based on the company sales, not for individual performance. Raises well I can't say how much that affects my annual increase, since most of the people are illerate(PC wise) and if I bought a 2Ghz Dell or custom build a PC they probably wouldn't know if I'm saving them $ or not. I do NOT however, OC our work computers. They all run 24/7, and I'm not going to spend the extra money for machines to buy the faster ram/better heatsinks. The only real taxing of our machines is by our mechanical department and they use a GS80 8 processor Alpha setup.

Anyhow not for spite or a haha I was right, I'd love to exchange benchmarks with you(or anyone else for that matter). I don't dislike Intel and I'm truly curious as to how another's end-user PC compares to mine. So if you're interested let me know.

My current rig is as follows:

Athlon XP 1700+ OC'd at 1.606. native speed is 1.466
Abit KR7A-RAID(no raid setup yet though)
256 Corsair DDR2400
IBM Deskstar 75GXP 30GB(never had problems with mine thankfully)
Linksys NIC card for my cable modem
Voodoo 5 5500 for a few more weeks(haven't decided on a new vid card yet, so I'm curious on how well your 8500 runs)
SB Live 5.1

Matisaro · Feb 23, 2002

My 1.6a will be a better price/performance than anything AMD has, assuming it overclocks as good as people say. Without overclocking though, the Athlon is better price/performance.

I saw that some 1.6as are topping our at ~2.2ghz, you can get an axp 1700+ for les, and run it on a 166fsb to have a 2200+, for less. Better bang for the buck IMO.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

Matisaro · Feb 23, 2002

To quantify my statement.

I purchased an axp1700+ several days ago, I am now running it at 150mhz fsb with corsair pc2100.(which does cl2 and turbo settings if you crank the ram voltage to 3).

It performs VERY nice. The cpu is working at nearly2000+ speeds.(1650mhz). And with the faster ram timings I have a very good system.

The temp is topping out at 107 F, which tells me this processor has alot of headroom.

Now the 1.6a NW is a sweet overclocker, I wont deny it.

But if it dosent get more than 2.4ghz, it is not worth the extra 50 bucks IMO.

Tha axp1700+ costs 109$, when you oc it to 2000+ speeds (or higher) it will perform nearly as good, or better than(depending on where the cpus top out) the 1.6a NW for 50 less.

The tbred will make it even better IMO.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

FatBurger · Feb 24, 2002

I saw that some 1.6as are topping our at ~2.2ghz, you can get an axp 1700+ for les, and run it on a 166fsb to have a 2200+, for less. Better bang for the buck IMO.

166MHz isn't very common, however.
My Radeon 8500 is officially dead, and I'm still trying to get Windows XP to boot off my RAID. Something doesn't like me, and I'm not sure what yet.
So, no overclocking yet, might be a few days.

Quarter Pounder Inside

Matisaro · Feb 24, 2002

True on the 166fsb comment, however most any modern board will do 150fsb, and most ddr ram will do it to.

1700+@150fsb=2000++ for less than a 1.6a, and if you unlock you should be even higher.

The 1.6a seemed like a great ocer, but all the reports I have been reading are saying many top out at 2.2ghz, which isnt enough to offset the amd price advantage IMO.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

amd vs intel.....S.S.E2 ....

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Illustrious

Splendid

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Illustrious

Splendid

Share this page