Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD or INTEL ?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2004 4:01:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
aspect.
Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
ill-configured??

More about : amd intel

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2004 11:51:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

>>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> writes:

Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
Codemutant> ill-configured??

Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
really give a serious answer.

Thanks

Alan
August 17, 2004 1:43:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Codemutant wrote:

> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
> find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
> counterpart.

What?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

> and almost always its the intel that wins in every
> aspect.

Not quite.

>
> Why is the bench mark different from the true story??

What components are you using?

> and if its the
> case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> ill-configured??

Why? Many people are either cheap or ill informed, and choose a low quality
motherboard and/or other low quality components. A computer isn't just a cpu.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2004 2:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Codemutant" <codemutant@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:5dac30fd.0408162301.406b014c@posting.google.com...
> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
> find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
> counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
> aspect.
> Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
> case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> ill-configured??

Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
on.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2004 6:20:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

FALSE prophecies from the archives, Post Replies Here Please <spamme@edge.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:51:17 -0500
spoke:

>>>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> writes:
>
> Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
> Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
> Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
> Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
> Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
> Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> Codemutant> ill-configured??
>
>Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
>experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
>really give a serious answer.

He has observed EXACTLY the opposite of what I've seen.

I have an XP2500 system, an XP2800,and an Intel P4 2.6C system.

The AMDs are MUCH more responsive in most things,
but the P4 is MUCH faster in Seti and a few other
programs, where little human intervention or
interference is necessary.






--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.
August 17, 2004 6:21:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

> FALSE prophecies from the archives, Post Replies Here Please <spamme@edge.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:51:17 -0500
> spoke:
>
> >>>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> writes:
> >
> > Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
> > Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
> > Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
> > Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
> > Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
> > Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> > Codemutant> ill-configured??
> >
> >Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
> >experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
> >really give a serious answer.
>
> He has observed EXACTLY the opposite of what I've seen.
>
> I have an XP2500 system, an XP2800,and an Intel P4 2.6C system.
>
> The AMDs are MUCH more responsive in most things,
> but the P4 is MUCH faster in Seti and a few other
> programs, where little human intervention or
> interference is necessary.
>

The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip. Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon XP2500+
is a $70 chip. What $70 Intel chip
should we compare its performance to? a Pentium 4 1.8 ghz, or a Celeron
2.4 ghz?


>
> --
>
> The truth is out there,
>
> but it's not interesting enough for most people.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2004 6:22:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

FALSE prophecies from the archives, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:43:10 -0400 spoke:

>Why? Many people are either cheap or ill informed, and choose a low quality
>motherboard and/or other low quality components. A computer isn't just a cpu.

My AMD systems both have nForce2 MBs, the Intel has an MSI 865PE chipset MB.
All 3 systems each have a gig of DDR400 memory, and 7200rpm 8 meg cache IDE HDs.





--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.
August 17, 2004 6:30:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<4122172F.CE4558AA@netscape.net>...
>
> The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip. Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon XP2500+
> is a $70 chip. What $70 Intel chip
> should we compare its performance to? a Pentium 4 1.8 ghz, or a Celeron
> 2.4 ghz?
>

Actually, don't you mean Chip + Motherboard ?

All the other componants are the same in both systems.

So, using newegg's numbers it's:

XP2800+ Barton ($113) + Abit AN7 nForce2-400 ($93) = $206
P4 2.4C ($146) + Abit IS7-E ($82) = $228
A64 3000+ ($175) + Abit KV8-K8T800 ($91) = $266

I picked as identical MB's as possible, not bottom of the barrel or
top of the line. Basically what I'd get if I was building either
system. And of course if we're talking performace/price the end
results should be divided by the whole system cost which would be
anywhere between $700 - $1500.

Bottom Line: The P4 2.4C is closer to the XP2800 in price in a real
system than the A64 3000+. The P4 is also by far the most
overclockable CPU on the market. I don't know anyone who isn't getting
3.0ghz with stock cooling easily.

The A64 still performs better and is undeniably a bestter deal, but
the P4 still blows away the XP at a very similar price.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2004 7:12:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> wrote:
> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
> find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
> counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
> aspect.
> Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
> case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> ill-configured??

Well, give some examples of where you find the AMDs not performing as well
as the Intels. Perhaps your expectations are unrealistic? AMDs do not always
perform better than Intels in the benchmarks. There are various categories
of programs where it's been demonstrated that the Intels almost always
perform better. While other categories, AMDs almost always perform better.

Perhaps your workload is more suited to where the Intels perform better.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2004 7:28:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

FALSE prophecies from the archives, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:33:19 -0400 spoke:

>The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip.

Not when I bought it.

>Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+.

Again, NOT when I bought it.





--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.
August 17, 2004 7:28:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

When you bought those chips and what you paid for them is irrelevant to our
discussion about relative performance. What counts is the performance
at each price level based on current prices.

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

> FALSE prophecies from the archives, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:33:19 -0400 spoke:
>
> >The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip.
>
> Not when I bought it.
>
> >Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+.
>
> Again, NOT when I bought it.
>
> --
>
> The truth is out there,
>
> but it's not interesting enough for most people.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 12:12:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Judd wrote:
>
> "Codemutant" <codemutant@programmer.net> wrote in message
> news:5dac30fd.0408162301.406b014c@posting.google.com...
> > AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
> > find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
> > counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
> > aspect.
> > Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
> > case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> > ill-configured??
>
> Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
> find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
> what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
> issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
> on.

Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.
August 18, 2004 12:12:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> Judd wrote:
> >
> > "Codemutant" <codemutant@programmer.net> wrote in message
> > news:5dac30fd.0408162301.406b014c@posting.google.com...
> > > AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
> > > find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
> > > counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
> > > aspect.
> > > Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
> > > case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> > > ill-configured??
> >
> > Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
> > find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
> > what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
> > issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
> > on.
>
> Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
> have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
> system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
> a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

No one forces those who buy an AMD processor to buy a junky power supply
or to overclock. Those who do so are inviting trouble. An AMD based system
will be reliable if it is properly build and not overclocked.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 12:53:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <41225891.B7CE58D5@zciueanmosizefitterzxcazreaszs.com>, from
the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
<johs@zciueanmosizefitterzxcazreaszs.com> said
<snip>
>> Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
>> find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
>> what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
>> issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
>> on.
>
>Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
>have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
>system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
>a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

You are desperately confused. I hang out there perpetually (and have for
several years) and there are very few AMD user with problems, given the
fact that 99% of the people there =only= build AMD systems these days.
The 'three people**' with home built Intel systems seem to ahve their
share of problems too.
8>.

** I exaggerate, there may actually be as many as 6.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
August 18, 2004 2:17:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

G wrote:

> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<4122172F.CE4558AA@netscape.net>...
> >
> > The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip. Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon XP2500+
> > is a $70 chip. What $70 Intel chip
> > should we compare its performance to? a Pentium 4 1.8 ghz, or a Celeron
> > 2.4 ghz?
> >
>
> Actually, don't you mean Chip + Motherboard ?
>
> All the other componants are the same in both systems.
>
> So, using newegg's numbers it's:
>
> XP2800+ Barton ($113) + Abit AN7 nForce2-400 ($93) = $206

$113 for an XP2800+? www.pricewatch.com has the XP3000+
listed at $99, and the P4 2.4 C at $143. Both are oem with a heatsink.
The Athlon 64 3000+ retail box is listed at $164.

>
> P4 2.4C ($146) + Abit IS7-E ($82) = $228
> A64 3000+ ($175) + Abit KV8-K8T800 ($91) = $266
>
> I picked as identical MB's as possible, not bottom of the barrel or
> top of the line. Basically what I'd get if I was building either
> system. And of course if we're talking performace/price the end
> results should be divided by the whole system cost which would be
> anywhere between $700 - $1500.
>
> Bottom Line: The P4 2.4C is closer to the XP2800 in price in a real
> system than the A64 3000+.

Not really. Add to the OEM Athlon XP and P$ prices the cost of a
heatsink. One could also order an Athlon 64 2800+ retail box
at $147(although this would be silly since the A64 3000+ is so
close in price). So using an A64 2800+ would cost you the same
as the P4 2.4C , and the 3000+ around $20 more.

> The P4 is also by far the most
> overclockable CPU on the market. I don't know anyone who isn't getting
> 3.0ghz with stock cooling easily.

That is irrelevant for most people, and is probably debatable for
those interested in overclocking.

>
>
> The A64 still performs better and is undeniably a bestter deal, but
> the P4 still blows away the XP at a very similar price.

Not quite.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 3:52:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>
> Bitstring <41225891.B7CE58D5@zciueanmosizefitterzxcazreaszs.com>, from
> the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
> <johs@zciueanmosizefitterzxcazreaszs.com> said
> <snip>
> >> Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
> >> find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
> >> what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
> >> issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
> >> on.
> >
> >Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
> >have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
> >system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
> >a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.
>
> You are desperately confused. I hang out there perpetually (and have for
> several years) and there are very few AMD user with problems, given the
> fact that 99% of the people there =only= build AMD systems these days.
> The 'three people**' with home built Intel systems seem to ahve their
> share of problems too.
> 8>.
>
> ** I exaggerate, there may actually be as many as 6.

Confused? Both chip makers go through peaks and troughs, there has been some
blind alleys now and then. I have picked Intel the few times I've build
a computer or bought a laptop, but think I've been fairly lucky at times, e.g.
avoiding the Pentium II slot 1, and the early pentium 3 version with half speed
(or less) L2 cache, and of course now the Prescott. Intel used to be an expensive
choice, but recently the prices have dropped dramatically. Both Pentiums and
AMDs have had the speed forged at times, but retail versions are a safer bet.
I was quite surprised over past discussions in the other group, where some
people didn't seem to mind because the processor in question was 'capable' of
overclocking. Other posters would buy selected processors that had been tested
OK for overclocking and even pay a premium for those! Doh!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 6:57:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Post Replies Here Please <spamme@edge.net> wrote in message news:<87vffiexmi.fsf@spamme.edge.net>...
> >>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> writes:
>
> Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
> Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
> Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
> Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
> Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
> Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> Codemutant> ill-configured??
>
> Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
> experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
> really give a serious answer.
>
> Thanks
>
> Alan



Mine a AMD 2400+XP WITH 256MB DDR RAM, MSI MAINBOARD, VIA CHIPSET
KM400...
MY FRIEND'S INTEL PENTIUM 4 2.8GHZ WITH HT ENABLED, 256 MD DDR RAM,
INTEL EXTREME GRAPHICS 865 CHIPSET..,

agreed my friend's intel and mine dont stand a competition, the intel
clearly performs better.., but my other friends.. who have amd xp
2400+ and 2000+. with 256mb ddr ram.. fall short... they go frame by
frame !! when they play nfs6 hot pursuit 2.. luckily mine is better(i
can play) but not as good as my friend's intel counterpart!!

do all amd syetms have to use geforce to perform well?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 7:05:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
> have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
> system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
> a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

AMD's tended to be more homebuilt than bought as complete systems. Whatcha
gonna do when Intel had you locked out of most major OEMs, until recently?
And obviously since they are being built at home, all of the debugging is
done at home rather than in a lab. So when you're on your own, you tend to
ask around the Internet for solutions to your problems from other homebuilt
users.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 7:05:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> Intel used to be an expensive choice, but recently the
> prices have dropped dramatically.

Which is probably the reason you will begin to see more people asking
questions about Intels in homebuilt newsgroups, it may now be the economical
choice for chips. The really desirable AMD64s are still too expensive.

Yousuf Khan
August 18, 2004 7:05:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> > Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
> > have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
> > system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
> > a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.
>
> AMD's tended to be more homebuilt than bought as complete systems.

That may be true in the US, but not in many other parts of the world.
AMD has 80% of its sales outside the US.

> Whatcha
> gonna do when Intel had you locked out of most major OEMs, until recently?

Sell to OEMs outside the US.

>
> And obviously since they are being built at home, all of the debugging is
> done at home rather than in a lab. So when you're on your own, you tend to
> ask around the Internet for solutions to your problems from other homebuilt
> users.
>
> Yousuf Khan
August 18, 2004 7:05:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> > Intel used to be an expensive choice, but recently the
> > prices have dropped dramatically.

Not nearly enough. To get similar performance in Business Winstone 2004,
one can buy a $100 Athlon XP3000+ or a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz at around $260.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

Many business users are only interested in performance running business
applications.Let us know when Intel intends to drop the price of the P4 3.2
ghz to $100.


>
>
> Which is probably the reason you will begin to see more people asking
> questions about Intels in homebuilt newsgroups

You are dreaming

> , it may now be the economical
> choice for chips.

Not quite.

> The really desirable AMD64s are still too expensive.

>

> A $160 Athlon 64 3000+ beats an $825 P4 3.2 EE in Doom 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...

The $160 Athlon 64 3000+ also beats a $260 P4 3.2 ghz in Business
Winstone 2004.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...



>
>
> Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 8:48:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> AMD's tended to be more homebuilt than bought as complete systems.
>
> That may be true in the US, but not in many other parts of the world.
> AMD has 80% of its sales outside the US.

I think Intel has more of its sales outside the US than inside too. But the
major reason for that is a lot of chips are sold to Asian builders which
resell these products to other countries, including the US. Most laptops
are now built outside of North America.

Yousuf Khan
August 18, 2004 8:48:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> JK wrote:
> > Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >> AMD's tended to be more homebuilt than bought as complete systems.
> >
> > That may be true in the US, but not in many other parts of the world.
> > AMD has 80% of its sales outside the US.
>
> I think Intel has more of its sales outside the US than inside too.

The US probably has slightly above 30% of worldwide pc sales.
My point is that Intel's US market share is probably much larger than
its international market share.

> But the
> major reason for that is a lot of chips are sold to Asian builders which
> resell these products to other countries, including the US. Most laptops
> are now built outside of North America.
>
> Yousuf Khan
August 18, 2004 12:14:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Codemutant wrote:

> Post Replies Here Please <spamme@edge.net> wrote in message news:<87vffiexmi.fsf@spamme.edge.net>...
> > >>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> writes:
> >
> > Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
> > Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
> > Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
> > Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
> > Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
> > Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> > Codemutant> ill-configured??
> >
> > Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
> > experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
> > really give a serious answer.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Alan
>
> Mine a AMD 2400+XP WITH 256MB DDR RAM, MSI MAINBOARD, VIA CHIPSET
> KM400...
> MY FRIEND'S INTEL PENTIUM 4 2.8GHZ WITH HT ENABLED, 256 MD DDR RAM,
> INTEL EXTREME GRAPHICS 865 CHIPSET..,
>
> agreed my friend's intel and mine dont stand a competition, the intel
> clearly performs better..,

Why are you comparing a $55 AMD processor to a $160 Intel processor?
Compare the P4 2.8 ghz to an Athlon 64 3000+ which is very close in price.
Compare the performance of the $55 XP2400+ to the performance of a
$55 Celeron. The Athlon XP chips are great for business software, but
not that great for games. The Athlon 64 chips are great for games.

> but my other friends.. who have amd xp
> 2400+ and 2000+. with 256mb ddr ram.. fall short... they go frame by
> frame !! when they play nfs6 hot pursuit 2.. luckily mine is better(i
> can play) but not as good as my friend's intel counterpart!!
>
> do all amd syetms have to use geforce to perform well?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 3:59:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 17 Aug 2004 00:01:18 -0700, codemutant@programmer.net (Codemutant)
wrote:
>
>AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
>find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
>counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
>aspect.

This actually does not reflect my experience at all. In my
experience, the processor plays an important role in the benchmark
results, but has relatively little to do with the subjective "feel" of
the machine. Maybe that is what you are encountering? I often find
that a system with a fast processor but slow disk drives will
benchmark higher but it will seem slower when you actually use it.

> Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
>case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
>ill-configured??

Here's a possible hypothesis for what you're seeing. AMD processors
are less expensive and therefore tend to be used on less expensive
systems. Intel chips are more expensive and therefore are used on
expensive systems with premium components.

Therefore Intel systems are more likely to come with better hard
disks, better video cards, etc. The processor itself has little to do
with the equation?

Or it could simply be a placebo effect, ie I paid more money for this
Intel processor so therefore it MUST be faster, right?


If you ask me, get yourself a nice, fast hard drive, an excellent
monitor and a good *reliable* motherboard first and foremost. If you
play lots of games then the video card should be your priority, and
even if you don't play games then you will want a video card with good
2D image quality. Also make sure that you've got sufficient memory in
the system, AT LEAST 512MB these days and 1GB is probably a worthwhile
purchase. The processor should be well down on your list of
considerations when buying a system, but I think you'll find that AMD
chips do still offer very compelling performance, particularly for
their price.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 3:59:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:33:08 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>> > Intel used to be an expensive choice, but recently the
>> > prices have dropped dramatically.
>
>Not nearly enough. To get similar performance in Business Winstone 2004,
>one can buy a $100 Athlon XP3000+ or a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz at around $260.
>
>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...
>
>Many business users are only interested in performance running business
>applications.Let us know when Intel intends to drop the price of the P4 3.2
>ghz to $100.

Most business users I know find any current CPU plenty fast enough,
but they are HUGELY concerned about reliability and having their
system "just work".

Besides, while the AthlonXP 3000+ might match a P4 3.2GHz in Business
Winstone 2004, the P4 comes out on top far more often than not. It's
definitely the faster of the two chips, though whether it's worth the
extra $160 is another matter altogether.

>> Which is probably the reason you will begin to see more people asking
>> questions about Intels in homebuilt newsgroups
>
>You are dreaming

For many applications it is a VERY good buy, particularly in the mid
price range. Until quite recently AMD has had rather big hole beyond
their AthlonXP 2700+ or 2800+. The prices tend to go up rather
rapidly when buying the 3000+ or 3200+ (assuming you are avoiding the
remarked chips sold by Pricewatch bottom-feeders), while those chips
just don't offer the performance of Intel's P4 2.8C or 3.0C processors
in the same price bracket.

The Athlon64 2800+ and 3000+ have come down in price somewhat to fill
in this hole, though motherboards are still a bit of a problem here.

In the end though, it comes down to what you're looking to do with the
system. If your main interest in the system is DivX encoding:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

Or 3D rendering:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

Than you would be better served by buying an Intel chip. Same goes
for certain games. On the other hand, AMD's chips perform better for
compiling code, some business applications and other games.

In short, buy what *YOU* need, not what someone else needs.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 3:59:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:48:04 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>JK wrote:
>> That may be true in the US, but not in many other parts of the world.
>> AMD has 80% of its sales outside the US.
>
>I think Intel has more of its sales outside the US than inside too. But the
>major reason for that is a lot of chips are sold to Asian builders which
>resell these products to other countries, including the US. Most laptops
>are now built outside of North America.

Almost all laptops are built outside of North America and now most
low-end DESKTOPS are built overseas as well. I know that pretty much
every Compaq Presario and HP Pavilion system sold these days is being
assembled in China. Same probably goes for Dell Dimension systems as
well, though the higher-end business systems are still being produced
in the US for the most part.

I don't know quite how AMD/Intel count the sales of those processors.
The processors are being shipped overseas for assembly in systems, but
the complete units are being shipped back to North America (and
Europe, and everywhere else that they are sold) for final sale.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
August 18, 2004 4:51:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:33:08 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >
> >> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> >> > Intel used to be an expensive choice, but recently the
> >> > prices have dropped dramatically.
> >
> >Not nearly enough. To get similar performance in Business Winstone 2004,
> >one can buy a $100 Athlon XP3000+ or a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz at around $260.
> >
> >http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...
> >
> >Many business users are only interested in performance running business
> >applications.Let us know when Intel intends to drop the price of the P4 3.2
> >ghz to $100.
>
> Most business users I know find any current CPU plenty fast enough,
> but they are HUGELY concerned about reliability and having their
> system "just work".

Do you think paying more means higher reliability?

>
>
> Besides, while the AthlonXP 3000+ might match a P4 3.2GHz in Business
> Winstone 2004, the P4 comes out on top far more often than not.

Not running business software. That is what business users run.

> It's
> definitely the faster of the two chips,

Not running business software.

> though whether it's worth the
> extra $160 is another matter altogether.
>
> >> Which is probably the reason you will begin to see more people asking
> >> questions about Intels in homebuilt newsgroups
> >
> >You are dreaming
>
> For many applications it is a VERY good buy, particularly in the mid
> price range. Until quite recently AMD has had rather big hole beyond
> their AthlonXP 2700+ or 2800+. The prices tend to go up rather
> rapidly when buying the 3000+ or 3200+ (assuming you are avoiding the
> remarked chips sold by Pricewatch bottom-feeders), while those chips
> just don't offer the performance of Intel's P4 2.8C or 3.0C processors
> in the same price bracket.

The $100 XP3000+ beats the $260 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone
2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

Many people who buy a pc never run games or video editing. They run business
software.

>
>
> The Athlon64 2800+ and 3000+ have come down in price somewhat to fill
> in this hole, though motherboards are still a bit of a problem here.

A problem? Good motherboards for an Athlon XP can be bought for around $50.

>
>
> In the end though, it comes down to what you're looking to do with the
> system. If your main interest in the system is DivX encoding:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

What percentage of pc users do that? Of those, how many spend more
than a quarter of their pc usage doing that? For that small number of people,

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=4

>
>
> Or 3D rendering:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

See above.

>
>
> Than you would be better served by buying an Intel chip.

Very funny.

> Same goes
> for certain games.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...

> On the other hand, AMD's chips perform better for
> compiling code, some business applications and other games.
>
> In short, buy what *YOU* need, not what someone else needs.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 9:41:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:
> I don't know quite how AMD/Intel count the sales of those processors.
> The processors are being shipped overseas for assembly in systems, but
> the complete units are being shipped back to North America (and
> Europe, and everywhere else that they are sold) for final sale.

They count these as sales to the overseas. Afterall, they don't care where
the finally assembled PC is going to end up, they just care where they
themselves are shipping their own processors.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 9:41:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Codemutant wrote:
> Mine a AMD 2400+XP WITH 256MB DDR RAM, MSI MAINBOARD, VIA CHIPSET
> KM400...
> MY FRIEND'S INTEL PENTIUM 4 2.8GHZ WITH HT ENABLED, 256 MD DDR RAM,
> INTEL EXTREME GRAPHICS 865 CHIPSET..,
>
> agreed my friend's intel and mine dont stand a competition, the intel
> clearly performs better.., but my other friends.. who have amd xp
> 2400+ and 2000+. with 256mb ddr ram.. fall short... they go frame by
> frame !! when they play nfs6 hot pursuit 2.. luckily mine is better(i
> can play) but not as good as my friend's intel counterpart!!
>
> do all amd syetms have to use geforce to perform well?

I had a similar but opposite experience a couple of months back. I was out
of town visiting family. I'd been visiting a cousin with a Pentium 4 1.5Ghz,
and my brother-in-law with a 1.3Ghz Athlon XP. I was playing Age of Empires
on both machines, and to my astonishment, it just dragged on the P4, despite
the fact that the P4 had 200Mhz extra over the Athlon (of course in AMD
parlance, that 1.3Ghz would be rated a 1500+, so maybe the two computers
were equal). Similar amounts of RAM, 256MB, but the P4 also had DDR, whereas
the Athlon only had SDR. Despite these handicaps, the P4 still managed to
stink it up.

When I say it "dragged" on the P4, I mean literally, it couldn't keep up
with real-time game play on the P4, whereas the Athlon did it without a
whimper.

Yousuf Khan
August 18, 2004 9:41:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:41:51 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>When I say it "dragged" on the P4, I mean literally, it couldn't keep up
>with real-time game play on the P4, whereas the Athlon did it without a
>whimper.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

Maybe the P4 was running too hot and throttling back the clock speed?

My brother has a P4 2.2GHz 400fsb DDR system, I was never impressed with
it, even his old Gateway AMD 1.2GHz with PC-133 beats it in some
benchmarks!

Ed
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 9:50:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:51:44 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

>Do you think paying more means higher reliability?

Intel sends a replacement processor to the doorstep within a week or
two. AMD... you'll be lucky to hear anything after a month or two.

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :) 
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
August 18, 2004 9:50:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

The little lost angel wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:51:44 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Do you think paying more means higher reliability?
>
> Intel sends a replacement processor to the doorstep within a week or
> two. AMD... you'll be lucky to hear anything after a month or two.

Very funny. Why don't you post some links with your assertions?
How often do processors fail?

>
>
> --
> L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
> If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :) 
> Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
> If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
> But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 11:29:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

The little lost angel wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:51:44 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you think paying more means higher reliability?
>
> Intel sends a replacement processor to the doorstep within a week or
> two. AMD... you'll be lucky to hear anything after a month or two.

More relevant if you're talking about servers than PCs. But in a server
environment you have the OEMs stocking replacement parts as part of their
service contract with a customer, so you should actually get a replacement
part in a matter of a few hours.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2004 11:29:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK wrote:
> Very funny. Why don't you post some links with your assertions?
> How often do processors fail?

They fail quite a lot, if you're in a server environment.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2004 9:34:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Ed wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:41:51 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
> wrote:
>
>> When I say it "dragged" on the P4, I mean literally, it couldn't
>> keep up with real-time game play on the P4, whereas the Athlon did
>> it without a whimper.
>
> Maybe the P4 was running too hot and throttling back the clock speed?
>
> My brother has a P4 2.2GHz 400fsb DDR system, I was never impressed
> with it, even his old Gateway AMD 1.2GHz with PC-133 beats it in some
> benchmarks!

No idea what was going on there. Didn't care either. I was just showing to
the original poster, Codemorpher (or something), that the impressions are
entirely subjective, and these sort of things can only be indications of
each case-by-case.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2004 8:16:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:51:44 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>Tony Hill wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:33:08 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Most business users I know find any current CPU plenty fast enough,
>> but they are HUGELY concerned about reliability and having their
>> system "just work".
>
>Do you think paying more means higher reliability?

?!?! do you think that paying less means higher reliability?!

The simple fact of the matter is that the most business users do NOT
buy PCs with raw performance as their #1 concern. They'll easily give
up 10% in performance for a more reliable machine any day, AND they'll
spend a little bit extra for it.

>> Besides, while the AthlonXP 3000+ might match a P4 3.2GHz in Business
>> Winstone 2004, the P4 comes out on top far more often than not.
>
>Not running business software. That is what business users run.

Even in business software, it just depends on what benchmark you look
at. From the very same review that you keep quoting, check out the
SYSMark Office Productivity benchmark:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...


Here the P4 3.2GHz is a full 30% faster than the AthlonXP 3000+. In
your Business Winstone 2004 test the AthlonXP 3000+ is 1% faster than
the P4 3.2GHz. So which benchmark is more better and more applicable
to the applications that Joe business-user runs?! And why?

"There are lies, damned lies and benchmarks".

>> The Athlon64 2800+ and 3000+ have come down in price somewhat to fill
>> in this hole, though motherboards are still a bit of a problem here.
>
>A problem? Good motherboards for an Athlon XP can be bought for around $50.

And that will do a hell of a lot of good for the Athlon64 2800+ and
3000+ processors I mentioned. What do you plan on doing, just
ignoring the extra ~300 pins on the processor and hoping that it'll
work?!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
August 19, 2004 9:06:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:51:44 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >Tony Hill wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:33:08 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Most business users I know find any current CPU plenty fast enough,
> >> but they are HUGELY concerned about reliability and having their
> >> system "just work".
> >
> >Do you think paying more means higher reliability?
>
> ?!?! do you think that paying less means higher reliability?!

Quite often it does. One must do some research.

>
>
> The simple fact of the matter is that the most business users do NOT
> buy PCs with raw performance as their #1 concern. They'll easily give
> up 10% in performance for a more reliable machine any day, AND they'll
> spend a little bit extra for it.

What if they pay much more, and get less reliability?

>
>
> >> Besides, while the AthlonXP 3000+ might match a P4 3.2GHz in Business
> >> Winstone 2004, the P4 comes out on top far more often than not.
> >
> >Not running business software. That is what business users run.
>
> Even in business software, it just depends on what benchmark you look
> at. From the very same review that you keep quoting, check out the
> SYSMark Office Productivity benchmark:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

Sysmark is Bapco benchmark. They have Dragon Naturally Speaking,
and Winzip added to the mix. I don't know anyone who uses those.
Past versions of Sysmark have been very controversial to say the least.
Therefore imo Bapco benchmarks should be ignored.

http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010814...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5274
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/northwood/6.shtml

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/prescott/8.shtml

>
>
> Here the P4 3.2GHz is a full 30% faster than the AthlonXP 3000+. In
> your Business Winstone 2004 test the AthlonXP 3000+ is 1% faster than
> the P4 3.2GHz. So which benchmark is more better and more applicable
> to the applications that Joe business-user runs?! And why?

See above.

>
>
> "There are lies, damned lies and benchmarks".
>
> >> The Athlon64 2800+ and 3000+ have come down in price somewhat to fill
> >> in this hole, though motherboards are still a bit of a problem here.
> >
> >A problem? Good motherboards for an Athlon XP can be bought for around $50.
>
> And that will do a hell of a lot of good for the Athlon64 2800+ and
> 3000+ processors I mentioned. What do you plan on doing, just
> ignoring the extra ~300 pins on the processor and hoping that it'll
> work?!

?????

>
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2004 4:09:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:06:43 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Even in business software, it just depends on what benchmark you look
>> at. From the very same review that you keep quoting, check out the
>> SYSMark Office Productivity benchmark:
>>
>> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...
>
>Sysmark is Bapco benchmark. They have Dragon Naturally Speaking,
>and Winzip added to the mix. I don't know anyone who uses those.
>Past versions of Sysmark have been very controversial to say the least.
>Therefore imo Bapco benchmarks should be ignored.

Of course you want to ignore it because it doesn't show AMD processors
as the end-all, be-all processor. We've all read enough of your posts
to know that you're totally incapable of making an informed opinion
based on facts.

However, for anyone else reading this thread, SYSMark is every bit as
valid as Business Winstone.

>> >> The Athlon64 2800+ and 3000+ have come down in price somewhat to fill
>> >> in this hole, though motherboards are still a bit of a problem here.
>> >
>> >A problem? Good motherboards for an Athlon XP can be bought for around $50.
>>
>> And that will do a hell of a lot of good for the Athlon64 2800+ and
>> 3000+ processors I mentioned. What do you plan on doing, just
>> ignoring the extra ~300 pins on the processor and hoping that it'll
>> work?!
>
>?????

I said that finding motherboards for an Athlon64 was tough and you
pointed out that there are cheap boards for the AthlonXP, which really
doesn't help at all, given that the two processors require totally
different motherboards.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
August 20, 2004 4:22:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:06:43 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Even in business software, it just depends on what benchmark you look
> >> at. From the very same review that you keep quoting, check out the
> >> SYSMark Office Productivity benchmark:
> >>
> >> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...
> >
> >Sysmark is Bapco benchmark. They have Dragon Naturally Speaking,
> >and Winzip added to the mix. I don't know anyone who uses those.
> >Past versions of Sysmark have been very controversial to say the least.
> >Therefore imo Bapco benchmarks should be ignored.
>
> Of course you want to ignore it because it doesn't show AMD processors
> as the end-all, be-all processor.

Did you read these articles? I guess not.

http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010814...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5274
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/northwood/6.shtml
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/prescott/8.shtml


> We've all read enough of your posts
> to know that you're totally incapable of making an informed opinion
> based on facts.



>
>
> However, for anyone else reading this thread, SYSMark is every bit as
> valid as Business Winstone.

Valid? What percentage of business users make use of Dragon Naturally Speaking and
Winzip?



>
>
> >> >> The Athlon64 2800+ and 3000+ have come down in price somewhat to fill
> >> >> in this hole, though motherboards are still a bit of a problem here.
> >> >
> >> >A problem? Good motherboards for an Athlon XP can be bought for around $50.
> >>
> >> And that will do a hell of a lot of good for the Athlon64 2800+ and
> >> 3000+ processors I mentioned. What do you plan on doing, just
> >> ignoring the extra ~300 pins on the processor and hoping that it'll
> >> work?!
> >
> >?????
>
> I said that finding motherboards for an Athlon64 was tough

Not tough. There are a number of Athlon 64 socket 754 motherboards
at around $80 or so.

> and you
> pointed out that there are cheap boards for the AthlonXP, which really
> doesn't help at all, given that the two processors require totally
> different motherboards.

The vast majority of business users don't need an Athlon 64. An Athlon XP3000+
would be more than enough for them.

>
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2004 3:21:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <41257C84.945D0E2@netscape.net>, from the wonderful person JK
<JK9821@netscape.net> said
<snip>
>The vast majority of business users don't need an Athlon 64. An Athlon XP3000+
>would be more than enough for them.

=Nobody= 'needs' an Athlon 64 (like they need air, water, etc.). I'd
have to allow it's =nice= for some people though.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2004 5:29:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> Valid? What percentage of business users make use of
> Dragon Naturally Speaking and Winzip?

Please! Bosses are Dragons Naturally Speaking -- fire :) 

OTOH, Winzip is _heavily_ used. At work, all email attachments
are translucently [de]compressed. Even PDFs, but intelligence
should not be expected from people who eagerly submit to and
inflict MS-[in]Active Directory. They have other motives. S&M?

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 21, 2004 12:03:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Valid? What percentage of business users make use of Dragon Naturally Speaking and
> Winzip?

Why should 'average business usage' be of any concern for my choice? My
computing is mostly numerical processing, sometimes using the Intel Math kernel
Library, optimised for Intel.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 21, 2004 7:01:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:22:28 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:06:43 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> Even in business software, it just depends on what benchmark you look
>> >> at. From the very same review that you keep quoting, check out the
>> >> SYSMark Office Productivity benchmark:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...
>> >
>> >Sysmark is Bapco benchmark. They have Dragon Naturally Speaking,
>> >and Winzip added to the mix. I don't know anyone who uses those.
>> >Past versions of Sysmark have been very controversial to say the least.
>> >Therefore imo Bapco benchmarks should be ignored.
>>
>> Of course you want to ignore it because it doesn't show AMD processors
>> as the end-all, be-all processor.
>
>Did you read these articles? I guess not.
>
>http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010814...

Hmm, dated from 3 years ago, before AMD joined BAPco.

>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5274

2 years old, also from before AMD joined BAPco.

>http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/northwood/6.shtml

2 and a half years old on this one.

>http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/prescott/8.shtml

Uhh.. ok.. that lists what is included in the benchmark, though if
anyone wanted to know that they could just go to:

http://www.bapco.com/products/sysmark2004/applications....

>> We've all read enough of your posts
>> to know that you're totally incapable of making an informed opinion
>> based on facts.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> However, for anyone else reading this thread, SYSMark is every bit as
>> valid as Business Winstone.
>
>Valid? What percentage of business users make use of Dragon Naturally Speaking and
>Winzip?

Damn near every business user I know of makes use of Winzip. I
suppose you could make an argument that Dragon Naturally Speaking
isn't widely used, and in fact that's the one of the few differences
between BAPco SYSMark 2004 and Business Winstone 2004. Here are the
lists of applications in each test:

BAPco SYSMark 2004 Office Productivity

Adobe® Acrobat® 5.0.5
Microsoft® Access 2002
Microsoft® Excel 2002
Microsoft® Internet Explorer 6
Microsoft® Outlook® 2002
Microsoft® PowerPoint® 2002
Microsoft® Word 2002
Network Associates® McAfee® VirusScan® 7.0
ScanSoft® Dragon Naturally Speaking® 6 Preferred
WinZip Computing WinZip® 8.1


Veritest Business Winstone 2004

Microsoft Access 2002
Microsoft Excel 2002
Microsoft FrontPage 2002
Microsoft Outlook 2002
Microsoft PowerPoint 2002
Microsoft Project 2002
Microsoft Word 2002
Norton AntiVirus Professional Edition 2003
WinZip 8.1


One thing I find odd is that Business Winstone does NOT include
Internet Explorer, possibly the most widely used application among
many "business" users these days (web-enabled applications seems to be
the technology that gets PHBs all excited these days). However I
think you'll notice that the difference between these apps is rather
small.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
August 22, 2004 12:38:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> JK wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > Valid? What percentage of business users make use of Dragon Naturally Speaking and
> > Winzip?
>
> Why should 'average business usage' be of any concern for my choice? My
> computing is mostly numerical processing,

You bought a Pentium 4 to do numerical processing? An Athlon XP2200+
beats a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz by a large margin in CPU Math Mark 3.0.


http://www.activewin.com/reviews/hardware/processors/in...

> sometimes using the Intel Math kernel
> Library, optimised for Intel.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 22, 2004 2:23:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Never anonymous Bud wrote:
> FALSE prophecies from the archives, Post Replies Here Please <spamme@edge.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:51:17 -0500
> spoke:
>
>
>>>>>>>"Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> writes:
>>
>>Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
>>Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
>>Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
>>Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
>>Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
>>Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
>>Codemutant> ill-configured??
>>
>>Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
>>experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
>>really give a serious answer.
>
>
> He has observed EXACTLY the opposite of what I've seen.
>
> I have an XP2500 system, an XP2800,and an Intel P4 2.6C system.
>
> The AMDs are MUCH more responsive in most things,
> but the P4 is MUCH faster in Seti and a few other
> programs, where little human intervention or
> interference is necessary.

If you look at the computation orientated benchmarks you will notice
that the P4 core is great at signal processing style workloads. Audio/
video encoding and SETI are signal processing workloads by definition.
By contrast the K7 core is better suited for workloads that tend to do
lots of branches and the like (compiling, database, GUI code).

The approach should be to characterise your workload and then make
your choice rather than making your choice then hacking your workload
to fit. In the case of workloads most PCs run, I suspect that the K7/K8
cores are a far better fit. OTOH if I was planning on encoding video
or audio 24x7 I would probably go for a P4 core.

Cheers,
Rupert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 22, 2004 3:18:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
> > JK wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> > >
> > > Valid? What percentage of business users make use of Dragon Naturally Speaking and
> > > Winzip?
> >
> > Why should 'average business usage' be of any concern for my choice? My
> > computing is mostly numerical processing,
>
> You bought a Pentium 4 to do numerical processing? An Athlon XP2200+
> beats a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz by a large margin in CPU Math Mark 3.0.
>
> http://www.activewin.com/reviews/hardware/processors/in...

But not if you look at the MFLOP rates. I suspects that your Math Marks are
biased towards local operations that are locally dependent on each other, such
as e.g. iteration of pi, and not for vector and matrix operations.

And why is the AMD system fitted with 512MB when the P4 system 'only' has
256 MB? This memory may seem sufficient, but it all depends on OS system
& software overheads & autoload, so it's not very clever to use different
memory sizes.
August 22, 2004 3:18:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> JK wrote:
> >
> > Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> >
> > > JK wrote:
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Valid? What percentage of business users make use of Dragon Naturally Speaking and
> > > > Winzip?
> > >
> > > Why should 'average business usage' be of any concern for my choice? My
> > > computing is mostly numerical processing,
> >
> > You bought a Pentium 4 to do numerical processing? An Athlon XP2200+
> > beats a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz by a large margin in CPU Math Mark 3.0.
> >
> > http://www.activewin.com/reviews/hardware/processors/in...
>
> But not if you look at the MFLOP rates. I suspects that your Math Marks are
> biased towards local operations that are locally dependent on each other, such
> as e.g. iteration of pi, and not for vector and matrix operations.
>
> And why is the AMD system fitted with 512MB when the P4 system 'only' has
> 256 MB?

That is a valid criticism. That is an old article(notice the use of RDRAM for the p4)
so the use of twice as much ram for the Athlon XP was to probably to compensate for the very
high RD ram cost. The test should have been repeated with equal ram sizes when DDR ram
motherboards for the P4 became available.

> is memory may seem sufficient, but it all depends on OS system
> & software overheads & autoload, so it's not very clever to use different
> memory sizes.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 22, 2004 5:32:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Rupert Pigott wrote:

> Never anonymous Bud wrote:
>
>> FALSE prophecies from the archives, Post Replies Here Please
>> <spamme@edge.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:51:17 -0500
>> spoke:
>>
>>>>>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
>>> Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
>>> Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
>>> Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
>>> Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
>>> Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
>>> Codemutant> ill-configured??
>>>
>>> Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
>>> experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
>>> really give a serious answer.
>>
>>
>>
>> He has observed EXACTLY the opposite of what I've seen.
>>
>> I have an XP2500 system, an XP2800,and an Intel P4 2.6C system.
>>
>> The AMDs are MUCH more responsive in most things, but the P4 is MUCH
>> faster in Seti and a few other programs, where little human
>> intervention or
>> interference is necessary.
>
>
> If you look at the computation orientated benchmarks you will notice
> that the P4 core is great at signal processing style workloads. Audio/
> video encoding and SETI are signal processing workloads by definition.
> By contrast the K7 core is better suited for workloads that tend to do
> lots of branches and the like (compiling, database, GUI code).
>
> The approach should be to characterise your workload and then make
> your choice rather than making your choice then hacking your workload
> to fit. In the case of workloads most PCs run, I suspect that the K7/K8
> cores are a far better fit. OTOH if I was planning on encoding video
> or audio 24x7 I would probably go for a P4 core.
>

Because of the attention the SPEC benchmarks get and because Intel has
its own compiler, I'm guessing we know what P4 is capable of against
fixed source.

I'm less certain that we really know how well the strategy would work if
code were always tuned against a P4 pipeline at either the source or the
assembly language level.

A different way of characterizing workloads is how much work and how
much specificity you are going to put into the code, and K7 is generally
more friendly to nai-ve code than NetBurst. If you're willing to
settle on Intel and to use its compilers and tools like Vtune and the
Math Kernel Library, then you needn't always be writing code that is
hobbled for NetBurst, but you may be writing code that is less than
optimal for AMD.

That's a prospect that doesn't please advocates of AMD. Writing and
tuning for your own closed universe? AMD if you are writing nai-ve code,
Intel maybe if you are writing code that can make good use of Intel
productivity tools and are willing to fiddle. Writing for the world at
large? I don't know that I've ever seen a discussion of how commercial
developers have really dealt with not knowing whether they are writing
for K7 or P4, but I would assume it's safer to assume you are writing
for P4.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 22, 2004 6:14:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
> > JK wrote:
> > >
> > > Johannes H Andersen wrote:
[...]
> >
> > But not if you look at the MFLOP rates. I suspects that your Math Marks are
> > biased towards local operations that are locally dependent on each other, such
> > as e.g. iteration of pi, and not for vector and matrix operations.
> >
> > And why is the AMD system fitted with 512MB when the P4 system 'only' has
> > 256 MB?
>
> That is a valid criticism. That is an old article(notice the use of RDRAM for the p4)
> so the use of twice as much ram for the Athlon XP was to probably to compensate for the very
> high RD ram cost. The test should have been repeated with equal ram sizes when DDR ram
> motherboards for the P4 became available.

And PC1066 RDRAM doesn't seem very fast. Luckily I avoided this era from Intel;
the 820 chipset cos Intel ~$250M or so? Just shows that chip making isn't always
plain sailing.
!