AMD or INTEL ?

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??
73 answers Last reply
More about intel
  1. 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
  2. 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=2065&p=1

    > 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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!
  16. 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?
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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=2065&p=6

    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=2149&p=7

    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=2065&p=6


    >
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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?
  24. 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
  25. 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=2065&p=6
    >
    >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=2065&p=7

    Or 3D rendering:

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=11

    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
  26. 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
  27. 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=2065&p=6
    > >
    > >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=2065&p=6

    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=2065&p=7

    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=2065&p=11

    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=2149&p=7

    > 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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=2065&p=5


    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
  37. 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=2065&p=5

    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_Intel_SysMark/010814_Intel_SysMark.htm

    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
  38. 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=2065&p=5
    >
    >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
  39. 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=2065&p=5
    > >
    > >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_Intel_SysMark/010814_Intel_SysMark.htm

    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
  40. 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.
  41. 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
  42. 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.
  43. 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=2065&p=5
    >> >
    >> >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_Intel_SysMark/010814_Intel_SysMark.htm

    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.html

    >> 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
  44. 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/intel/p428ghz/benchs.shtml

    > sometimes using the Intel Math kernel
    > Library, optimised for Intel.
  45. 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
  46. 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/intel/p428ghz/benchs.shtml

    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.
  47. 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/intel/p428ghz/benchs.shtml
    >
    > 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.
  48. 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
  49. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs AMD Systems Intel