Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel chipsets are the most stable?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 15, 2004 3:23:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I came across this. Is the guy right?

<QUOTE>
Volumes have been written on this subject, but suffice to say that
Intel chipsets are the most stable. I do not know if this is because
Intel does a better job at manufacturing their chipsets than other
companies, or that software manufacturers test their software more
thoroughly on Intel-based systems, since they are more popular ..
more than they do on systems based upon non-Intel chipsets. Or a
combination of these factors.

Either way, a system based on an Intel chipset will provide you with
the most stable computing experience. This is common knowledge in the
community. Everyone knows it.
<END QUOTE>

http://radified.com/Articles/stability.htm

More about : intel chipsets stable

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 3:23:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Franklin" <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in message
news:958373E88898971F3M4@130.133.1.4...
> I came across this. Is the guy right?
>
> <QUOTE>
> Volumes have been written on this subject, but suffice to say that
> Intel chipsets are the most stable. I do not know if this is because
> Intel does a better job at manufacturing their chipsets than other
> companies, or that software manufacturers test their software more
> thoroughly on Intel-based systems, since they are more popular ..
> more than they do on systems based upon non-Intel chipsets. Or a
> combination of these factors.
>
> Either way, a system based on an Intel chipset will provide you with
> the most stable computing experience. This is common knowledge in the
> community. Everyone knows it.
> <END QUOTE>
>
> http://radified.com/Articles/stability.htm


He only owns p4 systems, so I do hope they are the most stable fo rhim..

Look at the dates he quoted on some of his "proof"

Why are you posting this to an AMD group.. You should be posting to a
chipset group (via, nv, sis, others)

He also goes to say on that to help stability you should have like 5
installs of windows.

He also goes on to say that you should buy asus.

If your amd box is unstable then chances are it's down to something you have
done..

Are intel chipsets more stable.. Yea maybee, Lets not forget that just last
month they had to recall a shitload of boards, and that their first
PCI-Express boards out the door have this little warning that says dont use
your pci-express slots yet.

/Slaps on hand for Feeding Trolls
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 3:23:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:23:39 +0100, Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote:

>I came across this. Is the guy right?
>
><QUOTE>
>Volumes have been written on this subject, but suffice to say that
>Intel chipsets are the most stable. I do not know if this is because
>Intel does a better job at manufacturing their chipsets than other
>companies, or that software manufacturers test their software more
>thoroughly on Intel-based systems, since they are more popular ..
>more than they do on systems based upon non-Intel chipsets. Or a
>combination of these factors.
>
>Either way, a system based on an Intel chipset will provide you with
>the most stable computing experience. This is common knowledge in the
>community. Everyone knows it.
><END QUOTE>
>
>http://radified.com/Articles/stability.htm

Oh gawd, where's my Nomex underpants?

Over the years, the above quote has been true ON *and* OFF and with notable
exceptions. It may still hold right now, somewhat, for an Intel CPU but I
haven't used an Intel chipset mbrd for 5years now, the last being an Asus
P3B-F and that, i440BX, *was* one of Intel's best ever chipsets. In the
meantime, we've had i820/840, i815 and i845... all of which were lacking in
some way or another. With i865/875 they seemed to get back on track again
but now, with i915/925, they're trying to play market segmentation again
and it *will* backfire on them.

Right now, an AMD CPU on an AMD or nVidia nForce chipset will give just as
much of an err, "stable computing experience" as any Intel CPU+chipset and
add some functionality and future-proof into the bargain. "Common
knowledge" needs to be updated... or the "community" needs to umm, move
along!<shrug>

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Related resources
October 15, 2004 3:23:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I found the article to be very amusing. I guess it was first written when Intel
fell behind AMD in performance a few years ago. Now that AMD has an even
greater performance lead than ever before, we see all this FUD and excuses
why performance doesn't matter so much. This paragraph in particular made
me laugh.

"Now that CPUs contain over 50 million transistors and are capable of processing
information at
clockrates exceeding 3,000 Megahertz [3 GigaHertz], raw performance no longer carries the
importance
it once did. Certainly, speed will always have its place. But it's no longer the primary
focus. Rather,
today's PC enthusiast is shifting a critical eye toward system stability."

Why is it that people who claim Intel chipsets are more stable, never provide statistical
proof to back up their statements? Perhaps it might be that they can't find any.

Franklin wrote:

> I came across this. Is the guy right?
>
> <QUOTE>
> Volumes have been written on this subject, but suffice to say that
> Intel chipsets are the most stable. I do not know if this is because
> Intel does a better job at manufacturing their chipsets than other
> companies, or that software manufacturers test their software more
> thoroughly on Intel-based systems, since they are more popular ..
> more than they do on systems based upon non-Intel chipsets. Or a
> combination of these factors.
>
> Either way, a system based on an Intel chipset will provide you with
> the most stable computing experience. This is common knowledge in the
> community. Everyone knows it.
> <END QUOTE>
>
> http://radified.com/Articles/stability.htm
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 5:18:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Franklin wrote:

> I came across this. Is the guy right?

Posted:
02dec2001

Sigh... Trolls these days...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 9:54:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JK wrote:


> Why is it that people who claim Intel chipsets are more stable, never
> provide statistical proof to back up their statements? Perhaps it might be
> that they can't find any.

I don't have any statistical data to back it up, but I can believe it. Many
technologies on the motherboard are Intel technologies, like the PCI bus.
It stands to reason that since they invented it and have honed it over the
years that they have a rock solid implementation of it. Their reputation
over such technolgies depends on it.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 10:21:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:416FD15E.564A7187@netscape.net...
> Why is it that people who claim Intel chipsets are more stable, never
provide statistical
> proof to back up their statements? Perhaps it might be that they can't
find any.

Maybe so. I don't feel a need to find statistics, but I don't claim Intel
is more stable either-I just feel like they are. I build my personal
systems with Intel chipsets and processors because in my experience, they
are more stable. I had stability issues with AMD and even further back,
Cyrix. I was turned off to the alternative chips years ago and now I just
refuse to even waste time with them. I could be wrong, I am sure times have
changes and AMD wouldn't be around if they were really that flaky.

Who cares really, if a guy likes alternative chips and thinks they are a
better deal, so be it.

--Dan
October 15, 2004 10:21:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

dg wrote:

> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:416FD15E.564A7187@netscape.net...
> > Why is it that people who claim Intel chipsets are more stable, never
> provide statistical
> > proof to back up their statements? Perhaps it might be that they can't
> find any.
>
> Maybe so. I don't feel a need to find statistics, but I don't claim Intel
> is more stable either-I just feel like they are. I build my personal
> systems with Intel chipsets and processors because in my experience, they
> are more stable. I had stability issues with AMD and even further back,
> Cyrix. I was turned off to the alternative chips

Alternative chips?

AMD is now the performance leader. As for you bad experience years ago,
one has to choose their system components carefully. There are low quality
motherboards for both AMD and Intel processors, as well as high quality ones.
One must choose carefully.

> years ago and now I just
> refuse to even waste time with them. I could be wrong, I am sure times have
> changes and AMD wouldn't be around if they were really that flaky.

Unfortunately there are still some low quality motherboards being made
for AMD processors, however there are many high quality ones. One
must choose system components carefully.

>
>
> Who cares really, if a guy likes alternative chips and thinks they are a
> better deal, so be it.

Again the term alternative chips?
Do you call a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari an alternative car?

>
>
> --Dan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 10:21:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> Alternative chips?
>
> AMD is now the performance leader.

Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
one tie.
GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
*CPU* and memory benchmarks

Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
is,
the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
P4
processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
are
pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
being faster on others.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=203...

Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
the
3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
comparison
of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
careful,
as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
on
some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
you
will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
faster
on some and Intel faster on others.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3...

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04
October 15, 2004 10:21:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

We went through this already several times.


"Dave C." wrote:

> Skip the Athlon64 and go with your original plan.
>
> According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be:
>
> P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or
>
> P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+
>
> Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an
> Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as
> hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest
> of their system combined.
>
> So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who
> has the best bang for buck, at the moment.
>
> Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster

Not quite.

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



>
> Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
> Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
> TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
> So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
> one tie.
> GAMING OVERALL: TIED
>
> Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away

Not quite. Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone
2004.

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



>
> Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away

Not quite. See the Content Creation Winstone 2004 results.

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



>
> Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004.

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




>
>
> Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
> towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.
>
> Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide
>
> Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
> *CPU* and memory benchmarks
>
> Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
> build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
> better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
> be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
> it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html
>
> The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
> is,
> the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
> P4
> processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
> are
> pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
> being faster on others.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=203...
>
> Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
> the
> 3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
> comparison
> of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
> careful,
> as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
> on
> some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
> you
> will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
> faster
> on some and Intel faster on others.
>
> http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3...
>
> Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
> would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04

Very funny. A $150 Athlon 64 3000+ (socket 754 )beats an $815 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
in Doom 3.

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

A $95 Athlon XP3000+ beats a $210 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004.

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


http://techny.com/articles.cfm?getarticle=606&go=0.5376...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 10:21:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

> Intel is better than AMD, at the moment.  The only way AMD could change
> that would be to drop their prices by 30% or better.

Yeah, those nuclear reactor Prescotts with the flip-flop socket design that
screws up the pins really is just light years ahead of the Athlon FX CPUs
with their on-die memory controllers and unlocked multipliers... I'm just
dying to get one... NOT!

My next system will be AMD Athlon 64/FX and hopefully dual-core. I recently
built my first AMD Athlon XP system and it went smooth. Pretty fast and
stable system for about $400.

BTW... We have yet to see where Athlon 64 stands as we've yet to be able to
test it in a real 64 bit environment with 64 bit software. Expect AMD to
smoke the current P4's...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 10:21:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:41702660.6D26B541@netscape.net...
> We went through this already several times.
>
>

Yeah, you keep posting the same old tired lies, so I have to keep correcting
you. -Dave
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 10:21:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

>We went through this already several times.

Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
October 15, 2004 10:21:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

LOL! You are the one with the distorted viewpoint. It is annoying to
have to keep correcting you.

"Dave C." wrote:

> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:41702660.6D26B541@netscape.net...
> > We went through this already several times.
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, you keep posting the same old tired lies, so I have to keep correcting
> you. -Dave
October 15, 2004 10:21:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

chrisv wrote:

> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >We went through this already several times.
>
> Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
> was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...

It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in desktop
performance by such a large margin.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 10:21:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>>We went through this already several times.
>
> Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
> was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
>

Not really a flame war. Just a well-deserved smackdown of an obvious AMD
shill. I'm a huge AMD fan myself, but it's insane the way someone keeps
bashing Intel. Just seeking a little balance is all. -Dave
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 10:21:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:41703173.DBDE5436@netscape.net...
> LOL! You are the one with the distorted viewpoint. It is annoying to
> have to keep correcting you.
>

It's odd that all the experts agree with me. I guess everybody but you is
wrong, eh? -Dave
October 15, 2004 10:21:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:

> >>We went through this already several times.
> >
> > Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
> > was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
> >
>
> Not really a flame war. Just a well-deserved smackdown of an obvious AMD
> shill. I'm a huge AMD fan myself, but it's insane the way someone keeps
> bashing Intel. Just seeking a little balance is all. -Dave

A little balance? What will balance the huge number of Intel ads that people
are bombarded with?
October 15, 2004 10:22:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Experts? How do you know they are experts? Do they work for Intel?

"Dave C." wrote:

> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:41703173.DBDE5436@netscape.net...
> > LOL! You are the one with the distorted viewpoint. It is annoying to
> > have to keep correcting you.
> >
>
> It's odd that all the experts agree with me. I guess everybody but you is
> wrong, eh? -Dave
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 10:22:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>
> A little balance? What will balance the huge number of Intel ads that
> people
> are bombarded with?
>
>

What's stopping AMD from advertising like Intel does? -Dave
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 10:22:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:41704710.17A931C8@netscape.net...
> Experts? How do you know they are experts? Do they work for Intel?
>

Well YOU think they are experts, so it's odd that you'd ask me for
roof. -Dave
October 15, 2004 10:22:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

When AMD gets over 50% cpu market share, AMD might or might not
advertise the way Intel did in the 1990s. Until then, Intel's ad budget will
be very many times that of AMD.

"Dave C." wrote:

> >
> > A little balance? What will balance the huge number of Intel ads that
> > people
> > are bombarded with?
> >
> >
>
> What's stopping AMD from advertising like Intel does? -Dave
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2004 10:52:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>
> It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in
> desktop
> performance by such a large margin.
>

Geez, it's gonna be a long century. -Dave

Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
one tie.
GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
*CPU* and memory benchmarks

Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
is,
the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
P4
processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
are
pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
being faster on others.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=203...

Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
the
3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
comparison
of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
careful,
as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
on
some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
you
will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
faster
on some and Intel faster on others.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3...

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 1:29:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4170193E.37E8522B@netscape.net...
> Alternative chips?
Yep. They are the alternative to Intel.


> > Who cares really, if a guy likes alternative chips and thinks they are a
> > better deal, so be it.
>
> Again the term alternative chips?
> Do you call a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari an alternative car?

No, but if somebody referred to the vegetable oil fueled cars as
"alternative fuel cars" I wouldn't object.

--Dan
October 16, 2004 1:58:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

AND it was JEROME (JK) that started them back then also


"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:t6c0n094psrmudei0bc85pr2uap0e30or8@4ax.com...
> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >We went through this already several times.
>
> Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8)
It
> was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 3:28:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Yes, it's true in my experience. SIS chipsets are among the LEAST stable.

--
DaveW



"Franklin" <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in message
news:958373E88898971F3M4@130.133.1.4...
>I came across this. Is the guy right?
>
> <QUOTE>
> Volumes have been written on this subject, but suffice to say that
> Intel chipsets are the most stable. I do not know if this is because
> Intel does a better job at manufacturing their chipsets than other
> companies, or that software manufacturers test their software more
> thoroughly on Intel-based systems, since they are more popular ..
> more than they do on systems based upon non-Intel chipsets. Or a
> combination of these factors.
>
> Either way, a system based on an Intel chipset will provide you with
> the most stable computing experience. This is common knowledge in the
> community. Everyone knows it.
> <END QUOTE>
>
> http://radified.com/Articles/stability.htm
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 3:35:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <958373E88898971F3M4@130.133.1.4>, Franklin says...
> I came across this. Is the guy right?
>
WAS right...

Intel chipsets did enjoy a very good level of stability on WINDOWS due
to what was pretty much a marriage between Intel and Microsoft however
things have moved on.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.
October 16, 2004 4:44:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:t6c0n094psrmudei0bc85pr2uap0e30or8@4ax.com...
> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>We went through this already several times.
>
> Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8)
> It
> was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...

The 3DFX, NVIDEA days were a real hoot.
October 16, 2004 4:50:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4170320C.25788896@netscape.net...
>
>
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> >We went through this already several times.
>>
>> Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8)
>> It
>> was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
>
> It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in
> desktop
> performance by such a large margin.

A few _cheap_ corporations or bureaucracies will use AMD and off brand
chipsets....Check out the banks who need no fault tolerances....
Intel based IBM........
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 6:05:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:06:50 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>> Alternative chips?
>>
>> AMD is now the performance leader.
>
>Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
>Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
>Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
>TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
>So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
>one tie.
>GAMING OVERALL: TIED
>
>Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
>Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
>Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

All of these tests vary HUGELY depending on exactly which applications
you test (and often even what settings are used within any one
application).

>Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
>towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Actually usually it's within 10% one way or the other, again depending
on what application and what settings you use.

>Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

This one is pretty much a dead tie, though one application could
easily show either chip being up to 50% faster than the other.

>Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
>*CPU* and memory benchmarks

PC Mark CPU benchmarks are just as useless as every other synthetic
CPU benchmark I've ever seen, it tells you absolutely zero about
performance. For memory bandwidth, Socket 754 Athlon64 chips are
slower than Intel chips, Socket 939 Athlon64 chips are faster. For
memory latency, AMD chips are ALWAYS much faster (the built-in memory
controller ensure that much).

>Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
>build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
>better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
>be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
>it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.
>
>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

Whoa! You really don't want to be quoting Tom's Hardware around here
if you want anyone to take you even remotely seriously! That's like
quoting the National Enquirer for a "news" story!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 6:05:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:50:35 GMT, "Frank" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote:
>"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:4170320C.25788896@netscape.net...
>>
>>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >We went through this already several times.
>>>
>>> Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8)
>>> It
>>> was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
>>
>> It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in
>> desktop
>> performance by such a large margin.
>
>A few _cheap_ corporations or bureaucracies will use AMD and off brand
>chipsets....Check out the banks who need no fault tolerances....
>Intel based IBM........

<shudder> "no fault tolerances" and they are using x86?! Surely you
jest!

There are plenty of banks and other organizations that do require very
high levels of reliability, and they do NOT use x86 for these
applications, not AMD, not Intel! IBM Power-based servers yes. Sun
SPARC systems, sure. Maybe even the odd HP PA-RISC systems or for the
very high-end something like an HPaq Non-Stop system, but DEFINITELY
not x86!

Either way though, if you want high reliability on x86, AMD's Opteron
should be your #1 choice, it has every reliability feature that Intel
has ever had and then some. Now that Intel has cut off Serverworks
(the makers of the most reliable server chipsets for Intel processors)
from making any future designs, this difference in reliability is
likely to become more pronounced (Intel's own chipsets have never
really matched up, which is why almost nobody uses their chipsets for
servers). Still, even with the Opteron I wouldn't consider the system
to be in the "very high reliability" category, *especially* not if it
were running Windows!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 3:12:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> A few _cheap_ corporations or bureaucracies will use AMD and off brand
> chipsets....Check out the banks who need no fault tolerances....
> Intel based IBM........
>

My wife works for a bank..
They use Dells..
Not cause of low faults..
They use dells cause they cost half of what the same spec pc cost elsewhere.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 4:18:05 PM

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

On the Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:05:05 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

> Whoa! You really don't want to be quoting Tom's Hardware around here
> if you want anyone to take you even remotely seriously! That's like
> quoting the National Enquirer for a "news" story!

No flame intended: what's wrong with Tom's Hardware?

--
Roman Werpachowski
/--------==============--------\
| http://www.cft.edu.pl/~roman |
\--------==============--------/
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 11:31:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:
> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:41704710.17A931C8@netscape.net...
>
>>Experts? How do you know they are experts? Do they work for Intel?
>>
>
>
> Well YOU think they are experts, so it's odd that you'd ask me for
> roof. -Dave
>
>
What experts? Tomshardware might as well change name to intelslapdog.com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 11:31:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>>
>> Well YOU think they are experts, so it's odd that you'd ask me for
>> oof. -Dave
> What experts? Tomshardware might as well change name to intelslapdog.com

Funny that anandtech and sharky extreme and many other hardware sites agree
with tomshardware. Are they all intelslapdog.com? -Dave
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 11:53:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

>>>We went through this already several times.
>>
>>Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
>>was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
>>
>
>
> Not really a flame war. Just a well-deserved smackdown of an obvious AMD
> shill. I'm a huge AMD fan myself, but it's insane the way someone keeps
> bashing Intel. Just seeking a little balance is all. -Dave
>
>
That was your biggest lie. You are NOT an AMD fan if you claim Intel is
faster than AMD64 in games when all evidence says different. Just read a
WHOLE test next time. AMD wins no mater what API is used. P4 wins in
Comanche 4 thats it. P4 EE doesn't cost as no regualar mortal can afford
one. An Athlon64 FX-53 costs a fraction of what a P4 EE costs and it is
very close behind (or in front of) P4 EE. Besides a lot of the tests are
very GPU bound ( especially in DX9 games like GunMetal) so you really
shouldn't count those tests. If you had run them again a lot of
positions would switch.

If you discount P4 EE AMD wins ALL game tests at anandtech.com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 11:53:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>>
> That was your biggest lie. You are NOT an AMD fan if you claim Intel is
> faster than AMD64 in games when all evidence says different.

Huh?!? I'm just repeating what the experts, including anandtech, report.
Are all the experts liars, also? If you want to call me a liar, you'd
better be able to prove that tomshardware, anandtech and sharky extreme are
liars, also. Good luck on that. -Dave

According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be:

P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or

P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+

Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an
Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as
hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest
of their system combined.

So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who
has the best bang for buck, at the moment.

Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
one tie.
GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
*CPU* and memory benchmarks

Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
is,
the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
P4
processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
are
pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
being faster on others.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=203...

Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
the
3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
comparison
of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
careful,
as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
on
some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
you
will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
faster
on some and Intel faster on others.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3...

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04
October 17, 2004 12:12:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:4170320C.25788896@netscape.net...
> >
> >
> > chrisv wrote:
> >
> >> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >We went through this already several times.
> >>
> >> Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8)
> >> It
> >> was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
> >
> > It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in
> > desktop
> > performance by such a large margin.
>
> A few _cheap_ corporations

This is from the AMD website.

"Twenty-five percent of the Fortune Global 100 companies now use AMD Opteron™
processor-based systems to run critical enterprise applications. These organizations
include industry leaders in banking, insurance, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, energy and
telecommunications. "


> or bureaucracies will use AMD and off brand
> chipsets....Check out the banks who need no fault tolerances....

>
> Intel based IBM........

Not all of them. Some use Sun Opteron based systems.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2004 1:19:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

>>>Well YOU think they are experts, so it's odd that you'd ask me for
>>>oof. -Dave
>>
>>What experts? Tomshardware might as well change name to intelslapdog.com
>
>
> Funny that anandtech and sharky extreme and many other hardware sites agree
> with tomshardware. Are they all intelslapdog.com? -Dave
>
>
Disregarding P4 Extremely Expensive Edition they do NOT agree.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2004 1:21:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

>>That was your biggest lie. You are NOT an AMD fan if you claim Intel is
>>faster than AMD64 in games when all evidence says different.
>
>
> Huh?!? I'm just repeating what the experts, including anandtech, report.
> Are all the experts liars, also? If you want to call me a liar, you'd
> better be able to prove that tomshardware, anandtech and sharky extreme are
> liars, also. Good luck on that. -Dave
>
> According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be:
>
> P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or
>
> P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+

Thing is I have READ those reviews and they do NOT say what you claim
they say. P4 Extremely Expensive Edition at the top or right after FX-53
and when a lot of AMD64's and FAAR down the list a P4 that is NOT an EE.
Do yourself a favor and READ the reviews you link to.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2004 1:21:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> Thing is I have READ those reviews and they do NOT say what you claim they
> say.

Oh man, maybe you should look into night school. Really. What is UP with
all these morons claiming that what is published is not published? -Dave
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2004 4:08:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

>>Thing is I have READ those reviews and they do NOT say what you claim they
>>say.
>
>
> Oh man, maybe you should look into night school. Really. What is UP with
> all these morons claiming that what is published is not published? -Dave
>
>

And you should visit your optician. You clearly need your vision checked.
PROOF you have not read the tests you link to.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=203...
Business Winstone 2004

1. AMD Athlon64 FX53
2. AMD Athlon64 FX51
3. AMD Athlon64 3400+
4. AMD Athlon64 3200+
5. Intel Pentium 4 EE 3,4 GHz (EE = Extreme Edition, popularily known as
Extremely Expensive)
This is followed by A64 3000+ and another Extremely Expensive P4. After
that both the slowest A64 and even the old XP3200+ is ahead of all
"normal" P4's. This is clearly NOT a landslide win for Intel as you said.

Content Creation just minor shifts AMD still WAY ahead mostly.

Sysmark with the exception of AMD64 FX53 and Extremely Expensive this is
a clear win for P4. But that is because the tests are optimised for SSE3
and Hyper Threading which AMD64 lacks at the moment.

DX9

Aquamark fps

1. A64 FX53
2. P4 EE 3,4 GHz
3. P4 EE 3,2 GHz
4. A64 3400+
5. A64 FX51

But lets call this a tie since it is really only a difference of 2,8 fps
(disregarding the XP3200+) between the fastest and the slowest.

Aquamark CPU score goes to Intel clearly.

Halo landslide win for AMD if you just look at the positions but again
only a difference of about 1 fps between the slowest and fastest so lets
call it a tie.

Same with GunMetal just too close to call really = tie.
But my guess is that if they had used a 6800 Ultra instead of a 9800 PRO
AMD would have a huge win in nearly all dx9 tests.


DX8

Unreal Tournament 2003

No contest AMD wins both flyby and botmatch. Intel not even close

Warcraft 3 Same as with UT2k3

OpenGL (which you claim Intel wins)

Quake 3 I call for AMD (discounting the Extremely Expensive edition P4)

Jedi Knight AMD wins again

Wolfenstein Once again AMD

Where is the test that shows Intel performs better in OpenGL than AMD?


DivX Encoding goes to Intel

3D Rendering

3DStudio = Intel by quite a big margin
Lightwave Intel again but closer this time.

Development

Q3 Source compile = landslide win for AMD

All in all AMD won almost all game tests and quite a lot of the other tests.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2004 4:09:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

>>Thing is I have READ those reviews and they do NOT say what you claim they
>>say.
>
>
> Oh man, maybe you should look into night school. Really. What is UP with
> all these morons claiming that what is published is not published? -Dave
>
>

I wonder what is up with all these morons that claims that what is NOT
published is published.....
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2004 9:39:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:50:35 GMT, "Frank" <bbunny@bqik.net> put finger
to keyboard and composed:

>A few _cheap_ corporations or bureaucracies will use AMD and off brand
>chipsets....Check out the banks who need no fault tolerances....
>Intel based IBM........

IME, large corporations with big budgets nearly always go with the
most prominent vendor, whether or not he has the best product, the
rationale being that, if the product fails to perform as expected,
then the person who authorised its purchase cannot be seen to have
gambled.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2004 9:39:24 AM

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

On the Sun, 17 Oct 2004 05:39:23 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:50:35 GMT, "Frank" <bbunny@bqik.net> put finger
> to keyboard and composed:
>
>>A few _cheap_ corporations or bureaucracies will use AMD and off brand
>>chipsets....Check out the banks who need no fault tolerances....
>>Intel based IBM........
>
> IME, large corporations with big budgets nearly always go with the
> most prominent vendor, whether or not he has the best product, the
> rationale being that, if the product fails to perform as expected,
> then the person who authorised its purchase cannot be seen to have
> gambled.

"Noone has ever been fired for going IBM", eh?

--
Roman Werpachowski
/--------==============--------\
| http://www.cft.edu.pl/~roman |
\--------==============--------/
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2004 11:57:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:50:35 GMT, "Frank" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote:

>
>"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:4170320C.25788896@netscape.net...
>>
>>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >We went through this already several times.
>>>
>>> Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8)
>>> It
>>> was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
>>
>> It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in
>> desktop
>> performance by such a large margin.
>
>A few _cheap_ corporations or bureaucracies will use AMD and off brand
>chipsets....Check out the banks who need no fault tolerances....
>Intel based IBM........

If the banks have any sense at all, and I believe they do, they will most
certainly not be running mission critical servers on distributed
x86/Windows platforms. That's a role which is still best filled by an IBM
mainframe.

As for branch servers and desktops, Dell is probably the choice and of
course that means Intel x86, for the moment but not for any reasons of
technical excellence or superiority. If I were a bank IT decision maker
though, I'd be wary of placing such faith in an organization with such a
fragile business model.

As for fault tolerance I dunno where you got that from - Intel doesn't have
it in any form, in house - they get that from 3rd parties and specialist
OEMs... just like AMD does.

I don't follow why you'd think "cheap" would be associated with the use of
AMD CPUs - a throwaway comment that.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2004 11:57:05 PM

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

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:18:05 +0000 (UTC), Roman Werpachowski <"r o m a
nNOSPAM"@student.ifpan.edu.pl> wrote:

>On the Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:05:05 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> Whoa! You really don't want to be quoting Tom's Hardware around here
>> if you want anyone to take you even remotely seriously! That's like
>> quoting the National Enquirer for a "news" story!
>
>No flame intended: what's wrong with Tom's Hardware?

It's been discussed at length here in the past - they specialize in muck
raking and throwing, usually as part of their quest to "follow the money".
Relatively minor, insignificant even, performance result differences get
blown out of proportion as a means to sound authoritative and
controversial... what I call a Hyperbolic Tomvoid.

It's actually kinda amusing how so many of those sites are written by
people who think of themselves as electronic "journalists" now... as well
as the amount of journalistic padding present in their content.. not to
mention the groveling, bowing and general boot-licking to large
multi-nationals. They seem to have forgotten that what got them started...
the whole reason for their success, was that they were enthusiastic
mongrels, who were willing to tell their version of the truth.

The bottom line is that Tom's hardware is now no more credible or
technically competent than PCWorld or PCMag - same old stuff.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2004 12:46:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:15:44 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
>The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
>is,
>the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
>P4
>processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
>are
>pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
>being faster on others.
>
>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=203...

So here they tested 6 games, of which the Athlon64 3400+ was faster
than the P4 3.4E on 5 of them and they were tied in the (video-card
limited) 6th game.

>Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
>the
>3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
>comparison
>of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
>careful,
>as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
>on
>some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
>you
>will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
>faster
>on some and Intel faster on others.
>
>http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3...


Did you even bother reading this articles before making your post?!
In this article they test 5 games, of which 1 is video card limited
(CPUs all score basically the same) and in the other 4 the Athlon64
was faster! When comparing the P4 3.4E vs. Athlon64 3400+, the latter
is faster by 6%, 3%, 22% and 13%. Even if the video-limited test the
Athlon64 came out 1% faster, though I'm sure that's within the margin
of error for the test.

In this same test the Athlon64 was also faster in their Office
application test and Content Creation test. The only tests in which
the P4 was faster were their synthetic benchmarks (which simply showed
that the Athlon64 they tested did indeed just have a single memory
channel while the P4 had a dual channel memory) and the 2 media
encoding tests.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2004 1:24:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
> chrisv wrote:
>
> > JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > >We went through this already several times.
> >
> > Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
> > was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
>
> It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in desktop
> performance by such a large margin.

Your AMD bias is so obvious that it's easily disregarded.
October 18, 2004 1:24:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

LOL! Look at the benchmarks.

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

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> JK wrote:
> >
> > chrisv wrote:
> >
> > > JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >We went through this already several times.
> > >
> > > Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
> > > was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
> >
> > It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in desktop
> > performance by such a large margin.
>
> Your AMD bias is so obvious that it's easily disregarded.
!