2.6 intel or 2800+ barton?

looking at the cpu for my computer, the 2.6 and the 2800+, what one out-performs the other, and what has better oc'ing abilities? keeping in mind the 2800+ is STILL cheaper than the 2.6 by about 50$ cdn

...Meh, too lazy to think of a better sig.
71 answers Last reply
More about intel 2800 barton
  1. Looking at the cpu for your computer, you can look for both with your current motherboard? what motherboard is that?
  2. From what I have seen personly, unless you have the mobo already for the 2.6, I would go for the 2800+ to get your bang for your buck. That is if you are big into gaming. If you are a big big Multitasker and have to burn CD's while gaming or something simular that would take up alot of CPU power and/or are a big Multimedia person I would go for the 2.6. But personly for me because of the price diffrence I would go for the 2800+. As for the OCing I am not really sure which one wins but remember every processor is diffrent for OCing. There are times when you could OC a 2600+ more then you could oc a 2800+. And there are times when you can OC a 2.6 more then a 2.8. But just by going off of the breathing room for the CPU's I would probly say the 2.6 will get a better OC then the 2800+ but I don't THINK that after you would OC both CPU's the 2.6 would come out on top of the 2800+ in gaming. And because of the price diffrence I would say that if I had to right now at this moment buy the 2.6 or the 2800+ I would pick the 2800+. But since you don't have to do that right now I would sit back and see what everyone else has to say.

    I don't normaly post here, I just watch but since fanboy's are all over the place I thought it would be a good time to join the war.

    -------------------------------------------------
    Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
  3. If you go with amd then you should get the 2500+, they do really well with overclocking and it will have the same limit as the 2800+(so no need to pay more for the 2800+). If you go with intel, the 2.6 should easily hit 3.2g(with the right memory), which gives you the 1000fsb and memory(if you have dual memory). You should go compare a 3200+ with a 3.2g p4. You can see which is faster. Both overclocks will be faster then those two chips, but it gives you an idea of what you are getting yourself into.

    <font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
  4. As for gaming like frozen_fall was talking about, it depends on what games you play for which cpu is better and it depends on what video card you have.

    <font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
  5. The AMD CPU's are the fastest game CPU's there is no question about that just ask anyone who has been building game computers for the last say 7 years. I am a computer tech and I work in a small computer store in Ottawa Canada and any gamers that come into the store looking to have a game computer built ask for AMD CPU's.
    At one point our shop only sold Intel CPU's because you can sit on them with a blow torch and over heat them let them cool down and they still function. AMD CPU's do not have a built in shutdown over temp option but most main mother boards supplied into the market now have that built into them.
    The demand for Elite game computers from our customers has forced us to provide the AMD CPU's right over the counter and we carry all the XP ready CPU's. We keep at least 2 of them in house at any time.

    I have never heard of a high end gaming computer having any problems running generic software applications. Just the thought of a game computer that can compete at 100FPS in an online multy player game over a high speed internet connection having any problems multy tasking simple software programs is insane.

    I run a Barton XP ready 2800 + CPU and my Microsoft Word opens so fast Microsoft has tried to sue me for whiplash!!

    My advise to you is get a A7V8X-X Asus Mother board for AMD CPU's and plug in a Barton 2800+ cpu.

    It would benchmark way faster then an Intel 2.8 in fact it would make it look silly and kinda made for kids like Barney the Dinosaur.
  6. Quote:
    I run a Barton XP ready 2800 + CPU and my Microsoft Word opens so fast Microsoft has tried to sue me for whiplash!!

    WOW, opening Microsoft Word is surely the end all benchamrk for a processor. You should see how fast my 2.4C opens Windwos MediaPlayer 9, if you blink you'll miss it. :eek:

    Quote:
    My advise to you is get a A7V8X-X Asus Mother board for AMD CPU's and plug in a Barton 2800+ cpu.

    It would benchmark way faster then an Intel 2.8 in fact it would make it look silly and kinda made for kids like Barney the Dinosaur.

    This statement alone takes away your credibility. I don't know what fantasy benchmarks you are talking about, but I suggest you take a look at the following link, it will fresh your memory as to which CPU makes which look like a toy.

    <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030521/index.html" target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030521/index.html</A>

    A P4 2.8C easily tears apart a 2800+ both in GAMING and other areas. Even the P4 2.4C beats the 2800+ in GAMING.
    The P4 2.6C is $175 while the 2800+ is $136 at newegg.com , $39 difference is more than justified considering the amount of overall performance increase you get. The 2.6 is more comparable to the 3000+/3200+ CPUs.

    Quote:
    The AMD CPU's are the fastest game CPU's there is no question about that...

    False, look at the above article and other benchmarks on the net.

    As far as overclocking goes, the 2.6C will overclock much better. With some good RAM you'll be able to get 3.2GHz easily on the stock heatsink and fan. You can go farther using aftermarket cooling solutions. My 2.4C is running at 3GHz @ 1.55Vcore with the stock heatsink and fan with almost no increase in operating temperature compared to stock.
  7. Much depends on what games you play. The barton chips are pretty good at non FPS games, like RPG, RTS and flight or race simulators. On aces' bench, the 3000+ is very competitive with the 3.0C and 3.06 on those apps (not too say faster). If first person shooters are you thing, I agree the P4C is probably your best bet.

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  8. I'd go with the 2.6C on this one...

    Look for price drops too - where I live (UK) I have seen OEM P4 2.8C and XP3000 Bartons being sold for the same price.

    I have an XP2100 and am very happy with it, but as you increase your CPU budget Intel chips make more sense (ignoring A64 & derivatives etc.)

    "Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
  9. TTZX Wrote back to my email this.....

    I run a Barton XP ready 2800 + CPU and my Microsoft Word opens so fast Microsoft has tried to sue me for whiplash!!


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WOW, opening Microsoft Word is surely the end all benchmark for a processor. You should see how fast my 2.4C opens Windows MediaPlayer 9, if you blink you'll miss it.


    In reply to:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My advise to you is get a A7V8X-X Asus Mother board for AMD CPU's and plug in a Barton 2800+ cpu.

    It would benchmark way faster then an Intel 2.8 in fact it would make it look silly and kinda made for kids like Barney the Dinosaur.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This statement alone takes away your credibility. I don't know what fantasy benchmarks you are talking about, but I suggest you take a look at the following link, it will fresh your memory as to which CPU makes which look like a toy.

    http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030521/index.html

    A P4 2.8C easily tears apart a 2800+ both in GAMING and other areas. Even the P4 2.4C beats the 2800+ in GAMING.
    The P4 2.6C is $175 while the 2800+ is $136 at newegg.com , $39 difference is more than justified considering the amount of overall performance increase you get. The 2.6 is more comparable to the 3000+/3200+ CPUs.


    My replies to TTZX are below!!

    The fact is I was not talking about over clocking as TAX is describing. I was talking about off the shelf CPU's and providing and honest answer to the originator of the post.

    The Barton AMD 2800 + is superior to the Intel 2.8 OUT of the BOX in so many ways. Over clocking an Intel chip is the only way to make it function faster then the AMD Barton 2800 +

    I have worked for so long as a computer tech that seeing a computer system able to open up Microsoft Word in less then 30 seconds is a benchmark!!
    If this guy wants to start comparing Mad Onion Benchmarks then he's on. I suspect that with my properly configured Barton 2800 + running in my current set-up that I would still score higher then his over clocked 2.8 Intel chip.
    I would not push him to run any Mad Onion Benchmarks to prove that because as we all know his CPU is now very unstable and will not last to Christmas but we could all CHIP in and by him a real CPU perhaps he could purchase a real Motherboard that would support a AMD processor.

    The amount of problems in the shop we have with the Intel chips not running software applications is past the limits of our patience. Give a AMD chip a job and it does it does not have questions it simply performs.

    Quick example of this was a College teacher that in his trades class would run diagnostic tools for automotive equipment then he would in real time upload the information to his computer.
    His computer would stall on him and he could not run slide shows depicting oscilloscope pictures.
    We installed more physical RAM we cleaned his computer up and tweaked it the whole deal nothing we could do get that Intel CPU to perform.

    We placed his hard drive in a new AMD board and CPU removed all the drivers for the old system board and CPU and his operating system pushed all his hardware software perfectly.

    After showing Ken how his system ran all his applications he advised us to build him a new AMD system with a new 80 Gig hard drive and copy all the relative information from his old drive into his new computer.

    His old Intel system is now in his basement as a home internet surf machine for his wife and kids. I suppose an Intel chip can handle MSN Messenger service.

    What TTZX fails to realize is he thinks he is bad ass having to over clock his Intel CPU so it can compete with AMD CPU's that run faster out of the box. It is also very apparent that TTZX is not a gamer if he would like to try to game online he should first purchase some AMD/ASUS equipment so he does not get his Anal self handed to him online.

    As to further my question about the system resources getting tapped when online in game you can bet your last pay check that there is more going on then just 10 guys throwing bullets at each other.

    Run software that enables you to see IP's running through your system I guarantee you will see IP number running pass through packets through your system that have nothing to do with the game server IP or your home network IP addresses. Oh try to ban those IP number that show up as pass through packets it wont do you any good you cannot block them.
  10. If you are building a new machine and replacing mobo ram etc... then go with the 2.6c it's faster and a better build right now I'd say. However, if you already have a amd mobo and ram that works get an amd and save yerself the mobo cost.

    Shadus
  11. > The AMD CPU's are the fastest game CPU's there is no
    > question about that just ask anyone who has been
    > building game computers for the last say 7 years.

    Bullsh!t. Flatout craptacular bullsh!t. AMD and Intel have traded back and forth the performance crown several times in gameing. The C varient of the P4 chips is a better performer even in games than the amd (except for the 64). Yarg, I hate when people fuggin get stupid. Know what the hell you are talking about before spouting off.

    Shadus
  12. I hate to agree with fanboys but in this case he's right. Equiv C varient intel chips tend to shread the amd chips... now vs the amd64 chips the story is a bit different... but no one is talking anything but the older bartons here.

    Shadus
  13. My does the same thing when I open media player 9 with my 2.4C. blink loaded.
  14. big deal on my tully wmp 9 opens in a blink too, that says very little about performance.


    If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
    110% BX fanboy
  15. Heh - you can agree with me instead; I'm not a fanboy.

    "Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
  16. With the intel B varient chips you are entirely correct. Include the C varient chips in the equation and you are very very wrong. When compared mhz->pr+ rating the higher end p4 c chips make the pr+ rating look absurd. Look at benchies anywhere for actual games (excluding of course sites that have amd in the site name.)

    Just off toms (since we're here-- its pretty much matched at every major site also.)

    http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-07.html
    http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-08.html
    http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-09.html

    I mean come on man, the 2800+ doesn't even match a 2.4c here MOST of the time. Don't be a blind fanboy idiot. What performs best performs best it doesn't matter what brand it is. AMD just got way to ambitious about the pr ratings. 2800+ should have been a 2400+, 3000+ should have been a 2600+, and 3200+ should have been 2800+. Then they should have released the amd64 as 3000+ and 3200+ (which would have flat out dominated the comparative chips instead of beating them the majority of the time).

    Shadus
  17. Alrighty, I whole hearted ignore T and agree with Capt Nemo. :P

    Shadus
  18. That's why I posted this what the other guy posted about his 2.4c.
  19. Son I don't know where you get your facts from on CPU power and performance unless you read to many online benchmarks.

    I could care less what AMD says about their speeds or what Intel claims they can produce for benchmarks.

    The fact is the AMD CPU's out perform any Intel Crap there is ever was or will be.

    A thing to note son is that the hyper threading technologies in the new Intel chips sucks ass simple and the new Nvidia FX 5900 Ultra GPU sucks ass as well.

    As you seem to know very little about real world use of CPU's I will cut you the slack you deserve until you have enough experience in computers.

    It is people like you that read and believe whatever they are fed like sheep on a cliff edge that keep the brand names going full strength when in fact they are selling you the same crap they sold you last month with a different label on it.

    Wake up little sheep time to realize that in the real world there are things that work and things that don't and AMD does more then they ever claimed and Intel does much less then they do claim.
    And that is the utter bullshit as you put it so mildly.
  20. i dont normally step into these debates, but all benchmarks that i have seen show the axp 2800+ having less performance than even the 2.4c. That being said for a budget system amd still has the bang for the buck crown, and when overclocked the barton 2500+ becomes an even better value. That being said the 2.4c can easily to 3.2ghz and would cream any tbred or barton based amd cpu.


    If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
    110% BX fanboy
  21. pIII man at least tries to use a few facts unfortunately as he is well aware he mentioned a 2400+ and not a 2800+ AMD CPU in either case he points out that his Intel Chip would cream any Barton Processor unfortunately he has to again....Overclock the poor Intel CPU to achieve this.
    For real world performance and cost the AMD CPU's out perform the Intel CPU's.
    It was true a few years ago that Intel was the industry leader in CPU technology and most software was developed to work with Intel CPU's however that is not true anymore AMD has made leaps in CPU construction and Intel although they have moved ahead as well have found that they are boxed into a design that is dying off they can no longer produce chips that perform higher then the WALL they have met.
    AMD architecture is so far limitless in how they can expand their technology.
  22. <b>WTF!!</b>

    Quote:
    The fact is the AMD CPU's out perform any Intel Crap there is ever was or will be.

    PROVE IT

    Also, if you say that, does that mean that the P4EE is out performed by say the 1GHz Athlon? I don't think so (I had a 1GHz Athlon system and my current 2.66 P4B system beats the [-peep-] out of it and then pisses on it).

    Quote:
    As you seem to know very little about real world use of CPU's I will cut you the slack you deserve until you have enough experience in computers.

    Ehhhh....I'm pretty sure that Shadus knows his [-peep-] and has used a variety of products. I have personally used pretty much every available processor that is on the market at one time (including G5, Power4+, Opteron, but no the FX) and I can tell you that my P4B 2.66 beat out any sub-3000+ XP in what most people consider 'real-world performance.' Additionally, the 'real-world performance' that you talk about means different things for different people--I prefer multimedia and gaming performance while others prefer server applications or just basic Mozilla, Trillian, Word, Powerpoint efficiency.

    Quote:
    It is people like you that read and believe whatever they are fed like sheep on a cliff edge that keep the brand names going full strength when in fact they are selling you the same crap they sold you last month with a different label on it.

    I know that my 2.66 P4b isn't a relabeled 2.0A, in fact, it isn't even a relabeled 2.53B. If anything, it's the other way around, a relabeled and lower-clocked 2.8B, which came out later and more expensive than mine.

    Quote:
    Wake up little sheep time to realize that in the real world there are things that work and things that don't and AMD does more then they ever claimed and Intel does much less then they do claim.

    I've never noticed that before. Weird, maybe I should go to more AMD-biased websites so I can get my fill.

    Damn Rambus.
  23. If I had to guess, you're the same person as G5_inside...but that's for a different conversation.

    I do have to agree with you that Intel hit a wall with the P4C, as AMD did with their XP. However, Intel is going to the 90nm process, which takes time, but should be well worth the wait. Prescott may not have been released on time, but neither was A64. Additionally, Tejas is expected to be released shortly after Scotty. Tejas is what Intel seems to be putting their money and time into, as well, leading us to believe that in fact AMD will hold a slight lead (maybe a thousandth of the lead you falsely preach, however) until Tejas is introduced. At this time we do not have sufficient knowledge of what either company is doing, so guessing that Tejas will kill or be killed is still down the road.

    I must disagree with you largely due to the fact that you have very little fact in your posts about anything, much like Popey and G5er. Show me facts and I might agree with you.

    Damn Rambus.
  24. I don't know why you guys bother. He's obviously a complete idiot, or someone just trying to troll for the fun of it.

    ---
    <font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
  25. b, b, bu, but anti-troll posts help my post count... :frown:

    Damn Rambus.
  26. Vapor you have just finished this post there is no more to be said. He has put into words exactly what I wanted to see posted. He has hit the preverbal nail on the head and is completely accurate in his response. Lets call this one a draw until we see I should say HAVE in our hands the new hardware.

    P.S thanks to all who chastised me I do need to be told ;) I thought I simply posted to the originator of the post Soccerdude90 that it would be all right for him to install a Barton 2800+ to run his applications with. I would be a sad thing if he never comes back to read how his post generated such feedback and folly :)

    Con Grats!! to Vapor for ending the post I will not search out any more truths as he has answered correctly the rest of you are the weakest link good bye ;)
  27. Wow now you are a true dumbass...

    Quote:
    he mentioned a 2400+ and not a 2800+ AMD CPU

    Nighthawk whats the title of this thread?

    Quote:
    Overclock the poor Intel CPU to achieve this.

    The intel 2.6c will outperform the 2800+ even at stock speeds.

    Quote:
    For real world performance and cost the AMD CPU's out perform the Intel CPU's

    Intel beats amd in ALL media encoding and almost all gamming benchmarks, how is this not real world performance?

    Quote:
    that was true a few years ago that Intel was the industry leader in CPU technology and most software was developed to work with Intel CPU's however that is not true anymore AMD has made leaps in CPU construction

    The athlon xp is no longer one of these leaps, it is old technology and any level headed person you will talk to will tell you the p4 outperforms it. Face it, the roots of the AXP go back to the original athlon the AXP is no longer cutting edge technology (but still a damn good cpu).


    You fail to realise that the athlon xp is a good cpu for people on a budget however a barton 2800+ compared to a 2.6c is no competition, the better cpu is the 2.6c hands down. It is slightly more expensive, but still a better performing cpu so the extra money is waranted


    If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
    110% BX fanboy
  28. SoDNighthawk, maybe for the past year you've smoking crack instead of building computers. The link I provided puts the processors head-to-head at STOCK SPEEDS. Even the 2.4C ripps the 2800+ appart both at STOCK SPEED. I never mentioned anything about overclocked Intels beating stock athlons, of course they would. I talked about overclocking since the original poster inquired about it at the end of my post. I feel sorry for those "H@rDc0r3 gAm3rZ" that come to your store and get screwed when you sell them a 2800+ instead of a 2.4C or 2.6C.
  29. Well after taking a look around and checking up on things I would have to chang what I said before. I would go for the P4 2.6c as long as you can utilize the 200(800) FSB. I said what I said before because when I bought my own computer I did check up on things and sided with AMD because of their price to proformace ratio. But that was almost a year ago. I have been keeping up with things but only on the highend CPU's like the 3.2 the EE and the FX and Athlon 64. I didn't know that the 2.4 and 2.6 and the like got such a big big boost from the boosted FSB hell I didn't even really know that the 2.4 and 2.6 had 200 FSB.

    But yeah I would go with a 2.6c or a 2.4c but only if you get the C's and nothing less.

    -------------------------------------------------
    Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
  30. I am talking about the 2.4C and 2.6C with 800MHz FSB and HT. The B series are old.
  31. Here you have some tips out of this war:

    - Compare XP2500+ and 2.4C P4, as they are know to be the BEST option if you plan to overclock. As others have said, usually the first one can go to 3200+ and the second to 3.2Ghz

    - I suppose you will buy a new mobo, because you can choose between Intel and AMD. In order to achieve high overclocks, you need a reliable mobo. Asus nForce2 is my option for AMD. For Intel I don't have enough knowledge to give you advice, others here can supply it.

    - Whatever is your decision, you will need good brand memory in pairs. Depends on your goal, you will need at least over 200DDR memory. And remember better timings = higher performance. Anandtech has some good recent reviews of several high end memories.

    - Finally, Socket A way ends is quite reduced (3200+), while P4 can have a larger path (not too long, but better). Some people are interested in upgrade path, just in case you are one of those.

    Hope this helps.


    Still looking for a <b>good online retailer</b> in Spain :frown:
  32. > Son I don't know where you get your facts from on
    > CPU power and performance unless you read to many
    > online benchmarks.

    Since I build computers for a living, read at least 5-6 different publications online and off, and also am a hardcore gamer, well, I kinda assume I know what the hell I'm talking about...

    > I could care less what AMD says about their
    > speeds or what Intel claims they can produce
    > for benchmarks.

    To true, both companies are going to spin their own pcs in the best light they can. Only a moron would believe what intel or amd say that goes beyond raw technical specs.

    > The fact is the AMD CPU's out perform any Intel
    > Crap there is ever was or will be.

    Prove it or stand down as a lamer fanboy. The p4 c variet outperform the comparative amd chips hands down all the way up the line quite frequently beating comparatively higher rated chips from amd. From 2.4ghz all the way up (without ANY overclocking.) If you want to dispute this, I challenge you-- provide proof otherwise on similar hardware.

    > A thing to note son is that the hyper threading
    > technologies in the new Intel chips sucks ass
    > simple and the new Nvidia FX 5900 Ultra GPU
    > sucks ass as well.

    Yah the FX isn't peachy that's for sure. The HT is only functionally useful in a few situations but it adds a couple % of performance and that never hurts. It *seems* to add a bit to desktop performance in opening times and such, but that's purely a personal evaluation of non-ht vs ht chips at the same speed. The significant difference was the increase to 800mhz fsb (which is really only 200 quad pumped). Not to mention amd's increasingly inaccurate pr rating. If they had rated their chips as slightly less (about 200pr on everything about 2400+ or higher) it wouldn't be nearly as inaccurate. I'm not debating price vs performance here, I'm debating flat out performance. AMD definetly has a better price vs performance ratio at the lower end and the further down you go the more of a difference it makes. Right now however, this is not the case with the bartons and the c varient p4 chips.

    > As you seem to know very little about real world
    > use of CPU's I will cut you the slack you deserve
    > until you have enough experience in computers.

    Since I've been building pcs since the mid/late 80s, have worked non-stop as a unix/nt admin for the last 7 years, and as a programmer since 1990, and have done hardware repair/replacement work for major pc vendors in the past... I probally know computers quite a bit better than a fanboy like you (You'll find most people who KNOW computers are performance fanatics, not fanboys. I think I can safely assume based on the fact that you are a complete troll or fanboy that you are fairly new to computers.)

    > It is people like you that read and believe
    > whatever they are fed like sheep on a cliff
    > edge that keep the brand names going full
    > strength when in fact they are selling you
    > the same crap they sold you last month with
    > a different label on it.

    When I get the same results time after time as a site I read, I eventually get the general notion that the site is probally usually accurate and the data they are putting out is correct. If my results are significantly different than the site I'm reading, I discount the site as something I can't rely on to provide accurate results.

    > Wake up little sheep time to realize that in
    > the real world there are things that work and
    > things that don't and AMD does more then they
    > ever claimed and Intel does much less then
    > they do claim. And that is the utter bullshit
    > as you put it so mildly.

    Yah, I'll agree to that, pretty much everything you've spewed is utter bullsh!t.


    Shadus
  33. Let me rephrase this for you since you don't get it:

    PIII_Man said: an INTEL P4 2.4 C Varient chip will beats a AMD 2800+ chip WITHOUT overlclocking. He also notes that the AMD barton/tbb chips overclock very well but on the other hand so does the p4 2.4c and since the 2.4c will frequently go all the way to 3.2, it will eat the amd chips alive.

    Learning to read is a good prerequisete to participating in the computer industry.

    Shadus
  34. > b, b, bu, but anti-troll posts help my post count...

    Exactly, and it passes a slow work day.

    Shadus
  35. You know it. :wink:

    Damn Rambus.
  36. Do you think he get's it now. Or do you to explan it in more detail for him.
  37. He's a troll, they're notoriously low IQ.

    I might want to explain it again, but no responses yet. ;)

    Shadus
  38. Quote:
    b, b, bu, but anti-troll posts help my post count...

    Yeah, and anti-anti-troll posts help mine! :lol:

    ---
    <font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
  39. Ok guys... Here is a real world test for you. All I had available to mess with in an Intel CPU and Chipset was a 3.2GHz CPU and a Intel 875P Chipset.

    Below are the 2 systems I ran head to head in a real world experiment. They are supposedly by the numbers not equal machines but as you will see some surprising things occur.

    SYSTEM ONE:
    Asus Mother Board/ Intel
    800 FSB/4GB Dual-DDR400 Memory
    intel 875P Chipset
    800 MHz FSB
    Dual=Channel DDR400 Memory
    Intel Pat
    Multi-Raid for ATA133 & Serial ATA
    AGP 8X (AAGP 3.0) Bandwidth up to 2.12GB/s

    Processor Installed: Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz

    SYSTEM TWO:
    Asus Mother Board/AMD
    A7V8X-X Mother Board
    Docketed for AMD Barton/Thoroughbred/Athlon XP/Athlon/Duron 2.25+ Ghz CPU
    Northbridge: VIA KT400/Southbridge: VIA VT8235 Chipsets.
    200/266/333 MHz (FSB)
    AGP 8X and 6 PCI slots.
    Processor Installed: AMD XP ready Barton 2800+

    The 2 Systems are running Windows XP Pro/Fully updated.
    The 2 Systems had Norton Utilities Integrator installed to clean up background clutter after complete hard drive install of Win XP.
    MSN Messenger was removed completely from both Systems.
    Both systems are using a Enermax Power Supply that supports both P4 & AMD XP and K8 CPU's
    Both Systems are running a XFX Ti 4200 8X AGP DDR 128 MB Graphics card with Nvidia Drivers latest version.
    Both Systems got a 30 Gig Maxtor Hard drive running at 7200 and at boot up both systems show the drive running in DMA 6 mode.

    The BIOS for each system is stock right out of the Box the Graphics cards are stock speeds right out of the Box and both CPU's are set to the factory settings in each mother board BIOS.

    Two 1.00 GB RAM sticks of Kinston DDR memory was used one that supports DDR333MHz on the AMD mother board and 1 that supports the DDR400MHz Intel mother board.

    2 Identical SONY CD ROMS drives were installed and 2 Identical Floppy Disc drives were used.

    Aside from the Ghz difference between the Intel chip at 3.2GHZ and the AMD Barton 2800+ processors and system buss/memory speeds different on the mother boards the systems are identical.

    Two games were installed onto these 2 machines both notorious for causing graphics lag and performance issues.

    The first game was GHOST RECON and the second game was Splintercell.

    We played both games on each system at different desktop resolutions 800x600 and 1024x768 Correspondingly the desktops were set to the same values.

    The Intel System showed both delayed mouse control in both Ghost Recon and Splintercell at 800x600 with full effects turned on in game.

    The AMD system ran Ghost Recon and Splintercell without any apparent lag at all at 800x600 with full effects turned on in the game.

    Already we had problems with game curser and tracking mouse control in both games with the intel system. The AMD system to this point shows no apparent problems.

    Now with both games set to 1024x768 the Intel system seems to perk up a bit perhaps it only wanted to be turned loose to play well it all looked great until you tell the Splinter Cell Hero Sam Fisher to use his Heat Vision goggles then it gets bad real bad the frame rates drop to nothing and the Intel system at one point even dropped out into debug mode at the desktop.

    Apparently the Intel system could not generate the graphics textures fast enough in fact the games were laggy in 800x600 graphics settings but in 1024x768 game play got better but was totally useless using heat vision in Splinter Cell. In Ghost Recon the Intel system seem to run fine in 800x600 resolution but there was way to much game lag at 1024x768 made the game unpleasant to play.

    The AMD Barton XP ready 2800+ system ran both game with very few problems. This is a real world test that explains why people in the know that want to use a Personnel computer to game off of and play multy player games get an AMD processor.

    I do not personally believe in any benchmarks posted by the numbers on either CPU, they are misleading and not accurate to the end user.

    If I wanted to give my nephew 1 of these two computer systems to take home to game with I am going to give him the AMD computer I mean who wants to play game on an Intel system that lags so badly.

    THIS IS THE LAST POST I WILL MAKE OR REPLY TO!! on this topic. If you want to use a personnel computer to game with get AMD CPU's it's not a contest at all.
  40. If you install some decent motherboard drivers it might help.

    If you looked at more than two games it might help too. This is what benchmarks are for.. they give you a <b>balanced</b> picture. Most things have a purpose, although you seem to have not <i>quite</i> figured out the purpose of that mushy grey thing between your ears.

    My Athlon XP system gives mouse lag problems in Halo, but because it's fine in loads of others, I blame Halo, and it's crappy console origins, I don't blame the processor.

    Splinter cell sucks anyway, so I personally don't give a crap how it runs.

    How about also chucking in some Quake3 benchies (old game, but the engine is used in soooo many current games it's still relevant for TODAY'S GAMING)

    Or even better - some DoomIII benchies!

    And besides, VIA chipsets are awful, and sticking a XP2800+ in one is akin to torturing the poor thing.


    ---
    <font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
  41. Chipdeath your cute ;) Read the whole post the AMD chip won. And they had the latest chip drivers installed and HEY!! I was not going to reply again to this thread but your so CUTE!! What other mother board would you have us stick AMD chips into ASUS makes a good board. AND I used an ASUS board for both CPU's. AND we chose both Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell becuase they have bad game engines and Net codes that was the point why run great games like you asked for that would be silly. Damn you are CUTE ;)
  42. What were the framerates? Did you try to correct the issues the intel system was having? Did you install the motherboard drivers? Did you update to the latest bios? Were the latency settings for the ram the same? Did you turn on any opts for either system? What were the default bios values on both systems? Why the hell were you using a ti4200 in either of those systems?

    One thing I can guarentee, you had the intel system pooched (accidently) in some manor. Neither of those systems had *any* reason to be lagging in either of those games for any reason. I can vouch for that because my 2.2/1g ram sitting on my desk here doesn't lag in either of those games with all the settings turned up.

    The intel may have been showing the effects of one of two bugs additionally, 1) The LL ram issue (which is usually a stability issue not base speed) 2) >1 GB Ram issue (its a lack of knowledge on configuration more than the ammount of ram.)

    Frankly if you didn't take the time to try to figure out what was causing the discrepancy was or if you base all of your results off of one test in a single build, you are not a competant benchmarker.

    As part of my standard build I generally run PCMark and 3DMark01/03. Honestly if I ever saw a result that far off what everyone else was observing or had a result that indicated anything even similar to that, I would be telling the buyer that I would need an extra day or two to verify everything was functioning correctly in the system. Then I'd be tearing the system apart and rebuilding it and doing some reading online to see if anyone else is experiencing similar problems. I've had to do it 3 times now when the numbers came up *very* wrong. I had an intel system that was benching about 40% under what it should have been with the hardware in it, turned out to be a bad ram chip. I had 2 amd machines that was benching funny which was resolved by updating to the newest drivers for the board (asus nforce2 chipset) for one and I never did figure out what caused the other one, after replacing each and every component it was still doing it. I reformated and it went poof and everything was normal.

    I've built 15+ P4 C varient computers so far since they were released from the 2.4 all the way up to a 3.2 (wish it was mine). I've built at least 25+ amd computers since then also and the benchmarks remain very consistant for the most part, a few points here and there.

    Consistantly, I'm seeing higher framerates in Q3A, UT2K3, RTCW, AC2, and SWG on the intel based systems (I only know those programs because I see them frequently installed on both intel and amd-- the group of people most of my sales come from are roleplayers and computer geeks for the most part. My numbers and framerates seem pretty on par with most every other person on this forum and with all of the review sites on the web that don't have "amd" or "intel" in the title.

    The fact of the matter is simple, your results are extremely off kilter with most other peoples. Most people in this forum, most review sites, and mine. Does it mean you are absolutely positively wrong? No. We could potentially all be misconfiguring our amd systems and you just got the magic touch or an insider piece of info no one else knows. However, at the minimum it should make you sit back and really seriously check everything out on the intel and do some benchies on the games you play again.

    In the end, I state again what my base opinion of that is-- neither of those systems should have lagged at all for any reason with that hardware (even though the vid card was a bit on the low end for high end systems.)

    Edit: Oh yah, and my 2.2ghz ain't running any game but DS/Diablo at less than 1024x768 and generally 1280x1024. Any modern computer that is lagging at 800x600 is having *serious* issues that probally aren't related to the brand of the processor.

    Shadus<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by shadus on 11/07/03 01:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  43. > THIS IS THE LAST POST I WILL MAKE OR REPLY TO!!
    > on this topic. If you want to use a personnel
    > computer to game with get AMD CPU's it's not a
    > contest at all.

    Which proves that you don't actually want to have to stand behind anything you've said. Nice try. Unfortunetly for you the vast number of people on the boards here are very computer literate and your results are NOT what any of us are seeing who build our own pcs and build pcs for others.

    Shadus
  44. Sigh** Shad both systems had all of the latest drivers installed they were both run stock out of the box, the point I am trying to make and you answered it your self is if a person goes into a retail store like Staples Business Depot or any other retailer an buys a computer system.
    They get exactly what was used to run the tests.

    You keep arguing about updates and drivers and overclocking etc.
    NONE of that applies to what was being explained.

    The Intel CPU performs poorly even after all its software drivers were updated.
    Both systems were debugged fully and both systems were set to run the test games equally. Both games were chosen because they run the same game engines that both have proved difficult for home users to run. We did not use games that were easy on systems what would be the point.

    The fact that the Intel chip failed in so many ways is the example we are trying to show. You your self know all the problems with the Intel chips so why in retrospect talk about them.

    I used an Intel Chip that was a higher rating out of the box then the Barton chip because its all we had on the shelf we did not have a 2.6c and the AMD chip still functioned and out performed the Intel system.

    What more can be said... the Intel chips do not perform for games they are designed as everyone knows for Business applications.

    Just as a little upset to your folly here Shad I built personally over 50 computer systems for people for Christmas alone last year so they would be under the tree. I do not build systems every day because I own the place.

    Do not argue with people in the business we know all the pros and cons of the industry or we would go broke.

    Here is another thing I need you to think about Shad the Public released Intel chips handle comfortably around 20 to 30 Peripheral devices such as printers USB accessories Digital cards etc.

    It would amaze you to know that Intel chips used by the Military can handle hundreds, just imagine a modern day jet fighter now imagine the hundreds of hardware devices that detect damage to the air frame over 100's of various locations on the plane.

    Do you think they fly 500 CPU's up in that bird no they don't either. Intel chips if certain traces are added or removed during the manufacturing stages of the wafers can handle 100's of extra hardware devices imputed through them.

    In various examples the AMD chips can too but they build primarily for the Public's computers. Since AMD is dedicated solely to the public and not a military role you will get great performance from those chips.

    The Intel chips you dream about you will never see because those go to a military function.
  45. > They get exactly what was used to run the tests.

    Wrong. They don't get a system setup by a non-professional who doesn't know how to fix what was most likely a minor issue. Compaq, HP, Dell, Gateway, hell even E-Machine, puts *ALOT* of time into testing and verifying that the hardware is all fuctioning at the levels it should be. Regardless of who made the processor for the machine. Fact is, any competent computer person who builds pcs for a living puts alot of time into either testing each individual configuration they sell or each individual pc and preferably both.

    Where did I mention overclocking again (Other than to exclude it)? Do you or can you read?

    Yawn. Like I said, provide proof, show me benchmarks, show me exact numbers give me bios settings and configurations, show me collaborating evidence anywhere else other than that one single test you claim to have done which NO SITE EVER has had results even similar to (even the sites with "amd" in the title.)

    The fact is, Intel chips are designed to perform in all applications just like amd chips. Due to differences in philo and monetary issues they have some design differences like amd having better ipc and much lower mhz. Intel tends to even the ground by applying more monetary solutions like increasing mhz, cache, and raising fsb. In the case of the recent bartons, and I doubt there are many people other than you who would dispute it, amd pr rating is overdone. They're at LEAST 200pr off of what they should be listed at to compare with intel chips (which amd says isn't what the pr rating is supposed to mean.) A 2800+ is beaten almost always by a p4 2.4c, a 3000+ is beaten almost always by a 2.6c, a 3200+ is beaten almost always by a 2.8c, and the 3.0c and 3.2c aren't matched by anything in the current barton line (however the AMD64 does nicely beat them in many cases). Like I said, unless you are magic and pretty much every single site across the entire net is dead wrong about it, you misconfigured your intel machine. I've seen it done to intel and I've seen it done to amd. It doesn't matter, misconfigured is misconfigured. Even claiming to be a computer tech and accepting a result like that as "normal" is ignorant.

    I am in the business moron, what part of "I build pc's for a living" don't you understand? I keep current with the technology by building the pcs myself (which it appears you may need to spend some time doing-- because your concepts and ideas are current to about a year or two ago, nothing real world high end today), working with technology is part of almost everything I do, being a programmer, being an admin, being a gamer. My actual day job is all contract work. I've been moving to living just off my pc sales now for over 2 years and my business is growing everyday becuase the people who come to me either A) Know exactly what they want and I build it to perform as best the hardware can regardless of how I feel about the particular parts (like a fx5200) B) I recommend things if I think something might work better, but if they don't want it I do what they asked for, C) I stay up to date on pretty much everything happening in the computer industry, I do that by reading forums, reading sites, benchmarking pc's as I build them, and testing the newest hardware I can find, people know I won't try to sell them a system that does a massive ammount more than what they need and I won't try to convince them something inadaquete will do more than it can. People rely on my judgement because I'm honest, very good at what I do, and my prices are reasonable.

    Based on what you've said and shown here I don't believe you've ever honestly put togeather more than 5 systems in your entire life.

    As for the rest, there is so much bullshit there I refuse to even try to figure out what is a half truth, quarter truth, and what is just flat out made up. What you posted is a perfect example of showing how little of a concept you have about even what individual compoents do. You know absolutely nothing and that crap you spouted is just the conclusive proof.

    Shadus<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by shadus on 11/07/03 02:53 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  46. As in reply in retrospect to your problem with Ti 4200 Graphics cards used. They have proven them selves as very stable platforms and out of the box provide robust in game performance. The FX 5900 Ultra we have been having problems with. I generally sell to the public Raidion Cards but that is because the plant is a 2 hour drive from where I live in Canada and I have walked the plant floor.

    I worked for 17 years in the electronic industry from JDS to Nortel Networks there is very little I have not done in Electronics or fibre Optics.

    You also claim that you have no problems running any or most of your games at 1024x768 and any computer lagging at 800x600 has serious problems. Well that is not true as we all have read that you have had to tweak bang clone and overclock your system.
    Again the idea of the testing was to prove that out of the box the AMD chips will provide a better game platform then the Intel chips.
    I will not sell the Intel system we built to a gamer and it will be sold as a business computer.
    The AMD system will go to my nephew because it will be a Christmas present and he plays MechWarrior online.

    I am going to tweak the heck out of the AMD system so it performs even better then it did in the test but the Intel System goes on the shelf as a stable and insurable computer for a business applications.
  47. > tweak bang clone and overclock your system.

    What the fsck is tweak bang clone and overclock your system?

    Tweak my system? Oh yes. Every computer I have ever built, amd or intel. Anyone who isn't tweaking their system isn't getting even part of the performance. Tweaking != overclocking and if you think it does, it further demostrates your incompetance. I think perhaps you are g5_inside. You both spout the same style of bullshit and avoid any real issue you bring up by trying to walk out on a side unrelated item. Idiots. Fanboys. Trolls.

    Mmmm Only 1h 15m till I can go home and do something entertaining, I had hoped by your early posts you were someone with a clue who would be interesting to debate with instead of someone who was just going to make up crap that everyone knows is bullshit.

    Edit: See what I get for having unrealistic expectations? *sigh*

    Shadus<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by shadus on 11/07/03 03:16 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  48. Who is G_5 Inside and here is the problem apparent I just signed into the Tom's Hardware Guide a few days ago.
    You seem to keep missing the point, you still talk about overclocking your system it would surprise you to know that 90% of the population are simply users they don't have a clue how to do what you do or what we know.
    The test was simply to show what a home user gets when he gets his new box home.
    On the whole without any alterations to an operating system a person that proly doesn't even know what CPU they purchased will be provided better performance on a computer using an AMD CPU.

    As far as this G-5 guy goes he has obviously stepped on your toe's so I will clarify my Identity for you and you can apply that to whom ever G_5 is if you know anything relevant about him.

    I live in Ottawa Canada slightly outside of it in Kanata. You know where the Ottawa Senators Hockey club has its hockey rink the Palladium. Pink and ugly it fills up a whole field that used to be farm land..........Also where 25% of Canada's high tech industry is.
  49. your a [-peep-] genious, you have uncovered a massive consipiracy of every single hardware review site fudging results for intel to look better than amd!


    If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
    110% BX fanboy
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Computer Intel