Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Only Facts AMD or Intel which is better

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 9, 2001 3:50:21 AM

For once i want to see what is out there for a knowledge base of the amd and intel users. I want to hear facts no opinions on which one is better.

SPUD

I saw the future it gave me a big intel hug :) 

More about : facts amd intel

March 9, 2001 4:07:35 AM

I said facts only not opinions. Im a gamer too i dont run AMD because of the motherboards have had issues and my experience with the k6-2 bla.

P3600E 440bx 256mb pc100 viper2 it works fer me

SPUD

I saw the future it gave me a big intel hug :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2001 5:34:42 AM

From the very beginning all (I mean all) MS and the most software out there was and is written on Intel chips. Rest of it I let you figure out for yerself… hehehe

"akuna mutata" braza... :wink:
Related resources
March 9, 2001 5:58:48 AM

That to me means nothin oh its optimized by a few intruction sets wow come guys your so smart tell me specs stats i dont care what you think you know i want to know what you know facts and only facts the only way we can solve the mistery of whos better

SPUD

I saw the future it gave me a big intel hug :) 
March 9, 2001 6:24:01 AM

The Athlon is a fast, inexpensive alternative to the Pentium. The Athlon performs better in many of the popular benchmarks(i.e. Sysmark,etc). Intel is historically more "stable". If your a hobbiest and enjoy tweaking and primping your machine(like me!), go with Athlon. If you don't mind spending more money, want more stability, and brag that you got an Intel inside, go with Pentium. Also, Athlons are known to have heat issues but if you're even attempting to build a system, you should know how to properly cool your CPU.

:tongue: <font color=green> I LOVE INTEL. It tastes like chicken </font color=green>
March 9, 2001 6:27:06 AM

I repeat for Spudit people (not very smart ones), all the software is written on Intel chips. Repeat - INTEL CHIPS. Now, if you can use any of part of yer brain, you can guess, what is better, and more compatible with the software, and has better optimization, and hardware bug fixes withing the software, and ... yada, yada...
If you do not know what is reverse engineering (AMD), I could explain... heh

Post, we'll do the search... :wink:
March 9, 2001 7:01:52 AM

<b>I said facts only not opinions. Im a gamer too i dont run AMD because of the motherboards have had issues and my experience with the k6-2 bla.</b>
Yours, too, is only an opinion! IMO, You would never get facts about which one (Intel or AMD) is better but only opinions because it depends on which one suits your need!
<b>P3600E 440bx 256mb pc100 viper2 it works fer me</b>
Well, even my old K6-3@400 is good for me.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2001 7:03:01 AM

spud you really suck. if one company was clearly better the other one wouldnt be around. amd and intel both have different strengths and weaknesses. it depends what situation youre in as to what solution is right for you.



LEGAL DISCLAIMER: cape does not enable user to fly.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2001 8:00:00 AM

The truth is niether

AMD has lack of thermal protection
P4 has a weak FPU and the P3 is much better still isn't as strong as teh Athlon
AMD are a smaller company then intel and cannot supply the same quantity of CPU's to the Market.
BOTH are big corps out for profit and nothing more
Intel has more wide spread support for it's Instructions sets and has faster uptake of any new standard
AMD Makes very good CPU's
Intel Makes very good CPU's
Athlons have less chipsets around than PIII's , P4 have less than Athlons
P4 cannot yet be used to it's full potential
AMD has not yet got SMP for any of it's CPU's
P4 does not yet have SMP
AMD CPU's run hotter than intel CPU's
Athlons use more power than PIII's but P4 uses more than PIII as well.
PIII and the Athlon have hardware compatability isues , bbut the Athlon has more(Don't know about the P4)
Athlons(T'Bird) are cheaper than P4 but are a little dated now but they still are cheaper than PIII but not by much
Intel has a better Brand Name
Intel has server CPU's AMD doesn't

The truth of the matter is pick the cpu that is best for you not because it is Intel or AMD look at each CPU on it's own merits and what you are going to use it for , for god sake don't buy a CPU cos it can encode Mpeg much faster if you mainly play Quake on it.....


M

Opinions are like arseholes .... everybody’s got one.... :smile:
March 9, 2001 10:46:36 AM

Fact: Intel has issued another investor warning, they will not reach their projected profit margin...again. Hmmm, is this a trend?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2001 11:45:12 AM

The fact is that it depends on what you use the system for and what your priorities are. If you are talking P-4 vs Athlon, the general concensus is that for right now the Athlon is a better performer with the majority of todays applications. This is backed up by a load of benchmarks and reviews on MANY different sites. (Aces Hardware, Anandtech, tom's etc.) They all have reached the same conclusion, and while conclusions are OPINIONS they are opionions based upon facts. This excerpt from Aces sums it up. Each chip has strengths and weaknesses:

"How do we feel about the Pentium 4? Clock for clock performance is worse than most other processors, but it’s wrong to evaluate a processor solely on that basis. What matters is all around performance, of course.

It is important to evaluate your processor needs because you won’t be able to say whether the Pentium 4 is faster (at this moment) than the competition or not. For example, it is very fast in OpenGL shoot-em-ups and race simulators, but it isn’t convincing in RTS and RPG and shoot-em-up DirectX games. It is faster than the competition in high-end 3D-software, but it takes a serious lashing in most 3D-animation desktop or low-end workstation software. The Pentium 4 shines in encoding and decoding, but falls short in a lot of popular tools for compiling, CAD and editing tools.

Over time, as more applications are optimized, either specifically for the micro-architecture via assembler-level
optimizations or are recompiled using optimized SSE2 compilers and libraries, the Pentium 4 will show better performance.
Corel Draw 10, Dragon Naturally Speaking, Rage Incoming Forces, MGI Video Wave III and The Print Shop are some of the upcoming software packages that will include SSE-2 optimizations.

Our bandwidth benchmarks clearly show what Ace’s Hardware has been pointing out in our previous articles: RAMBUS is good technology (from a controversial company), but the i820 chipset and the 133 MHz bus totally crippled it. The Pentium 4 will probably also ramp very fast in clock speed, so AMD should not rest on their laurels.

Nevertheless, the survival series is not over. The Athlon 1200 with DDR is a more balanced and less pricey solution than the Pentium 4 with Rambus. The Athlon 1200 DDR came in first or second place in every benchmark while the Pentium 4 was very capricious with some ups but more downs. Most people hate upgrading their favorite software all the time and the Athlon runs legacy applications faster. IOHO, the FPU of the Pentium 4 should have been made more powerful."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2001 12:40:41 PM

Hi,
I want to congratulate you on your question since so many questions on forums are dedicated to opinion and personal Bias..

I happen to agree with you and like to deal with facts,
so here is some info for you purely factual

If you want the best system, than AMD and some other listed components would only be considered in the middle to low end category.
you as well as others should get the following shich is the best platform bar none-------

ASUS PENTIUM 4 1.5 GHZ MB w 1.5 GHZ CPU

2x 128 Meg 800 mhz RAMBUS (this is dual channel for 3.2 GBPS bandwidth)

2x 15,000 rpm Cheatah 18 GIG Ultra 160 scsi Drives (3.8 MS
one for OS and one for software, can operate concurrently for close to 180 MBPS sustained ! )

Geforce 3 64 meg video

Kenwoood 72X Multilaser CD or Toshiba 16\48 DVD

CASE -COOLER MASTER 201 www.coolermaster.com ALL RAW ALUMINUM GIANT HEATSINK !
SB LIVE platinum 5.1
WINDOWS M.E with DD3d 8a both P4 compiled !!

this will outperform any AMD system with similiar components

RAMBUS has superior maximum bandwidth expecially dual channel where both ram modules are effectively operating at 1600 mhz concurrently

also with P4 compiled software like dd3d 8a, there is a trememdous speed gain.
P4 has dual FP units operating a 3 GHZ or 2x, and can handle more operations

also P4 has a cache prediction rate of 95% thanks to a table that is 8x times larger than P3 or AMD
it has a 20 stage pipeline and 8 way cache as
well as a 400 mhz memory bus compared with 200-266 for AMD

the INTEL 850 chipset for P4 supports AGP PRO,
and ATA 100,
supports USB 2 which is 2 times faster than USB
support for AC 97 dilivers 6 channels of audio on board
direct connection between IO hub and PCI with no overhead

any 3D app using P4 optimization will outshine anything
the industry standard Spec Mark for the P4 is 550 and its FP is 540 !
currently the fastest CPU around and over 100 points faster than AMD
the P4, will be upgradable past 2 GHZ this year !
we build thousands of high end systems for clients and test alot of hardware like TOM does, so I am speaking from hands on knowledge :) 
hope this helps you

CAMERON

CYBERIMAGE
<A HREF="http:// http://www.4CyberImage.com " target="_new">http:// http://www.4CyberImage.com </A>
Ultra High Performance Computers-
March 9, 2001 1:32:58 PM

Hmm! the first post in the thread with some facts instead of some moronic remarks.

I would however like to differ on one of you points and perhaps add a couple myself.

"AMD are a smaller company then intel and cannot supply the same quantity of CPU's to the Market."

<b>AMD did release the first Gigahertz CPU and Intel has had many difficulties in mass producing the pentium 3's & 4's.</b>


<b>new points:</b>

Intel is still tied to contracts with Rambus.
AMD still widely uses SDR SDRAM
Rambus RDRAM uses more power than SDR & DDR SDRAM.
RDRAM is expensive + not widely available
DDR SDRAM not widely available + has a few issues.
SDR SDRAM slower than the other two.


On related issues...

Everyones talking about SMP in desktop cpu's, but i really don't think its SMP (Symmetric multi processing), but instead SMT (Symmetric multi threading).

If you think i'm wrong, could you send me some links with detailed info.

<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2001 2:03:11 PM

the comment about AMD being smaller is meant to cover all CPU's ie total production not the most advanced CPU but I agree AMD did release the first 1ghz CPU ....
and thanks it is noce that someone actually reads what is put in my posts... :-)

M

Opinions are like arseholes .... everybody’s got one.... :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2001 2:12:00 PM

I like most of the hardware you suggest. I have always favored putting my $ into high quality components. I think that the only area we disagree on is the P-4 in it's present form. A few counterpoints with some facts to back them up:

You Said" "also P4 has a cache prediction rate of 95% thanks to a table that is 8x times larger than P3 or AMD
it has a 20 stage pipeline and 8 way cache as
well as a 400 mhz memory bus compared with 200-266 for AMD"

Actually the cache predict (branch predict) rate in the P4 is suspected to be lower than what Intel says it is and is a suspect in why it appears to exhibit low integer performance. Because of the deep pipeline, branch mispredictions carry a serious penalty in the P4. As long as the branch predictor guesses right, the deep pipeline is awesome for feeding high frequency CPU's. But it's a double edged sword. When it's wrong it causes problems and negates the effect of the better cache architecture. Aces: "Branch misprediction remains the Achilles' heel of Intels Hercules. Branch prediction happens in the first stage of the pipeline and if the processor mispredicts a branch, all the executed instructions of the wrong branch must be flushed from the processor pipeline. Only then can the processor restart the instruction execution and proceed with the correct program
branch. The deeper the pipeline, the more instructions must be flushed from the pipeline, resulting in a major performance penalty. Not only is the branch penalty 19 cycles, we found evidence that the P4's branch predictor is not nearly as fantastic as most P4 presentations claim."

"The Athlon 1200 walks all over the competition, although in theory its branch predictor should be weaker than the P4's. The "relatively short" pipeline of a 10-stage integer does the trick."

"It is very likely that branch mispredicts are killing the performance of the Pentium 4 in integer code. Look at the measurements at 8 KB (L1-cache) and 256 KB (L2-cache). In both cases, the Pentium 4 offers lower latency than the Athlon core, but even the Athlon 1100 outperforms the Pentium 4 by a significant margin. It is hard to imagine that the execution engine of the Pentium 4 would be the one to blame for this low performance. After all, ADD instructions are very common in all kinds of code, up to 50%! The Pentium 4 can issue a peak of 4 ADDs and sustain 3 of them per clockcycle."

"The possibility of branch mispredicts killing the performance of the Pentium 4 in the heapsort is somewhat disappointing as heapsort is a very common and relatively small algorithm. This is the first evidence that the branch predictor of the Pentium 4 may have a few rough edges."

You said: "Also with P4 compiled software like dd3d 8a, there is a trememdous speed gain. P4 has dual FP units operating a 3 GHZ or 2x, and can handle more operations"

Correct to some extent. But this is ONLY true if the applications are SSE2 optimised. These are not common at present. Otherwise P4 performance is mediocre. Ace's again: "The Pentium 4 must deliver superior FPU performance thanks to SSE2, a new extension that introduces 144 new SIMD instructions. The SSE unit that computes these instructions can calculate 128-bit SIMD integer arithmetic operations, but more importantly, can perform two double-precision floating point calculations per clock cycle. This means that unless an FP intensive application is SSE or SSE-2 optimized it will perform mediocre on the Pentium 4." "It appears clear that the Athlon 1200 MHz triple FPU comes out on top as the FPU marks confirm"

You said: the INTEL 850 chipset for P4 supports AGP PRO,
and ATA 100, supports USB 2 which is 2 times faster than USB
support for AC 97 dilivers 6 channels of audio on board
direct connection between IO hub and PCI with no overhead.

There are Motherboard solutions available for the Athlon that support the majority of these features. AC97, ATA 100, and AGP Pro are all available and supported. I am sure USB 2 will soon follow if it has not already."

You are correct that memory bandwidth with Rambus is superior. They finally took the hancuffs off of the technology.

Mike
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2001 2:22:45 PM

Regarding RDRAM: I would like to see a lower latency before I consider RDRAM as a viable option for most things I utilize a computer for. And I would like to see what QDR is capable of (whenever it finally comes out).

Regarding processor choices: When it comes to FPU intensive applications, I'd still prefer an AMD processor to an Intel one. Otherwise, I still prefer the P3 to the P4. Intel's incredibly deep pipeline, as stated in Ace's article, makes the processor very "inflexible" (for lack of a better word).

Honestly, I agree with the specs regarding the vid card selection and HD-Controller selection, but the rest I mostly disagree with.

I think the crux of the matter is that it depends on what the system is used for as to what the best configuration is. As for 3d apps, like Max, Maybe it would be better to build a bunch of weak Duron machines (800MHz) with lots of PC133 SDRAM, then network them all together. I guarantee you'll get good rendering performance. :) 

Charles
March 9, 2001 3:01:32 PM

Fact:
I'm working in a computer graphics studio , situated at Curitiba , Brazil.
We have 4 machines , 3 Pentiums 3-800 and a Athlon 800 (slot A).
We only run professional aplications like Discreet 3DSmax4 , Combustion , After Effects , Lightwave 6 and Photoshop.

On 3dsdmax , the athlon 800 beat the pentiums at over 30%.
While the pentiums render 100 frames of an animation , the athlon 135 frames.

The configuration its the same (256mb , Matrox G400...)

Athlons have the most powerfull FPU of the x86 market.


Facts , from a professional 3d animator...
March 9, 2001 3:42:32 PM

GASP! AMDMELTDOWN, FUGGER, this simply cannot be!

Perhaps computers behave differently south of the equator.

Get ready for the Fabricated Fugger Facts (FFF for short).
March 9, 2001 4:28:07 PM

again , athlons are 30% faster on 3d rendering aplications.
March 9, 2001 6:23:04 PM

can you be more specific as I am a reg'd user of Lightwave 5.6

thanks.

"Amd cpu...Gone in 2 secs flat, it truly is a fast chip!"
March 9, 2001 6:51:05 PM

Be those facts as they may, you are wrong sir. A 1.33GHz thunderbird-C with DDR RAM on the Asus A7M266 or even better, VIA's KT266 chipset with PC2100 DDR SDRAM would woop that system in everything but Quake3 and MPEG4 flask Encoding.

- I don't write Tom's Hardware Guide, I just preach it"
March 9, 2001 6:51:10 PM

Intel and AMD both make fine products. At this time it just so happens that AMD makes processors that, for the majority of todays applications, you get better performance than any Intel chips for less money. That is the bottom line!

For myself, I also happen to look at more than just cost and system performance. I personally do not like Intel's business practices. I could write a small book on this subject alone. Trying to cram RDRAM down consumers throats is one of many reasons I stay away from Intel.
March 9, 2001 6:54:24 PM

Wells its nice to see that my post got some real responces the ones i was looking for. But then there is the people that turned it into a insult contest.For one "Blah" im not the smartest person in the world but i know how a processor works the minor optimizations that intel offers inhances certain aspects of a code written for it not the entire thing quake3 runs very nice on intel chips because they (dont quote me on it) have a large amount of open gl extensions its a industry standard auto cad guys dont run a d3d card the run a open gl card...Oh and thats a smart comment "spudit" damn funny ive been called lots but thats not one lmao :) Khha4113 my post is not a opinion it was my experince way back last year when i was looking to purchase a new machine. From all the research i did i was finding that the AMD motherboards at that time (june july if you wanna get accurate) were not up to par they had issues. Most of which i might add has been cleared up. I stress again opinion and experience are two differnt things.Mr.Man what the hell is your problem? cant read very well can you im looking to see what processor is better thats why the post is in cpu section good lord :( Mwebster i thank you for you info its nice to see that people are reading the post and going around gathering relavent data you sir can have yer self a good day :) 

SPUD

I saw the future it gave me a big intel hug :) 
March 9, 2001 7:00:44 PM

Of course you would say that. As your web site states, your company is an INTEL Pentium Processor Dealer. As an IPD you are trained to say everything you did. You did a very good job reciting Intel's Pentium 4 promotional material. Unfortunately most of it is false.
March 9, 2001 7:16:32 PM

Now its only fair that i go out and do some research as well so i did you guys be the judge :) 

"P4 Core Processing Technology"
-Rapid Execution Englne (Integer)
2 Integer Double ALUs @ 2x CPU clock
Basic Integer Ops have 1/2 latency
-2 Floating Point Execution Units
1 Dedicated FPU
1 Dedicated FP Move/Store Unit
-2 Dedicated Memory Operation AGUs
SSE/SSE2 SIMD Multimedia Technology
.18u process (.13u copper for Northwood)
217 sq. mm die size at .18u
"P4 Core x86 register technology"
-8 32-bit General Purpose Registers
-8 80-bit Floating Point Data Registers
-8 64-bit MMX Registers
-8 128-bit XMM SIMD Registers (SSE/SSE2)
"P4 Cache Architecture"
-8 KB L1 data cache
Extremely low latency, 2 cycle access
4-way Associative set
-L1 Execution Cache
Capability to Buffer 12,000 Micro-Ops
-256 KB L2 cache
128 byte cache line
On-die @ full CPU speed
8-way Associative set
Can transfer every clock cycle
48 GB/s bandwidth
"P4 Vendor/Builder Concerns"
-Special Copper/Aluminum Heatsink
450+ grams
Retention Pin system
-Specially designed case
300+ Watt ATX power supply
80+ mm case fan
Venting holes at front and side
EMI grounding frame for 2+ GHz CPUs
-CPU requires 50 amps current @ 1.4 GHz
Power/Heat dissapation of 55+ Watts
"P4 Initial Offerings"
-1.4 GHz
Market: Desktop, Workstation, Server
Availability: Q4 2000
Expected Volume Price: $695
-1.5 GHz
Market: Desktop, Workstation, Server
Availability: Q4 2000
Expected Volume Price: $795
-P4 Northwood
Market: Servers, Enterprise systems
Availability: approx. Q3 2000
Expected Volume Price: unknown

The Athalon specs are on the way.

SPUD

I saw the future it gave me a a big intel hug :) 
March 9, 2001 7:26:58 PM

Those are very impressive specs. Enjoy your new Intel system - it should make you very happy. <cough, cough>
March 9, 2001 8:39:58 PM

in the beginning man always was wiping his ass on leaves. doesn't mean i still do it

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone would ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
March 9, 2001 9:30:44 PM

"Athalon (thunderbird)Core Processing Technology
-3 Interger Execution Units
-3 Floating Point Execution Units
-Enhanced 3DNow technology
45 new instructions
-Single precision FP SIMD
.18 process (.13u copper for Palamo)
117 sq. mm die size at 18u
"Athalon Core x86 register technology"
(dunno there's no info on it)
"Athalon Cache Architecture"
-128 Kb L1 data cache
-256 KB L2 data cache
On die @ full CPU speed
16-way set assotiation
Can transfer every clock cycle
"Athalon Vendor/Builder concern"
-Special Copper/Aluminum Heatsink
450+ grams (1.2+)
Retention Pin system
-Power/Heat dissapation of 54 Watts
-CPU reqires 33.6 amps at 1 ghz
-Thermal paste must be applied
-Special care must be used when placeing heatsink on core (due to unusually fragile core)
"Athalon Initial Offerings"
(Dunno they never had the conference till after relese)

It was disapointing to find that amd has little to no info on what makes their core go but ill keep lookin :) 

SPUD

I saw the future it gave me a big intel hug :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2001 11:54:51 PM

I see two separate ideas here:

Which company is better?
Which company makes better products for me?

I do not believe we are trying to discuss business or anything like that. Furthermore, based on home products and home use, I think we can all draw the conclusion that it is a very personal and moral/cultural decision. I know this may sound weird, but I think many computer users have drawn moral/cultural decisions based on the processors. Some people may say that Intel has been producing faster-selling chips than AMD and side with their reputation. Others may say that AMD has been in business longer than Intel and is making a comeback, and they want to try something new. Some will say that Intel runs a bad marketing scheme that tricks too many people, and if we support them, they will continue to do so. Others believe that Intel is doing fine, or that they are in a small recession but will come back strong. Whatever your opinion is, you must remember that there are two forms of truths. One is the truths we use to communicate and believe in between different people. The other is the way we choose to describe those truths. If I drop a ball, one person may say "It's a stupid ball. Get over it." Another may get up and play with the ball. Still others may rip the ball apart and throw it in the trash bin. Who cares? It's their decision. We can discuss objective truths, but we have no right at all to invade the personal truths that people have about anything. This even includes programming and technicality-intensive computers, which, contrary to popular belief, are not entirely based on mathematics and probability. Here's a good example to ponder: If Windows didn't crash so much, think about how many different desktops and modifications people would have running? What about desktop themes? Wallpaper, and links to different sites? Everyone has different ideas about what they want their computer to be. Some may even sacrifice memory bandwidth for friendly customer support. Not everyone is a techie person or overclocker, nor should they be. Some people are enthusiasts about sports or mixing music or small business, just like many people are enthusiasts about computers.
March 9, 2001 11:59:56 PM

why not, it is really nice to spread the "stuff" all over your back... hehehehe

Post, we'll do the search... :wink:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2001 12:34:10 AM

<<Kenwood 72x multi-laser CD>>

I note on this, since I did not notice it mentioned elsewhere. The multi-laser technology implemented in this Kenwood drive is indeed faster than standard single-laser CD-ROMs, however it is also shown to have a difficult, if not impossible, time reading CD-R and -RW media. This is because the more diffuse light of the refracted laser in the Kenwood drive can read the physical 'pits' in normally burned commercial CDs, but cannot gather an accurate reading from the dye substrate used on home burnable media. If you use CD-Rs or -RWs this may not be the best choice for your PC, unless you don't mind using a separate drive to read them.

"The place of the philosopher is to make ideas available, not impose them upon others."
March 10, 2001 1:09:38 AM

What does that have to do with this post.

SPUD

I saw the future it gave a big intel hug :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2001 2:32:56 AM

HI Glad you agree with most of the hardware...

you are mistaken on some points about the P4..

the integer performance of the P4 is very fast, and the
SPEC INT proves this at 540+

the 20 stage pipeline is fine in the P4 because the branch cache lookup table is 4000k+ bytes compared to P3's 512k
or 8 times larger which means it has answers and guesses less to more questions when it needs them so LESS stalls..

the trouble is you need P4 compilers on softwre and otpimizations to make the software aware of this new pipe
and table so it can translate the x86 code into efficient microcode..

see the INTEL Engineering manuals on P4..

also the P4 is different than p3 it does not necessarily have to dump the whole pipe if it mispredicts,
it is several pipes and can reorder and re execute from
sort of a plan B while fixing simultaneously the cache problem so almost no performance is lost..
again its a ground up new CPU

its prediction rate is 95% compared with P3 87 % and AMD 90%


the AMD 10 stage pipe is too short to go to 2 ghz, that is a fact, you cannot have that short of a pipe at that speed that is why INTEL made it longer..
like trying to land a 747 at 150 miles per hour on a short runway won't work, this is why they have been delaying the 2 ghz,requires major rework


again not true about FP,
the FP performance does benefit somewhat from sse 2 but there are int ops in there too..

in fact the dual FP units a totally new and operate at 3 GHZ or 2x on rising and falling signal, and operate concurrently with each other and with interger pipes..

that is why they are fast..

I can prove this becasue SPEC FP scores do NOT use SSE 2 at all yet they are higher than INT scores at 550+
how would you explain that, the only is from what I said
internal architecture and 3 ghz speed and multi instructional concurrency
the sse unit has nothign to do with dedicated FP units that is seperate..
I believe the INT unit can do 3 ops, the FP units 2 and the SSE 2 concurrently

the AMD does not have a triple FPU, truely, and it has
shorter pipes and tables, and only operated at 1200 mhz
and has less optimized instructions..

again, if you compared both totally unoptimized in
SPEC FP you will see the indsutry standard benchmark around the world shows the AMD at 420 and the P4 at 540+
BIG BIG difference..

the trouble is you are comparing the AMD with 3d now optmized for their chip to P4 with sse one and unoptimized compilers and code.. like win 98 with dd3d 7
totally unfair and WRONG... not you but the poeple who do the comparison..

try comparing it in windows ME with apps compiled for
P4 and dd3d 8 and you will see

Quake gets 230 FPS compared with AMD 170
Photoshop is many seconds quicker,
3d MAX 4.1 is too
so are Mpeg 4 coding and decoding, and MP3

all these are FP intensive...
just look at the scores and you will see
also try loading up an AMD CPU and a P4 cpu in windows 2000
with video decoding, network transfer, and a file copy of like 50 megs showing multitasking and threading
and the P4 will be much faster at switching apps and
completing tasks under extremely heavy loads

I have and it shows clearly
as far as RAMBUS I agree

good talking with someone who appreciated hardware
have a good weekend
CAMERON


CYBERIMAGE
<A HREF="http:// www.4CyberImage.com " target="_new">http:// www.4CyberImage.com </A>
Ultra High Performance Computers-
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2001 2:35:21 AM

YEs we are an IPD but the facts I mentioned are not only intel's but are 3rd party,
raqmbus INTEL, COMPAQ, HP, PC MAG, SPEC .ORG and run 3rd party independant tests showing it in black and white..

game makers like John Carmack and BLizzard also say P4 is way faster.. I do 3d as a hobby and sometimes as a profession and it is way faster than AMD

read my technical posts in this thread

CAMERON

CYBERIMAGE
<A HREF="http:// www.4CyberImage.com " target="_new">http:// www.4CyberImage.com </A>
Ultra High Performance Computers-
March 10, 2001 5:44:08 AM

Thanks fer the low down cyber its good to see some folks are trying to do research.

SPUD

I saw the future it gave me a big intel hug:) 
March 10, 2001 6:01:18 AM

facts not what tommy says do the tests yer self. thats why i put down specs you should talk to AMD and get them to release some more specs on the processors cause their site says nothin about the duron and little but propaganda for the athalon. not trying to rustly yer feathers just wanting to get down the facts.

SPUD

I saw the future it gave ma a big intel hug :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2001 6:36:54 AM

I hate to dissagree Shocwavez but the athalon reviews only give you one or two specs from those tests, usually the ones that they happen to beat the PIII. I am a serious gamer, and have tried both, and I will always prefer the PIII. I know my opion is only one, others may have had better experiences, but I am a tech, I build them for a living, and I have seen more problems with the AMD than P3.
So far anyway. I don't even want to touch the p4, no experience with them yet
March 10, 2001 6:57:33 AM

Cant you read i said facts :( 

SPUD

I saw the future it gave me a big intel hug :) 
March 10, 2001 7:05:50 AM

You again man you have to be a crack head or something your on every post buggin people. so unless you have some specs on the athlon ie intructions sets or registers keep yer pie hole shut :)  see im smilein why dont you :o 

SPUD

I saw the future it kicked wusy in the sack ....really good :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2001 7:08:08 AM

A PIII is not just a beginners machine, it is an ending machine. Cause you will eventually see that they do it better and cleaner than the Athlon. For games anyway. CPU for CPU, PIII 800 vs Duron or Athlon 800, I'll take the PIII. But that is just me, my experiences with Athlons were not pleasant

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Redmoonlight on 03/10/01 04:10 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2001 7:25:57 AM

In what way does the Athlon run better? What games with what hardware? Of course if you have an Athlon 1.2 Ghz and great periphials with it, vs only a 933 PIII with mid range stuff, I would think the Athlon MIGHT win.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2001 8:12:46 AM

You are right, P3 is a P3, nothing else to say about it. Standard. That’s it. I mean Intel is Intel. Nothing else. Just an Intel. P3. Pentium. Intel's chip... hehe
Clock to clock nothing beats it in any game. I mean nothing. I mean clock to clock... hehe
Of course some body will compare 1000 P3 to 1100 Athlon like Tom does, but it is not an issue here, i am talking Clock To Clock. Intel. Pentium. I mean P3 is P3. Nothing to say about it. Everyone out there in the corporate world is using Px, nothing else. No AMD in corporate world. Just us, gamers and cheapos that cannot afford the best, so we go for the cheapest... hehe
I have both, cheapo, and the best, so I don't care... hehe


"akuna mutata" braza... :wink:
March 10, 2001 8:30:20 AM

But Folks i want to get back to what this post is supposed to be about comparison useing facts lets try and keep it clean i never made the other post fer nothin:) 

SPUD

I saw the future it gave me a big intel hug:) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2001 9:27:37 AM

if you consider REAL EXPERIENCE as not a fact, then you have to grow up a little. I state what I see - that is a FACT... hehe
if I did not see it, that is not a FACT for me (just for the info)

"akuna mutata" braza... :wink:
March 10, 2001 3:36:39 PM

Yeah. Clock for clock it beats Thunderbird about 1fps in games. WOOHOO! And that's all it beats the thunderbird at, at such a small margin. So while you're laying back thinking you have the best [P3 1GHz] I will be laying back and laughing at you for paying the same amount I did for my 1.2GHz Tbird which will woop your P3's ass.

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone would ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
March 10, 2001 5:42:47 PM

how can it do that when it's toast? technically you're pay twice as much, and even then you might burn the next one.

"Amd cpu...Gone in 2 secs flat, it truly is a fast chip!"
March 10, 2001 6:11:23 PM

if your a fagget like yourself who can't install a heatsink, sure. as for the rest of us, we don't give a damn. (the one that I fried was a malfunctioning watercooler, has nothing to do with installing heatsinks).

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone would ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
March 10, 2001 6:23:20 PM

hey chill people all i want to know what the athalon has for intrustion sets you folks keep avoiding the fact that they have almost to next to nothing on information on their processors their websites no help either folks i just wanna know what theey are trying to hide if their processors are so great where is the technical brief the specs extensions thats what the deal is here to see who makes a better processor thats it not a pissing contest :) 

SPUD

I saw the future i gave me a big intel hug :) 
March 10, 2001 7:31:47 PM

why the hell would we avoid the fact that their website sucks? I <i>know</i> amd;s website sucks, although so does Intel's. sounds like your the one who's making it into a pissing contest.

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone would ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2001 8:49:26 PM

Spud you might find some info here:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/2q00/klat2/klat2-1.html
Its an article on the Klat2 supercomputer that is built out of Athalons. Fairly long but there may be something usefull in it.
Anim88tor
!