AMD vs. INTEL & DDR vs. RDRAM

Ok I realise there are a lot of opinions about both of these companies and how they are better than each other. But which system is actually better? Comparing a DDR AMD motherboard and their components with a INTEL RDRAM motherboard and their components which one is faster?
46 answers Last reply
More about intel rdram
  1. Using equal amounts of RDRAM and DDR-SDRAM, the RDRAM will outperform. Using the fastest P4 and Athlon, the P4 will outperform. The issue most argue is a matter of pricing. RDRAM and P4s cost more than DDR-SDRAM and Athlons. However, you asked only about performance.

    -Raystonn


    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  2. Hmmm that sounds more like your opinon than the truth!
    Go around the web and look at some benchmarks between the Athlon and the P4. That's all i'm gonnna say about this, not here to start some flaming war! Your best bet is to look around you will only get opinons on this forum.
  3. RDRAM currently outperforms the DDR solutions available, and most benchmarks will tell you as much at a glance. It is still far too expensive, considering that realistically a 256mb stick is gonna cost you around 130 - 150 (and much higher in department stores), while a similar stick of DDR will effectively cost only half that at most and is still pretty damn close in performance.

    If a P4 is using software that has been optimized for it, it will often either trounce the Athlon or equal it in performance. If you happen to be using non-optimized software that doesn't rely on massive memory bandwidth, then you're looking at the Athlon obliterating the P4 (which is currently almost everything you use). The P4 is quite impressive when it's running optimized code though.... I believe the SSE2 optimized flask mpeg gave the P4 something like a 500% boost in performance in that app.

    Considering price for performance, Athlon is still the winner hands down. When it comes down to which is faster overall, it all depends on what you're running. Some people will definately benefit in purchasing a P4 over an Athlon, and some won't.

    Hell... most people could get by with a Duron and PC133 and never notice the difference.

    "Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
  4. Nope, no opinions. Those are the facts, ma'am.

    -Raystonn


    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  5. >> Using equal amounts of RDRAM and DDR-SDRAM, the RDRAM will outperform.

    Not only is RDRAM's latency far worse than DDR RAM's, it only has the bandwidth of PC1600. 3.2GB/s is only achieved with a dual-channel RDRAM solution. So on a channel for channel basis, DDR is superior.

    >> Using the fastest P4 and Athlon, the P4 will outperform.

    In raw FPU and ALU tests, the Athlon will significantly outperform the Pentium 4. IMO, the Pentium 4 in many ways is like AMD's previous K6-2. A fully optimized app for the K6-2 would significantly outperform a Pentium II of the same clock speed. However, not enough fully 3D-Now! enhanced apps were ever developed and so the K6-2's potential was never realized. The same thing happened to the Pentium MMX and the SSE instructions in the Pentium III. Sure, a few apps did benefit but the majority of the available programs showed no optimizations. Intel, no matter what they do, cannot force developers to optimize their programs. It's just too much of a hassle to learn and relearn new ways of optimization. The average app has well over a million lines of code so it would take a lot of work reorganize and rewrite large chunks of code.
  6. Have you seen Van Smith's article on this subject? <A HREF="http://216.194.77.198/articles/2001/july/010720_Sandra_Bandwidth/010720_Sandra_Bandwidth.htm" target="_new">Benchmark Shows DDR SDRAM More Bandwidth Efficient Than RDRAM</A>

    From the new SiSoft Sandra Enhanced Stream Integer bandwidth test: The Athlon 1.2GHz/AMD760/PC2100 system scored 1,619MB/s, while the Pentium 4 1.7GHz/i850/PC800 system scored 2,060MB/s.

    Here's an interesting paragraph from that article:

    "...
    On top of this, PC2100 DDR SDRAM delivers over 30% greater bandwidth than PC800 RDRAM (the Intel Pentium 4 / i850 combo offers 3.2 GB/s by combining two RDRAM channels, similar to how the upcoming DDR SDRAM powered nForce achieves 4.2 GB/s -- however, in both cases this means that memory must be added in pairs to achieve maximum bandwidth). Additionally, DDR SDRAM has been out for only about 1/3 as long as RDRAM, indicating that the ramp for DDR is progressing much more favorably.
    ..."
  7. "Not only is RDRAM's latency far worse than DDR RAM's, it only has the bandwidth of PC1600. 3.2GB/s is only achieved with a dual-channel RDRAM solution. So on a channel for channel basis, DDR is superior."

    We're not comparing channel per channel. We're comparing a DDR system, which only has a single channel, to an RDRAM system, which has dual channels. He asked about existing systems, not theory.


    "In raw FPU and ALU tests, the Athlon will significantly outperform the Pentium 4."

    Only for the slower Pentium 4s. Again, the fastest available Pentium 4 will beat out the fastest available Athlon CPU.

    -Raystonn


    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  8. Quote:
    Not only is RDRAM's latency far worse than DDR RAM's


    So not true. Yes, latency is higher for the first read, but for later consecutive reads, latency becomes incredibly small.
    The problem is that programmers need to come up with better algorithms in order to keep memory reads in the proper order. Once you start going out of order, latency remains high. RDRAM is an untapped resource (in the respect of latency).

    But bandwidth is lower, raising another argument. I'll leave that one alone for today, since I've gone through it before :)

    -----------------
    Whoever thinks up a good sig for me gets a prize :wink:
  9. >> We're not comparing channel per channel. We're comparing a DDR system, which only has a single channel, to an RDRAM system, which has dual channels. He asked about existing systems, not theory.

    The NForce will be powered by a dual-channel memory sub-system so a dual-channel DDR system is coming in the near future.

    >> So not true. Yes, latency is higher for the first read, but for later consecutive reads, latency becomes incredibly small.The problem is that programmers need to come up with better algorithms in order to keep memory reads in the proper order. Once you start going out of order, latency remains high. RDRAM is an untapped resource (in the respect of latency).

    Again proving that the Pentium 4 needs programmers to optimize their code, and...well...programmers are lazy by default. "If it works, don't fix it" IMO, it's Intel's job to deliver high-performance not a software developer's.

    >> Only for the slower Pentium 4s. Again, the fastest available Pentium 4 will beat out the fastest available Athlon CPU.

    Hmm, I said raw! Have you seen how SiSoft Sandra includes SSE2 in ALU and FPU scores? I haven't seen a Pentium 4 1.8GHz score but up to 1.7GHz, a 1.4GHz Athlon outclasses a Pentium 4 in raw scores (No SSE2, NO 3D-NOW).

    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AMD_Man on 07/30/01 09:07 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  10. Can you give my a benchmark that T-bird beat P4 1.8.try hard because only scrappy or maybe anadtech can do that.Get real P4 1.8 C1 core cannot be beat be a T-bird even Pal is not sure that he can reget the speed crown (SSE we pay intel to try to get there market)LOL.

    Even toms have new argument to say hay Intel suck.

    P4 1.8 win 70% of all benchmark with good driver and OS.

    SYSmark 190 P 1.8 T-bird 1.4 170.Anadtech last benchmark.
  11. "The NForce will be powered by a dual-channel memory sub-system so a dual-channel DDR system is coming in the near future."

    Current RDRAM system implementations all use a dual-channel memory subsystem, plus the channel [implemented as an AGP bus] to the memory on the video card. This provides three actual memory channels for the total system. Current DDR-SDRAM system implementations all use a single channel memory subsystem, plus the channel [implemented as an AGP bus] to the memory on the video card. This provides two actual memory channels for the total system. The nForce chipset still offers the same two memory channels counting the video card memory. It's just the first integrated chipset to offer the same number of memory channels as a comparable system with an add-on card would.


    "I haven't seen a Pentium 4 1.8GHz score"

    The Pentium 4 1.8GHz has the top scores. Go check around.

    -Raystonn


    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  12. Many game and apps allready have SSE2 and photoshop there only 1 missing 3Dstudio max surly the next version will be much faster on P4.For the rest like word SSE2 or nothing wont change anything.
  13. Err...is 3DSMax R4 SSE2-optimized? I heard something about that, but nothing certain. In any case, the Athlon still outperforms the P4 1.8GHz in R4.

    I believe it's the same in Maya 4 (which <i>is</i> SSE2 optimized), but I haven't seen any recent benchmarks on it. The Athlon, according to Maya developers, gets enough performance boost in Maya 4 that it should still trounce the P4.

    As for DDR vs. RDRAM, I believe the 760MP uses a dual-channel PC2100 solution for a total of 4.2GB/sec. The dual Xeon 1.7GHz is (still) using the AGTL+ bus, which is still a total of 3.2GB/sec. The dual Xeon effectively gets slammed into the concrete by dual Athlons--but it's apples vs. oranges, useless for comparing memory. We'd need an independent chipset maker (ServerWorks?) to make similar DDR and RDRAM chipsets for the P4, with only a single RAM channel on each, and compare them for an effective RAM comparison.

    Kelledin

    "/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
  14. Can you List all the many games and appz that have SSE 2 Support?


    <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=9802" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=9802</A>
  15. Games:
    Star Trek: Voyager Elite Force by Activision
    Aquarius by Jack in the Box Computing
    Arthur's Knights by Cryo Interactive Entertainment
    Fight of Fantasy by Rage Software
    FLASHPOINT 1985: STATUS QUO by Bohemia Interactive Studio
    Game Commander by Mindmaker
    Incoming Forces by Rage Software
    Madden NFL 2001 by Electronic Arts/Tiburon Entertainment
    Muppet World by Pulse 3D
    No Escape by Funcom
    Sacrifice by Interplay Entertainment/Shiny
    Showdown by The Groove Alliance
    Tribes 2 by Sierra Studios
    Virtual Pool 3 by Interplay Entertainment/Celeris

    Digital Music:
    Clean! 1.5 Plus by Steinberg Media Technologies AG
    Logic Audio by Emagic

    Video:
    Ulead VideoStudio 5.0 by Ulead Systems
    3Dfilm 2000 by RadTIME, Inc.
    VideoWave 4 by MGImgi
    VP3 Video Player by On2

    Other Media Creation:
    CorelDRAW 10 Graphics Suite by Corel
    Image Organizer by Alpha Base Systems
    Logic Audio by Emagic GmbH
    MotionPerfect by Dynapel Systems, Inc.
    Play&Record by HyCD and Vweb
    POPblaster by POPcast Communications
    TrueSpace 5 by Caligari
    Unity DS-1 Software Sampling Synthesizer by Bitheadz

    Other Entertainment:
    Alien Abduction: The Show by Artech Interactive Television
    iVideo by Be Here
    Kung Fu by Warner Bros. Online
    LAUNCHCity by LAUNCH Media

    Tools and Technology:
    Cult3D by Cycore
    Dragon NaturallySpeaking 5.0 by Dragon Systems
    GoMotion MPEG 2 codec software developer's kit (SDK) by Ligos Technology
    IAP or Imaging Application Platform by Cedara Software Corporation
    MAGIX playR by MAGIX Entertainment Corp.
    PrintShop by Mattel Interactive
    Pure Diva 2 by MGI
    SmartForce Medical Training Demo by SmartForce*
    Superscape eVisualizer by Superscape
    TerraExplorer by Skyline Software Systems, Inc.
    C-Me by BrowZwear International Ltd.
    Prody Parrot by Mindmaker
    Rampt Broadband Search by Rampt
    UBUBU Universe by UBUBU, Inc.

    Office Productivity:
    Darwin by 80-2
    Enfish Onespace by Enfish Technology


    For links to these software products, click <A HREF="http://www.intel.com/home/pentium4/software.htm" target="_new">here</A>.

    -Raystonn


    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  16. Also Juin when it comes to Rendering the P4 can't touch Athlon's FPU!

    <A HREF="http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/athlon-1.4/index.x?pg=5" target="_new">http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/athlon-1.4/index.x?pg=5</A>

    <A HREF="http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/athlon-1.4/index.x?pg=6" target="_new">http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/athlon-1.4/index.x?pg=6</A>

    just follow the rest of the benchmarks there is abit of a trend.

    Obviously <font color=red>P4</font color=red> wins in memory bandwidth. But when it comes to RaW CPU Athlon Owns <font color=red>P4</font color=red>like Monica on Bill Clinton :eek: :eek: :eek: COCK!
  17. Out of the thousands of software products out there that list is still very small!
  18. I don't use thousands of software products, do you? I use whatever's the best for my platform at the task I'm performing. Every category seems to be pretty well covered and they all continue to fill in every day. The future looks bright for a CPU that becomes more powerful every day, don't you think?

    -Raystonn


    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  19. *grins*
    but facts, just like opinions, are open to different interpretations and can be squewed.

    it really was a dumb question to start with. "which is better?"
    better as what? doing which task?

    now i know the athlon makes a better frying pan.
    and the P4 makes a better hole in your wallet.

    i really whish people would stop posting blanket questions.


    "i love the smell of Overclocking in the morning!" Says my Hamster.
  20. I will try to put this as nonpartisian as possible, except for the My Opinion sections:

    RDRAM vs DDR RAM:

    RDRAM has the edge over DDR in pure bandwith at the time being, but not access speeds. RDRAM as a whole can push data faster, but not necessarily access it faster. DDR has a much lower latency and since most if not all apps today do not need such high memory bandwith as RDRAM provides, this is not very useful. Since most programmers do not do code extremely efficiently, data must be access more. This is where access times come into play, the lower, the better. Seeing as how DDR has a much faster access time, most apps will preform better with DDR than they will with RDRAM. The exception is probably extemely data intensive work where large chunks are being moved quickly. Here RDRAM will excel due to their great bandwith.

    My Opinion:

    In my opinion, at the current time DDR RAM is much more effective. MUCH lower costs, faster speeds for today's apps make it a no brainer.

    Athlon vs P IV:

    *I am looking at same MHz speed for each chip*
    Athlon has the edge in most departments right now, but P IV can still beat it in memory intensive things. Athlon's Floating Point Unit is much stronger than the P IV's, leading to faster speeds in 3D graphics. The overall design of the Athlon is built more for today's apps, leading to faster speeds in most other software. The Pentium 4 with it's great bandwith wins in VERY memory intensive things such as MPEG4 encoding and such. It has a very weak FPU unit though, I believe it is about the same or less than the PIII's. This leads to usually worse 3D rendering than an Athlon. The PIV has SSE2 instructions which have yet to be popularly utilized. If these instructions are used in apps, dramatic speed increases are shown. This brings the Athlon and PIV neck and neck in apps that use the instructions. SSE2 instructions have yet to be used albeit a handful of games and applications, making this aspect of the Pentium IV mostly useless. Since Comparing these two chips is harder than any other chip; i.e. Athlon vs PIII, because the Athlon is a CISC based core while the Pentium 4 is more RISC based. This is shown in the Pentium 4's rapidly and dramatically increasing clock speeds.

    My Opinion:

    In my opinion, I think the AMD Athlon makes much more sense to buy FOR TODAY'S APPS. Faster speeds in virtually all mainstream apps makes this a sensible chip, and when coupled with it's low price, about 1/2 to 1/3 of similiar P IV's, it makes it almost seem simple.

    System to System:

    As I already stated, for most of today's and mainstream apps and games the Athlon will be the faster of the two. If you are doing a lot of editing of video or need a workstation with much bandwith, the PIV will be your choice. It does not come without much cost, however. The PIV needs a special power supply along with a special case, adding to costs.

    My Opinion:

    My opinion, an DDR AMD Athlon based system clearly wins over RDRRAM Intel PIV based system, and will be the best choice for most users for the time being. Depending on how software continues to be designed, more apps could start to be dependent on bandwith and support SSE2 Instructions, possibly making the PIV based system faster. This will have to be seen, however.

    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Boondock_Saint on 07/31/01 00:25 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
  21. "I am looking at same speed for each chip"

    How do you calculate speed? clock cycles? That is no longer an accurate gauge of the speed of a processor. The fastest Pentium 4 is ahead of the fastest Athlon. It's more expensive but imo worth it.

    -Raystonn


    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  22. I'm sorry I should have specified that. I am looking at MHz for MHz; i.e. 1.4 GHz Athlon vs 1.4 GHz P IV
  23. why? if someone is asking what is best, why compare a base model with a top line model? Compare $ for $ if you like but comparing mhz for mhz is pointless.

    -* This Space For Rent *-
    email for application details
  24. Quote:
    The NForce will be powered by a dual-channel memory sub-system so a dual-channel DDR system is coming in the near future


    Actually the dual channel DDR is only to supply a second channel dedicated to the onboard graphics should more than a single memory slot be poulated. No one has mentioned anything about dual channel DDR being available to the CPU...

    Quote:
    Again proving that the Pentium 4 needs programmers to optimize their code, and...well...programmers are lazy by default. "If it works, don't fix it" IMO, it's Intel's job to deliver high-performance not a software developer's.


    That's a pretty broad statement. It is convinient for programmers to be able to use the same tools and routines all the time but newer architectures allows the use of different and faster routines. Whilst all people are usually in the habit of avoiding work wherever possible I don't think you will find developers any more fond of turning out slow, crap products any more than the rest of us. Okay, they need to know some new tricks and get different optimised tools - but if their product has the ability to be faster - they are happy, because the customer is happy.

    Quite frankly I fail to see the arguements. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Intel, but I'm not in be with AMD either. It is all business. If Intel develop a new instruction set that makes their world fatster and easier, why are you falling out of bed over it? More and more apps are supporting SSE2 because Intel is recognised as the x86 market driver. I have no doubt that in future cpus AMD will (or will attempt to) license SSE2 instruction sets just have they have fully licensed SSE into Athlon4.

    The world moves on, use two tools to benchmark, stick your mark on the ground with knowing the apps you use and expect future versions and updates to be SSE2 optimised.

    I for one like progress and innovation. I don't care if it fails or if it succeeds - it the expansion of possibility that makes it good.

    -* This Space For Rent *-
    email for application details
  25. Funny thing is...the only two of those products I have ever used are Sacrifice and Photoshop. Although I haven't kept up with the patches on Sacrifice, last I knew, it was SSE-optimized, but not SSE2-optimized. The P4 had to get up to 1.8GHz to beat the T-bird in Photoshop--at about twice the cost.

    But hey, it's all about what you use it for.

    Kelledin

    "/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
  26. Peteb, you can only compare MHz against MHz. Top of the line Athlon vs Entry P IV makes no difference. To compare each chip, you take equal MHz to see, not best vs best. If I wanted then, I could compare the Cray T3E vs AMD Athlon? I think not. You have to take same speed, not best, to compare the chip itself objectively.

    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Boondock_Saint on 07/31/01 01:39 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
  27. Nice list of programs. It's a shame that most programs I use aren't on there though.

    I just thought I'd point out to the guy who started this thread that:

    Dollar for Dollar: Athlon destroys the P4
    Mhz for Mhz: Athlon destroys the P4
    1.8 Ghz P4 vs 1.4 Ghz Athlon: <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1499" target="_new">Anandtech</A>

    Basically all the reviews are for 1.7 Ghz, but even from the above review I wouldn't jump up and buy a P4. The price difference is just plain stupid and the performance difference is not that much. Unless you do some very specific tasks a P4 is a waste of money.

    <font color=red>Yeah, I took a crap on your lawn. Whatcha gonna do about it?</font color=red>
  28. Performance is clockspeed (MHz) multiplied by average instructions per clock. Since the average IPC is not the same between two different CPUs such as the Pentium 4 and the Athlon, you cannot compare equally clocked CPUs to compare performance.

    -Raystonn


    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  29. "Mhz for Mhz: Athlon destroys the P4"

    Irrelevant. See my post regarding the definition of performance.


    "waste of money"

    I don't mind paying a bit more to get the best performance. Some people are looking to save money though. There's a CPU for everyone.

    -Raystonn


    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  30. >>it really was a dumb question to start with. "which is better?"
    better as what? doing which task?
    I asked this question to get a wide range of reasons as to which one may be better. you can say they both work better for different tasks but from everything I have researched the P4 Is a flop. Many flaws mistakes bad designs delays etc. etc. Who cares about which task your going to use it for you may be here to discuss what use it has for people. I don't care about that in here I'm looking for which is better! run a multitask tester awarding points for each area of importance one has to come out on top. I don't care about price future products etc. Im looking at right now and which is the actual better processor...
  31. If you don't care about price, as you've just said, the Pentium 4 1.8GHz takes the crown. It wins the most benchmarks.

    -Raystonn


    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  32. >>If you don't care about price, as you've just said, the Pentium 4 1.8GHz takes the crown. It wins the most benchmarks.

    See this is why I'm posting the P4 1.8 well take the crown. Ok with this said why? Every review site I have ever been at declares P4 such a poor design and waste of money(but thats not the subject right now just using money as an example)so how does it still come on top?
  33. Very True but what I was referring to was, P4 has been on the market for almost 1 year now. Yet that list of software is small, Why haven't developers been eager to optimize their software for the Intel CPU?

    Intel still owns I believe 80% of the cPu market (correct me if i'm wrong). So why is that list so small?
  34. That list isn't very small considering most of that software is brand new. It takes time for new applications and games to be released. In addition, SSE2 is incorporated into the latest nVidia beta drivers. Thus, all OpenGL and DirectX games are also now optimized for the Pentium 4 that were not even on that list. I believe that covers every game currently in existence. You just need to grab the beta driver.

    -Raystonn


    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  35. " The P4 had to get up to 1.8GHz to beat the T-bird in Photoshop--at about twice the cost."

    more like 4 times the cost.

    ~Matisaro~
    "Friends don't let friends buy Pentiums"
    ~Tbird1.3@1.55~
  36. Hmm I'm not sure I would want to have my system running off Beta drivers for Stability reasons. But Atleast Nivida is going a step in the rigth direction!
  37. Have you tried beta drivers, though? Mine are perfectly stable, more stable than the official ones by far.

    -----------------
    Whoever thinks up a good sig for me gets a prize :wink:
  38. Ok I am going to attempt to squash this thing once and for all

    1. Were are not talking about Price here
    2. We are not talking about Value per dollar spent
    3. We are not talking about Actual clock speeds


    Ok then what are we talking about?

    1. Top of the line from both companies what is faster?

    AMD 1.4 vs. Intel 1.8

    Some things to consider and I will use a car analogy to help some of you get it.

    Think of MHZ like RPM’s
    (AMD)A 1990 Mustang GT 5.0 has a V8 and 225 horsepower it redlines at 5500 rpms

    (P4)One of those new Acura’s (forget the Model) Has 225 horse power with headers and redlines at 8500 rpm’s.

    Is the Acura Less efficient?, Because it has to rev up to achieve the horsepower?

    I don’t think so, some may disagree.
  39. you make a good point, but which one has more power usable during normal driving?
    HP makes you go fast, torque is what gets you there.
    torque = IPC

    ----------------------
    Independant thought is good.
    It won't hurt for long.
  40. The AMD has a much better design than Intel right now its much faster stable etc. I'm done arguing b/c all you get in here is opinions no facts evidence some of the people posting do not even have a P4 or an AMD Athlon. I know the AMD is better right now if you don't believe me go here
    <A HREF="http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm" target="_new">http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm</A>
    this site is complete and its statements went hand in hand with professionals who deal with them at work. I'm friends with a Employee that deals greatly with Intel he prefers it b/c he is familiar with it but openly admits that AMD is better. Intel even shows that they do not have a good processor they're making motherboards that are going to feature P4 with DDR so rambus is a flop. They delayed it continuosly. At the release for the P4 in Las Vegas Dell Nor Gateway would talk about it. Dell had at previous shows had half the show and booths and etc. but at the release of P4 they had none? The companies show it the architecture shows it so Until Intel comes back with something decent its AMD for me. If you have further arguments I challenge you to read the above link and send your comments to him he knows what he is talking about.

    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bpease on 07/31/01 02:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  41. I was just noting the different ways that people judge the performance. Mhz vs Mhz is still an issue to many people. It is definitely not a good idea to compare the two anymore, but it's still worth mentioning.

    A "bit" more is an understatement don't you think?

    I can't believe I did this, but I went through all the benchmarks, recorded the winner, and the percentage difference (roughly) between the Athlon 1.4 Ghz and the Intel P4 1.8 Ghz.

    Everyone can draw their own conclusions, but based on the fact that the socket is changing and the pricing is horrible, I don't think it's worth it.

    OFFICE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

    Content Creation Winstone: AMD 3%
    Business Winstone: Intel 2%
    Internet Content Creation: Intel 16%
    Office Productivity: Intel 2%

    IT/CONSTANT COMPUTING PERFORMANCE

    Office Bench 2001 Baseline load: Intel 4%
    Loading Level 1: AMD 4%
    Loading Level 2: AMD 11%

    3D RENDERING PERFORMANCE

    3D Studio Max: AMD 13%
    Truespace: Intel 12%

    3D GAMING PERFORMANCE

    Q3A: Intel 16%
    AquaMark: AMD 8%
    DroneZ: Intel 13%


    <font color=red>Yeah, I took a crap on your lawn. Whatcha gonna do about it?</font color=red>
  42. Everyone here is still stuck on that word
    "VALUE"

    No one here is debating Value we all know that you get more bang for your buck with AMD.

    The question is what is faster and the answer is P4 1.8
    Is Rambus the Devil? YES. Is RDRAM faster than DDR? YES.
    Is DDR more efficent? Yes Is it slower? Yes

    Does it cost 99% of you 3x as much for an Intel system? Yes.
    Is the top of the line Intel system faster? Yes.

    Is the Northwood going to screw the Willi users? Yes
    Can I afford to dump my Willi for a Northwood? Yes
    Do I have cash to burn? Yes
    Will I spend that cash on the fastest all the time? Yes
    If AMD came out with a 2GHZ Proccessor that whipped Intel Bad would I buy it? YES

    Is that Guy over at www.emulators a [-peep-] psyhcopath? YES
    Does he have all of the facts straight? Who Knows.

    AMD is a better value
    AMD clock for clock is way faster
    AMD may be better built

    But Intel 1.8 is faster
  43. People can buy whatever they want to buy. I just don't see the point in spending so much more for not that big a performance jump. You might as well spend a third of the money on the AMD 1.4, and then update more often if you are a speed freak.

    Some people just have no common sense.

    <font color=red>Yeah, I took a crap on your lawn. Whatcha gonna do about it?</font color=red>
  44. The price difference between the Athlon 1.4GHz + 256MB DDR and Pentium 4 1.8GHz + 256MB RDRAM is about the same difference between a plain GeForce2GTS and a fully loaded Deluxe GeForce3 package like the Asus V8200 Deluxe! Wow! Plus, you can save even more with PC133, but you'll sacrifice about 5% performance on average (overall, throughout most benchmarks). Pentium 4's will lose a lot more than that with PC133, making a budget Athlon solution look really nice right now.
  45. I'd have to say the RDRAM Config, but only because you said "Compaq"... I'd never buy anything from that company, as I've seen the awful things they have done in the past...

    --Fltsimbuff

    LOL... I wonder what state of mind I was in when I wrote this... I thought I saw the word "Compaq" in reference to the AMD system... turns out, I glanced back through and saw "Comparing"... I'd better get theses Eyes checked out... I didn't delete the post because I figured that I may as well leave my opinion on Compaq's intact... and leave it here so you can all have a good laugh at me...
    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by fltsimbuff on 07/31/01 06:45 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  46. ok, my opinion, this P4 sucks.
    the guy that wrote that article is a tad biased.
    AMD currently has the best processor.
    I want to overclock a Tulatin of some type to 2ghz.
    I'm done...
    :D

    ----------------------
    Independant thought is good.
    It won't hurt for long.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel Motherboards DDR AMD RDRAM Components Product