Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD MORE EXPENSIVE THAN INTEL?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 20, 2002 4:15:48 PM

say it ain't so!

here's the link: <A HREF="http://www.slcentral.com/c/agurusworld/30/" target="_new">AMD Now More Expensive Then Intel Clock For Clock</A>

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"

More about : amd expensive intel

March 20, 2002 4:20:33 PM

LoL. this article is moronic.


Clock for clock amd is more expensive than intel, but if you think a 1.5ghz p4 is better than an axp 1800+(at 1.53ghz) you are mistaken.


Amd_meltdown, will you ever stop wasting everyones time.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
March 20, 2002 4:34:37 PM

My cordless phone operates at 2.4Ghz and it costs less per clock than either processor.

All errors are undocumented features waiting to be discovered.
Related resources
March 20, 2002 4:36:27 PM

Your point?

Since when has clock speed been a viable compairison between the P4 and the AXP?

Cute article, but a waste of time to write.

I do not like it Tom you see,
I do not like green PCB.
March 20, 2002 4:37:33 PM

Oh, how fast does it run quake?

I do not like it Tom you see,
I do not like green PCB.
March 20, 2002 4:44:31 PM

I never thought of that, as the article said nothing about performance, just price and clocks. I’ll work on a port and get back to you. It may take a while.

All errors are undocumented features waiting to be discovered.
March 20, 2002 4:51:01 PM

hmm... i see

so are we going by the clock speed now? or performance?

BTW can you tell me a little about your system?

<b> <font color=orange> Forum police </font color=orange> </b>
<font color=blue> Here to preserve respect and friendship </font color=blue>
March 20, 2002 5:20:09 PM

Proving yet again that with logic like that, who needs opposition to discredit you?

Coming soon from melty: Why is Intel the CPU to buy? Because the Northwood generates more heat per clock than the Thoroughbred and everyone needs more heat under their hood.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
March 20, 2002 6:25:11 PM

school got out early today? hmm, i'm thinking you definitely need an afterschool job or join a sports team. seriously, you used to be funny, now it's starting to get annoying. when the XP's came out everyone knew that amd was going to price them by the PR, not the MHZ. old, very old news. seems like the author of that article has as much time on his hands as you do. weird how everytime you try to discredit something your ignorance just shines right through. good job meltdown.

I run duals because i multitask between notepad, outlook express and winamp :lol: 
March 20, 2002 6:56:23 PM

I always thought he was good for a good laugh.
March 20, 2002 7:00:35 PM

You think so?
The Tbred should be less generating even with more IPC and better components filled?

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 20, 2002 7:07:48 PM

Quote:
You think so?
The Tbred should be less generating even with more IPC and better components filled?

Why not? It has less transistors to generate heat with <i>and</i> is running through less cycles per second. It is a very efficient little chip. Mucho kudos to AMD for accomplishing that.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
March 20, 2002 7:10:18 PM

Hmm, your point? The Athlon XP outperforms the Northwood per clock so comparing cost per clock is an ignorant measurement. Performance vs. Cost is what matters. Everyone agrees on that. Now suddenly clock speed does mean something when the Athlon costs more per clock? You're ignorant and hypocritical AMDMeltdown!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 20, 2002 7:15:47 PM

Well, the Palomino generates less heat than the Willamette, so... :wink:

<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?
March 20, 2002 7:40:58 PM

Yeah, which was why I still commented on why the heck P4 is hot and so big, yet has much less to offer. So now I know, it's by default, AMD has the win win on this one.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 20, 2002 7:59:37 PM

Quote:
The Athlon XP outperforms the Northwood per clock so comparing cost per clock is an ignorant measurement. Performance vs. Cost is what matters

i second that...no need for me to say anything else...

<b><font color=red>ATI</font color=red>'s drivers are like a broken faucet, they both keep on leaking...</b> :cool:
March 20, 2002 9:54:36 PM

You've been posting a lot of duds lately. Take a break and get back to us when your act has new material.

You suck.

<font color=red>If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</font color=red>
March 20, 2002 10:48:31 PM

i dont know how but melty keeps besting himself.



Toms Forums. Destroying my sanity
one braincell at a time. :smile:
March 20, 2002 11:04:01 PM

Of course, AMD is more expensive than Intel because Intel has a better economy of scale over AMD. Intel can sell their high-end server CPU such as Prestonia 2.x GHz for 200 dollars which I doubt if AMD can imitate. I hope AMD will give up that misleading + thing and let the users decide what's fast and what's not.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 20, 2002 11:13:15 PM

If they did give it up, they would not sell as much for the users, but the costs would be as low as any similar clocked Northwood. Thus the cost for 1.47GHZ Palomino, would be too close to a 1.53GHZ, and not sell as well. Then the overall cost is gonna have to be as low as Northwoods 1.6GHZ, and now 1.7GHZ Willamettes (1.73GHZ Palomino). It would do them bad business. AMD's goal was not to put low clock high cost PCs, it's to show MHZ is no longer used to measure. So why are you still using MHZ to compare pricing, if AMD wants to use PR to price? That's why they are higher priced, the PR is like a NW cost, but less again, given AMD's pride in low cost high performance.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 20, 2002 11:16:19 PM

A Porsche 911 turbo is only a six cylinder. A 1974 AMC Matador is an eight cylinder. Therefore the Matador must be faster. And much cheaper.

I can't think of a good signature so I'll use this one.
March 20, 2002 11:28:00 PM

Of course AMD decided to change MHz to + because they realized AMD can't compete very well with Intel.
What will AMD do when Intel introduces 533 FSB Northwoods and Prestonia? Apple and IBM did not have to rename their products to G4 1500+ or G4 2000+, so why did AMD?

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 20, 2002 11:36:59 PM

Ay, if you wish to do debates, I think Matisaro has had excellent reasons to back these claims up, and I personally am not as skilled as him. Mat if you would like to join in, cuz I really don't know the points you once had explained of their PR being well thought out!

All I can say to you now, is that the PR does not reflect Northwoods at all, it is for Tbird, thus it remains logical that new Northwoods at 2.6GHZ with new FSB and RAM, would obviously have been competing well if there had been a 2.5GHZ Tbird or 2.6GHZ. You see where I am going? As well as AMD needed this scheme, because like I said, MHZ isn't everything. They also do not compete Intel, they target enthusiasts like us, and do not care for the likes of Intel's blue men adds. They stand to lose nothing even if Intel rivaled them, because they continue to produce a chip that works more per clock, costs less, AND is also smaller as well as less heat producing and power consuming (0.18m compared to Willamette, and 0.13m soon, much cooler than Northwoods).
The only way to lose competition, is to have Hammer fail like a dead sick horse in a race with all bets on him.

Oh and btw, stop putting Prestonia in, it's a multiprocessor Xeon chip, it has no place in single processor comparisons.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 20, 2002 11:49:44 PM

Quote:
Apple and IBM did not have to rename their products to G4 1500+ or G4 2000+, so why did AMD?


For the simple reason that the chips you speak of are NOT PC compatible chips, but are chips used in Macintoshes, a totally different platform.

In addition, it wasn't AMD that changed the game, but Intel with their 20-30% DECREASE in IPC. Intel changed the performance game and AMD had to react.

Since Intel misleads consumers into thinking that it's P4 of whatever megahertz is faster than their OWN slightly lower clocked P3's, they even mislead customers as to the performance of their own processors.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 20, 2002 11:53:18 PM

Same as when Raystonn starts to babble about IPC not being important, and that comparing Athlons to P4s is not valid, we might as well put in a G4.
My only answer is simple, as long as both are PCs, x86-32 bit, then we can compare. If AMDs were Macs, then yes comparison is no longer needed. But as long as they are PCs, the goal is to develop stronger chips, therefore comparing IPC remains valid. And that is Intel's goal in future P4 cores anyway, in Prescott 0.09m especially.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 21, 2002 12:03:48 AM

AMD may have abondoned Korea for some mysterious reason, but that's no reason to bash AMD left and right, they still have the edge at default clock speed. Unlike the past AMD is innovating not imitating. The Hammer is going to be new class of processor that Intel has no competition against (not necessarily performance but rather, feature set). Sure, the Hammer will live in the 32-bit world for a while, but AMD has taken a step beyond Intel for the first time, which means that competition is only beginning. Not only is AMD going to continue competiting, but it will be competiting better than ever. With AMD being more of a threat to Intel, I predict we'll see a lot more innovations from both companies in the near future. This also applies to the graphics card market. The heat competition between nVidia and ATI is only beginning.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 21, 2002 12:06:14 AM

I agree Intel misled with it's Pentium 4. That was why I told people to buy Celeron instead of Pentium 4.

But that situation has changed dramatically. Northwood overclocked to 2.4GHz from 1.6GHz does show great performance advantage over Pentium-III. In saying about performance, I am mostly interested in MPEG-4.

I mentioned Apple and IBM instead of Alpha and UltraSPARC because they ARE PC makers. Was Apple making supercomputers or mainframes instead of PC? Did you forget Apple and Motorola has always been one of Intel's main competitors?

If Macintosh is a different platform, then Pentium is different from Pentium-III and K7. Shouldn't be compared in that simple way.

After all, most people who will buy Pentium 4 will be running them at 3.x-GHz or 5.x-GHz. Didn't Intel make it clear on its scalability? Can Athlons run at 5GHz in 2003 or in 2004?

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 21, 2002 12:09:37 AM

What are you talking about? The Pentium ISN'T DIFFERENT from the P3 and K7 and the P4. They all belong to the x86 family of processor. They are all compatible. Motorola processors cannot directly execute x86 compiled code but the Pentium can!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 21, 2002 12:11:41 AM

Do you mean the only important thing to compare is to compare only IPC between Pentium 4 and Athlon because that's the major advantage AMD has over Intel?

I did AMD marketing in Korea and one day AMD Headquarter sent me a document containing that IPC thing and told me to spread word. I thought it was pathetic.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 21, 2002 12:13:45 AM

IPC is part of the story but not the whole story. However, AMD gives you more performance given the same MHz rating. We pay for performance not a number that you can show off. It doesn't matter if the CPU runs at 1MHz or 1THz, if it provides performance for the price, then that's fine.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 21, 2002 12:14:32 AM

powerpc is a completely different platform compared to pentiums/athlons. A p1 can run much of the same software as a p4 or athlon, as long as it doesn't have any specific new instructions in it. A g4 cannot run x86 software natively, because it is a completly different chip. Software must be recompiled. software written for a pentium can run on a p4 without being recompiled, that is the difference.



<i>My life wasn't complete untill I tried sse-2 optimized pong</i>
March 21, 2002 12:15:23 AM

I didn't say anything about x86. I did say about PC. I didn't mean IBM clones but the computers used on personal level. Motorola always advertised 68xxx was faster than Intel's 486 and Pentiums on clock-by-clock basis. Maybe you don't know the biggest partner for Microsoft was once Apple.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 21, 2002 12:19:34 AM

I don't understand your point. Please clarify.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 21, 2002 12:20:24 AM

You are right in saying it's performance not just MHz. But that does not mean "IPC" is what people pay for. AMD's too obsessed in IPC because they have been too slow in catching up with Intel. It does matter if the CPU runs at 1MHz or 1THz to me even if the 1MHz CPU provides so much more performance per price since NO 1MHz CPU can run MPEG-4 encoding and 3200x1200 sized graphcs. If you do have that kind of CPU, tell me I have to use it in my PDA.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 21, 2002 12:22:32 AM

PC Compatible is synonymous with X86.

Macintosh is Mac

Sun is Sun

Alpha is Alpha

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 21, 2002 12:24:38 AM

Quote:
I mentioned Apple and IBM instead of Alpha and UltraSPARC because they ARE PC makers.

Yes, but do you get a G4 to run Windows? Only early versions of Windows NT 4 will run on any sort of Macintosh.

How many directly comparable applications do Macintosh and Wintel boxen share? Quake 1/2/3? Unreal? IE5? Photoshop?

Macintosh and Wintel boxen can't be compared quite as easily as Intel and AMD boxen can. They generally end up having to be used for different purposes, so establising G4-vs-P4 PR ratings isn't nearly as useful anyways.

<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?
March 21, 2002 12:24:45 AM

No, AMD has brought up IPC because Intel focusses on CLOCKSPEED. So, AMD brings up IPC to balance Intels focus on clockspeed. In point of fact, AMD has repeatedly said that Clockspeed and IPC combined are what's important. THAT is what equals true performnce; hence AMD's True Performance Initiative (TPI)

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 21, 2002 12:26:25 AM

My point is application performance is what matters more than IPC.
In real-world situation, G5 Apple PC does compete with Athlon-based PC. It is 2.x-GHz overclocked Northwoods priced very competitively and available in virtually any country and also backed by 3-Year Warranty AND that won't burn or break like bread crumb that compete with Athlons. It's not so important that Pentium 4 IPC is competing with Athlon IPC poorly.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 21, 2002 12:27:26 AM

Quote:

It does matter if the CPU runs at 1MHz or 1THz to me even if the 1MHz CPU provides so much more performance per price since NO 1MHz CPU can run MPEG-4 encoding and 3200x1200 sized graphcs. If you do have that kind of CPU, tell me I have to use it in my PDA.

You seem to be getting the idea that MHz means something on it's own and that's not true.

What if that 1MHz was able to process hundreds of calculations per clock cycle while the 1THz wastes most of it's clock cycles idling. Frequency is only one part of the story too. IPC and Frequency cannot stand alone, together they equal performance. Also, what makes you think that 1MHz parallel processor would run in your PDA? For all we know it could contain billions of transistors. Much too large and hot for a PDA. Who says that 1MHz processor can't do MPEG4? For all we know, this hypothetical processor can process MPEG4 twice as fast as that other hypothetical 1THz. Anyway, of course this is an exaggeration, but I think you see my point.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 21, 2002 12:27:28 AM

They've been obsessed by IPC because in general, it is what comprises of the internal CPU units in harmony, and that shows that the more you exploit technology, IPC is what that technology will give you. AMD likes to add new things unlike Intel with the P4 going back. They want more FPU performance, they want better L1 cache management, they want FAST delivery of information.
That will just rise with Hammer, even further.
Now they have officially cut the IPC race for now. Now with Tbred and possibly Barton, it is only and only MHZ. As Intel focused on MHZ for a while, now they are focusing on IPC now that their speeds are high enough to finally boost. AMD is doing vice-versa, with Tbreds going as high as 2.2GHZ soon (PR 2800), and even more. So whether you think AMD is not competing well, or that Intel is more of a threat, we lot will disagree here. Both are on the same level as never before.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 21, 2002 12:31:00 AM

Hm. That's just what I find in AMD.com. Did I tell you I worked for AMD (though not a regular employee)?

If clockspeed combined with IPC is important, then why not add durability and serviceability to the equation? Persuade your friends to do so because people buy CPU to do jobs, NOT JUST TO COMPARE NUMBERS.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 21, 2002 12:33:27 AM

Quote:

In real-world situation, G5 Apple PC does compete with Athlon-based PC. It is 2.x-GHz overclocked Northwoods priced very competitively and available in virtually any country and also backed by 3-Year Warranty AND that won't burn or break like bread crumb that compete with Athlons. It's not so important that Pentium 4 IPC is competing with Athlon IPC poorly.

You can't say for sure about performance because we have no frame of reference. Even comparing Photoshop in the Mac to Photoshop in Windows is inaccurate. For all we know the Windows GUI has more overhead than the MAC OS. Yes, there is no denying the Northwoods have the edge in overclocking. That's because frequency breaks and exceeds that breakeven point between different combinations of IPC and frequency. I won't comment on the supposed fragile Athlon CPU simply because a person who builds a system should be knowledgeable enough to be able to build any system.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 21, 2002 12:34:42 AM

Isn't that a programmer's point of view?
I meant Apple has been competing with AMD and Intel in the same market. I don't like Apple but I have no evidence Apple has given up the PC market.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 21, 2002 12:38:19 AM

When did this Apple G5 come out?

All errors are undocumented features waiting to be discovered.
March 21, 2002 12:38:48 AM

What about giving equal pressure on Athlon XP 1700+ retail and Penntium 4 Northwood 1600A? They are so expensive so I cannot afford to but maybe some of you can.

Athlons break and burn so much easily than Intels (both Tualatins and Northwoods.)

I didn't say a Mac is faster than an Athlon. I just said to compare systems using only IPC is not a good way.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 21, 2002 12:42:28 AM

That's a very good point and AMD better introduce a durable and powerful Hammer soon before Intel introduces Northwood 533 with RDRAM PC1066.

Of course, the price should not be over $200.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 21, 2002 12:43:37 AM

Um, let's say you took off P4's protection, you pretty much have a fair comparison, both would burn. Latter would take longer due to Heat Spreaders, but why not take THAT off too to make it fairer?!

See, it's all about sense, any CPU burns without protection. Besides mobos for AthlonXPs support thermal shutoff, wether AMD's new solution or current ones, you can have your PC shut off on high temps, therefore negates any worries.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 21, 2002 12:47:23 AM

If you're so worried about breaking or burning a processor, why build a computer yourself? If you don't think you can handle installing the processor then pay some $5 to get the technican to install the HSF for you. It's that simple. Athlon systems don't spontaneously break or burn, it's user error. If you aren't experienced with handling delicate equipment, then don't. It's your decision but you don't have to impose your opinions on others. I don't see engineering whining about how hard it is to design and build a processor from the ground up. The whole point of this is the challenge. It's what we enthusiasts crave.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 21, 2002 12:48:03 AM

Well hate to burst your bubble but Hammer is not out until end of this year, beggining next.
It will more than compete, it's gonna be a skyrocket performer. Starting at around PR 3400, and IF AMD changes the PR relation to AXPs instead of Tbirds, the PR3400 will be like a P4 4GHZ almost. Otherwise it'd take a 3.5GHZ P4 NW 533MHZ to compete with a PR3400 Tbird related Hammer. And I don't expect any P4 3.5GHZ by end of year.
Hammers will more than compete, they got too much new things to offer, that a P4 per clock will never ever touch. Plus, they got Heat Spreaders, coupled with AMD's new thermal protection that has begun to be used in new mobos coming out soon, you can bet no longer AMDs are feared to burn, thus you have absolutly NO negatives on AMD CPUs. Cheap priced, High performing, protected=Best bang for the buck.
The Hammer price should hover a little above current AXPs, Clawhammer that is.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 21, 2002 12:50:29 AM

In all likelihood, the Hammer is not going to be released before the 533MHz FSB Northwood. The T-Bred and Barton will face off against the faster FSB Northwood.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!