AMD or INTEL ?

[Guest]

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

AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
aspect.
Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
ill-configured??

 

[Guest]

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

>>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> writes:

Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
Codemutant> ill-configured??

Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
really give a serious answer.

Thanks

Alan

 

[jk]

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

Codemutant wrote:

> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
> find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
> counterpart.

What?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

> and almost always its the intel that wins in every
> aspect.

Not quite.

>
> Why is the bench mark different from the true story??

What components are you using?

> and if its the
> case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> ill-configured??

Why? Many people are either cheap or ill informed, and choose a low quality
motherboard and/or other low quality components. A computer isn't just a cpu.

 

[Guest]

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

"Codemutant" <codemutant@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:5dac30fd.0408162301.406b014c@posting.google.com...
> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
> find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
> counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
> aspect.
> Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
> case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> ill-configured??

Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
on.

 

[Guest]

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

FALSE prophecies from the archives, Post Replies Here Please <spamme@edge.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:51:17 -0500
spoke:

>>>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> writes:
>
> Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
> Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
> Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
> Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
> Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
> Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> Codemutant> ill-configured??
>
>Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
>experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
>really give a serious answer.

He has observed EXACTLY the opposite of what I've seen.

I have an XP2500 system, an XP2800,and an Intel P4 2.6C system.

The AMDs are MUCH more responsive in most things,
but the P4 is MUCH faster in Seti and a few other
programs, where little human intervention or
interference is necessary.






--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.

 

[jk]

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

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

> FALSE prophecies from the archives, Post Replies Here Please <spamme@edge.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:51:17 -0500
> spoke:
>
> >>>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> writes:
> >
> > Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
> > Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
> > Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
> > Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
> > Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
> > Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> > Codemutant> ill-configured??
> >
> >Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
> >experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
> >really give a serious answer.
>
> He has observed EXACTLY the opposite of what I've seen.
>
> I have an XP2500 system, an XP2800,and an Intel P4 2.6C system.
>
> The AMDs are MUCH more responsive in most things,
> but the P4 is MUCH faster in Seti and a few other
> programs, where little human intervention or
> interference is necessary.
>

The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip. Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon XP2500+
is a $70 chip. What $70 Intel chip
should we compare its performance to? a Pentium 4 1.8 ghz, or a Celeron
2.4 ghz?


>
> --
>
> The truth is out there,
>
> but it's not interesting enough for most people.

 

[Guest]

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

FALSE prophecies from the archives, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:43:10 -0400 spoke:

>Why? Many people are either cheap or ill informed, and choose a low quality
>motherboard and/or other low quality components. A computer isn't just a cpu.

My AMD systems both have nForce2 MBs, the Intel has an MSI 865PE chipset MB.
All 3 systems each have a gig of DDR400 memory, and 7200rpm 8 meg cache IDE HDs.





--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.

 

[unkn2232324]

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

JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<4122172F.CE4558AA@netscape.net>...
>
> The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip. Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon XP2500+
> is a $70 chip. What $70 Intel chip
> should we compare its performance to? a Pentium 4 1.8 ghz, or a Celeron
> 2.4 ghz?
>

Actually, don't you mean Chip + Motherboard ?

All the other componants are the same in both systems.

So, using newegg's numbers it's:

XP2800+ Barton ($113) + Abit AN7 nForce2-400 ($93) = $206
P4 2.4C ($146) + Abit IS7-E ($82) = $228
A64 3000+ ($175) + Abit KV8-K8T800 ($91) = $266

I picked as identical MB's as possible, not bottom of the barrel or
top of the line. Basically what I'd get if I was building either
system. And of course if we're talking performace/price the end
results should be divided by the whole system cost which would be
anywhere between $700 - $1500.

Bottom Line: The P4 2.4C is closer to the XP2800 in price in a real
system than the A64 3000+. The P4 is also by far the most
overclockable CPU on the market. I don't know anyone who isn't getting
3.0ghz with stock cooling easily.

The A64 still performs better and is undeniably a bestter deal, but
the P4 still blows away the XP at a very similar price.

 

[Guest]

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

Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> wrote:
> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
> find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
> counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
> aspect.
> Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
> case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> ill-configured??

Well, give some examples of where you find the AMDs not performing as well
as the Intels. Perhaps your expectations are unrealistic? AMDs do not always
perform better than Intels in the benchmarks. There are various categories
of programs where it's been demonstrated that the Intels almost always
perform better. While other categories, AMDs almost always perform better.

Perhaps your workload is more suited to where the Intels perform better.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

FALSE prophecies from the archives, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:33:19 -0400 spoke:

>The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip.

Not when I bought it.

>Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+.

Again, NOT when I bought it.





--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.

 

[jk]

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

When you bought those chips and what you paid for them is irrelevant to our
discussion about relative performance. What counts is the performance
at each price level based on current prices.

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

> FALSE prophecies from the archives, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:33:19 -0400 spoke:
>
> >The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip.
>
> Not when I bought it.
>
> >Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+.
>
> Again, NOT when I bought it.
>
> --
>
> The truth is out there,
>
> but it's not interesting enough for most people.

 

[Guest]

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

Judd wrote:
>
> "Codemutant" <codemutant@programmer.net> wrote in message
> news:5dac30fd.0408162301.406b014c@posting.google.com...
> > AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
> > find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
> > counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
> > aspect.
> > Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
> > case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> > ill-configured??
>
> Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
> find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
> what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
> issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
> on.

Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

 

[jk]

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

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> Judd wrote:
> >
> > "Codemutant" <codemutant@programmer.net> wrote in message
> > news:5dac30fd.0408162301.406b014c@posting.google.com...
> > > AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
> > > find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
> > > counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
> > > aspect.
> > > Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
> > > case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> > > ill-configured??
> >
> > Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
> > find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
> > what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
> > issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
> > on.
>
> Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
> have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
> system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
> a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

No one forces those who buy an AMD processor to buy a junky power supply
or to overclock. Those who do so are inviting trouble. An AMD based system
will be reliable if it is properly build and not overclocked.

 

[Guest]

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

Bitstring <41225891.B7CE58D5@zciueanmosizefitterzxcazreaszs.com>, from
the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
<johs@zciueanmosizefitterzxcazreaszs.com> said
<snip>
>> Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
>> find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
>> what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
>> issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
>> on.
>
>Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
>have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
>system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
>a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

You are desperately confused. I hang out there perpetually (and have for
several years) and there are very few AMD user with problems, given the
fact that 99% of the people there =only= build AMD systems these days.
The 'three people**' with home built Intel systems seem to ahve their
share of problems too.
8>.

** I exaggerate, there may actually be as many as 6.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

 

[jk]

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

G wrote:

> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<4122172F.CE4558AA@netscape.net>...
> >
> > The P4 2.6 ghz is a $160 chip. Compare its performance to an AMD $160 chip, the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon XP2500+
> > is a $70 chip. What $70 Intel chip
> > should we compare its performance to? a Pentium 4 1.8 ghz, or a Celeron
> > 2.4 ghz?
> >
>
> Actually, don't you mean Chip + Motherboard ?
>
> All the other componants are the same in both systems.
>
> So, using newegg's numbers it's:
>
> XP2800+ Barton ($113) + Abit AN7 nForce2-400 ($93) = $206

$113 for an XP2800+? www.pricewatch.com has the XP3000+
listed at $99, and the P4 2.4 C at $143. Both are oem with a heatsink.
The Athlon 64 3000+ retail box is listed at $164.

>
> P4 2.4C ($146) + Abit IS7-E ($82) = $228
> A64 3000+ ($175) + Abit KV8-K8T800 ($91) = $266
>
> I picked as identical MB's as possible, not bottom of the barrel or
> top of the line. Basically what I'd get if I was building either
> system. And of course if we're talking performace/price the end
> results should be divided by the whole system cost which would be
> anywhere between $700 - $1500.
>
> Bottom Line: The P4 2.4C is closer to the XP2800 in price in a real
> system than the A64 3000+.

Not really. Add to the OEM Athlon XP and P$ prices the cost of a
heatsink. One could also order an Athlon 64 2800+ retail box
at $147(although this would be silly since the A64 3000+ is so
close in price). So using an A64 2800+ would cost you the same
as the P4 2.4C , and the 3000+ around $20 more.

> The P4 is also by far the most
> overclockable CPU on the market. I don't know anyone who isn't getting
> 3.0ghz with stock cooling easily.

That is irrelevant for most people, and is probably debatable for
those interested in overclocking.

>
>
> The A64 still performs better and is undeniably a bestter deal, but
> the P4 still blows away the XP at a very similar price.

Not quite.

 

[Guest]

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

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>
> Bitstring <41225891.B7CE58D5@zciueanmosizefitterzxcazreaszs.com>, from
> the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
> <johs@zciueanmosizefitterzxcazreaszs.com> said
> <snip>
> >> Go to www.spec.org - they have the most comprehensive benchmarks you'll
> >> find. They are very similar. Buy the system which has
> >> what you want on it for the price you want. Reliability is also a big
> >> issue. Buy from a reputable vendor or pay up the nose later
> >> on.
> >
> >Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
> >have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
> >system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
> >a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.
>
> You are desperately confused. I hang out there perpetually (and have for
> several years) and there are very few AMD user with problems, given the
> fact that 99% of the people there =only= build AMD systems these days.
> The 'three people**' with home built Intel systems seem to ahve their
> share of problems too.
> 8>.
>
> ** I exaggerate, there may actually be as many as 6.

Confused? Both chip makers go through peaks and troughs, there has been some
blind alleys now and then. I have picked Intel the few times I've build
a computer or bought a laptop, but think I've been fairly lucky at times, e.g.
avoiding the Pentium II slot 1, and the early pentium 3 version with half speed
(or less) L2 cache, and of course now the Prescott. Intel used to be an expensive
choice, but recently the prices have dropped dramatically. Both Pentiums and
AMDs have had the speed forged at times, but retail versions are a safer bet.
I was quite surprised over past discussions in the other group, where some
people didn't seem to mind because the processor in question was 'capable' of
overclocking. Other posters would buy selected processors that had been tested
OK for overclocking and even pay a premium for those! Doh!

 

[Guest]

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

Post Replies Here Please <spamme@edge.net> wrote in message news:<87vffiexmi.fsf@spamme.edge.net>...
> >>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> writes:
>
> Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
> Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
> Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
> Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
> Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
> Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> Codemutant> ill-configured??
>
> Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
> experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
> really give a serious answer.
>
> Thanks
>
> Alan



Mine a AMD 2400+XP WITH 256MB DDR RAM, MSI MAINBOARD, VIA CHIPSET
KM400...
MY FRIEND'S INTEL PENTIUM 4 2.8GHZ WITH HT ENABLED, 256 MD DDR RAM,
INTEL EXTREME GRAPHICS 865 CHIPSET..,

agreed my friend's intel and mine dont stand a competition, the intel
clearly performs better.., but my other friends.. who have amd xp
2400+ and 2000+. with 256mb ddr ram.. fall short... they go frame by
frame !! when they play nfs6 hot pursuit 2.. luckily mine is better(i
can play) but not as good as my friend's intel counterpart!!

do all amd syetms have to use geforce to perform well?

 

[Guest]

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

Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
> have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
> system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
> a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.

AMD's tended to be more homebuilt than bought as complete systems. Whatcha
gonna do when Intel had you locked out of most major OEMs, until recently?
And obviously since they are being built at home, all of the debugging is
done at home rather than in a lab. So when you're on your own, you tend to
ask around the Internet for solutions to your problems from other homebuilt
users.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> Intel used to be an expensive choice, but recently the
> prices have dropped dramatically.

Which is probably the reason you will begin to see more people asking
questions about Intels in homebuilt newsgroups, it may now be the economical
choice for chips. The really desirable AMD64s are still too expensive.

Yousuf Khan

 

[jk]

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> > Yes, looking in uk.comp.homebuilt, many home builders of amd systems
> > have have problems. Perhaps they are perpetually tinkering with their
> > system, voltages, overclocking and what not? That is not my cuppa tea;
> > a computer, like a car, should first and foremost be reliable.
>
> AMD's tended to be more homebuilt than bought as complete systems.

That may be true in the US, but not in many other parts of the world.
AMD has 80% of its sales outside the US.

> Whatcha
> gonna do when Intel had you locked out of most major OEMs, until recently?

Sell to OEMs outside the US.

>
> And obviously since they are being built at home, all of the debugging is
> done at home rather than in a lab. So when you're on your own, you tend to
> ask around the Internet for solutions to your problems from other homebuilt
> users.
>
> Yousuf Khan

 

[jk]

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> > Intel used to be an expensive choice, but recently the
> > prices have dropped dramatically.

Not nearly enough. To get similar performance in Business Winstone 2004,
one can buy a $100 Athlon XP3000+ or a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz at around $260.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

Many business users are only interested in performance running business
applications.Let us know when Intel intends to drop the price of the P4 3.2
ghz to $100.


>
>
> Which is probably the reason you will begin to see more people asking
> questions about Intels in homebuilt newsgroups

You are dreaming

> , it may now be the economical
> choice for chips.

Not quite.

> The really desirable AMD64s are still too expensive.

>

> A $160 Athlon 64 3000+ beats an $825 P4 3.2 EE in Doom 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

The $160 Athlon 64 3000+ also beats a $260 P4 3.2 ghz in Business
Winstone 2004.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6



>
>
> Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

JK wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> AMD's tended to be more homebuilt than bought as complete systems.
>
> That may be true in the US, but not in many other parts of the world.
> AMD has 80% of its sales outside the US.

I think Intel has more of its sales outside the US than inside too. But the
major reason for that is a lot of chips are sold to Asian builders which
resell these products to other countries, including the US. Most laptops
are now built outside of North America.

Yousuf Khan

 

[jk]

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> JK wrote:
> > Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >> AMD's tended to be more homebuilt than bought as complete systems.
> >
> > That may be true in the US, but not in many other parts of the world.
> > AMD has 80% of its sales outside the US.
>
> I think Intel has more of its sales outside the US than inside too.

The US probably has slightly above 30% of worldwide pc sales.
My point is that Intel's US market share is probably much larger than
its international market share.

> But the
> major reason for that is a lot of chips are sold to Asian builders which
> resell these products to other countries, including the US. Most laptops
> are now built outside of North America.
>
> Yousuf Khan

 

[jk]

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

Codemutant wrote:

> Post Replies Here Please <spamme@edge.net> wrote in message news:<87vffiexmi.fsf@spamme.edge.net>...
> > >>>>> "Codemutant" == Codemutant <codemutant@programmer.net> writes:
> >
> > Codemutant> AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than
> > Codemutant> intel. But i find many AMD systems not performing as
> > Codemutant> expected against the intel counterpart. and almost always
> > Codemutant> its the intel that wins in every aspect. Why is the bench
> > Codemutant> mark different from the true story?? and if its the case
> > Codemutant> of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
> > Codemutant> ill-configured??
> >
> > Could give some url's or some real life examples with your own
> > experience? Like systems used etc. Your statement is too general too
> > really give a serious answer.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Alan
>
> Mine a AMD 2400+XP WITH 256MB DDR RAM, MSI MAINBOARD, VIA CHIPSET
> KM400...
> MY FRIEND'S INTEL PENTIUM 4 2.8GHZ WITH HT ENABLED, 256 MD DDR RAM,
> INTEL EXTREME GRAPHICS 865 CHIPSET..,
>
> agreed my friend's intel and mine dont stand a competition, the intel
> clearly performs better..,

Why are you comparing a $55 AMD processor to a $160 Intel processor?
Compare the P4 2.8 ghz to an Athlon 64 3000+ which is very close in price.
Compare the performance of the $55 XP2400+ to the performance of a
$55 Celeron. The Athlon XP chips are great for business software, but
not that great for games. The Athlon 64 chips are great for games.

> but my other friends.. who have amd xp
> 2400+ and 2000+. with 256mb ddr ram.. fall short... they go frame by
> frame !! when they play nfs6 hot pursuit 2.. luckily mine is better(i
> can play) but not as good as my friend's intel counterpart!!
>
> do all amd syetms have to use geforce to perform well?

 

[Guest]

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

On 17 Aug 2004 00:01:18 -0700, codemutant@programmer.net (Codemutant)
wrote:
>
>AMD does come out with performance benchmarks higher than intel. But i
>find many AMD systems not performing as expected against the intel
>counterpart. and almost always its the intel that wins in every
>aspect.

This actually does not reflect my experience at all. In my
experience, the processor plays an important role in the benchmark
results, but has relatively little to do with the subjective "feel" of
the machine. Maybe that is what you are encountering? I often find
that a system with a fast processor but slow disk drives will
benchmark higher but it will seem slower when you actually use it.

> Why is the bench mark different from the true story?? and if its the
>case of ill-configured systems.. then why is most of the amd
>ill-configured??

Here's a possible hypothesis for what you're seeing. AMD processors
are less expensive and therefore tend to be used on less expensive
systems. Intel chips are more expensive and therefore are used on
expensive systems with premium components.

Therefore Intel systems are more likely to come with better hard
disks, better video cards, etc. The processor itself has little to do
with the equation?

Or it could simply be a placebo effect, ie I paid more money for this
Intel processor so therefore it MUST be faster, right?


If you ask me, get yourself a nice, fast hard drive, an excellent
monitor and a good *reliable* motherboard first and foremost. If you
play lots of games then the video card should be your priority, and
even if you don't play games then you will want a video card with good
2D image quality. Also make sure that you've got sufficient memory in
the system, AT LEAST 512MB these days and 1GB is probably a worthwhile
purchase. The processor should be well down on your list of
considerations when buying a system, but I think you'll find that AMD
chips do still offer very compelling performance, particularly for
their price.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca