Intel vs AMD

[jjb9er]

I was talking to a freind and he said not to get a P4 processor. He wanted me to get a AMD 64 bit processor. Can somebody tell me why?

 

[Appledrop]

cus they be faster

 

[Shenkoa]

The p4 is less efficient in almost every way.

The p4 does 6 Instructions Per Clock Cycle
The XP did 9 instructions Per Clock Cycle (not sure on the 64)

MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second) = Arithmetic Logic Unit
FLOPS (FLOating Poing Operations Per Second) = FPU or Math Co Processor (Secondary math operations)

AMD does more of these per second then Intel does. The only thing that keeps the P4 afloat is very high frequency's and its memory performance as a whole. So, 2.4 GHz 64 or 4 GHz P4 = Very close in comparison, games and most buisness apps run much better on the 64, encoding/decoding programs usuallly run faster on the P4, although we are seing that more and more the AMD taking Intel in programs and games that Intel has always been better at.

This means, it takes more frequency for the P4 to perform as well as the 64 or XP. The 64's stage depth is also 1 3rd the size, because of the long 20 and 31 Stage pipeline of the P4, when brand mispredictions accur (which they do a lot in the P4) it has to clear out the stages before the next instruction.

Add a slow cache prefetch and years old core with much lantency, the P4's design is horable. Dont expect HT to save it.

 

[ThePiston]

Intel costs a lot more.
If he's dong media creation (video editing), then get P4.... otherwise, gaming, bidness software, etc all do better on good ol' AMD... and you save money

 

[Avalon]

If you're a gamer, then he was right to suggest the A64. If you're a heavy multitasker/media encoder, then the P4 would actually be the better solution for you. For anything else, the chips are so similar you wouldn't notice a difference except in the benchmarks, although I tend to lean towards the A64, but only because it suits my needs.

 

[tallman45]

Because one is listed on Nasdaq the other on the NYSE

 

[Mik3y]

reverse the question and ask yourself: "Why should you get a P4 processor instead of an AMD processor?" if you cant answer that in a non-biased and logical way, then you have no reasons to choose sides until you are better informed. that's why we're here. from what avalon said, it's true besides the media encoding part intel doesnt own amd at that anymore, and like anandtech stated in their previeous review, "intel has lost their last bastion of power over amd: encoding/decoding". as for multi-tasking, they both perform well. amd just multi-tasks at 100% whereas intel multi-tasks at 10%, but amd's raw speed makes up for some of that.

 

[LTC8K6]

First, ignore what shenkoa said.

Second, both companies make excellent processors. You really can't go wrong buying either one. Get whichever one suits your budget and your applications. AMD is a bit faster and cheaper in most cases and Intel is a bit better at multitasking due to hyperthreading. AMD uses less power and runs cooler as well.

Third, there are whole new chips coming out from both AMD and Intel centering on dual cores. So, this whole debate is likely to be up in the air again soon. It may be up in the air again even earlier if/when when Intel releases it's 64bit chip, but it's hard to tell at this point. Reports are still a bit sketchy.

Now then, if you think you will keep the new system long enough for 64 bit Windows to come around, then buying an A64 is a good choice. It's an excellent chip, it does everything well, and it is ready for 64bit XP.

I wouldn't see anything wrong with buying either chip at this point in time.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: jjb9er
I was talking to a freind and he said not to get a P4 processor. He wanted me to get a AMD 64 bit processor. Can somebody tell me why?

having both, here's my opinion.

the a64 is fast. comparably priced/rated cpus from intel vs amd generally shows 10-15% speed advantage in most games, and many business apps.

i've also found both my a64s (have a newcastle and a winchester) very stable, and both overclocked well. they run cooler than a prescott, and about the same as a northwood. they CAN be less expensive, although in actuality while this favors amd, the pricing is pretty close, depending on quality of other components, such as which motherboard you get (i've used msi k8n, dfi ut 250gb, and chaintech nvf3 - all very solid, tho the first few vnf3 bios' were 'edgy').

encoding/decoding - while some things the intel is faster, it's not a weak point of amd any more. the a64 is as fast/faster in some applications, making this area mostly a tossup.

multitasking - imo, the a64's achilles heel. running multiple cpu intensive apps (this isn't having a couple irc windows and 6 browswers open at the same time) the a64's performance drops noticeably compared to intel, at least using winXP. i haven't run these cpus under linux (desktop apps i don't use linux, only server) or winXP64 (drivers are lacking atm), but if you're gaming while you're encoding/decoding, antivirs pops up when you're encoding/decoding or playing a game, or if you're trying to run multiple instances of games, the a 64 is signifcantly slower - to the tune of taking 2-3x longer to encode a video file in the background while playing hl2 in the foreground.

both cpus have their strong points; the amd probably has more in terms of # of reasons, but it's up to you to apply the 'weight' of the advantages and disadvantages. which is better for you is only for you to decide, based on how you're going to use your pc...

 

[Shenkoa]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
First, ignore what shenkoa said.

Second, both companies make excellent processors. You really can't go wrong buying either one. Get whichever one suits your budget and your applications. AMD is a bit faster and cheaper in most cases and Intel is a bit better at multitasking due to hyperthreading. AMD uses less power and runs cooler as well.

Third, there are whole new chips coming out from both AMD and Intel centering on dual cores. So, this whole debate is likely to be up in the air again soon. It may be up in the air again even earlier if/when when Intel releases it's 64bit chip, but it's hard to tell at this point. Reports are still a bit sketchy.

Now then, if you think you will keep the new system long enough for 64 bit Windows to come around, then buying an A64 is a good choice. It's an excellent chip, it does everything well, and it is ready for 64bit XP.

I wouldn't see anything wrong with buying either chip at this point in time.

Why ignore me?

 

[beatle]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
Why ignore me?

Because of your obvious bias. Which CPU you should buy depends on how you will use your computer. If you presented your info in a non-biased way, people will be more inclined to believe what you say.

 

[reactor]

simple answer:

For basic computing(internet, email, word processing) it won't really make a difference what cpu you go with.

If your into gaming then the Athlon64 is your best bet.

If you do video editing for home movies, dvd's etc. or audio/video encoding the P4 will handle that better.

 

[Thermalrock]

dont get a msi board. they make crappy boards and last year they cheated. oced ppls cpus without asking them when the cpu load hit high %age just to win review benchmarks vs gigabyte and asus. that company shouldnt have any customers.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: reactor

If you do video editing for home movies, dvd's etc. or audio/video encoding the P4 will handle that better.

not true at all. amd's socket 939 group is about on part with intel on encoding/decoding, and even excels in some areas of encoding.

Originally posted by: Thermalrock
dont get a msi board. they make crappy boards and last year they cheated. oced ppls cpus without asking them when the cpu load hit high %age just to win review benchmarks vs gigabyte and asus. that company shouldnt have any customers.

what's that i smell? i know. it's bvllsh!t!. explain why they make crappy mobo's and prove all that stuff u said.

 

[Thermalrock]

i dont have to prove anything. this was proved by ppl when the canterwood boards were first released. its hardly my fault you didnt follow computer news back then.

 

[Mik3y]

so u base everything off history? this is called technology. it changes rapidly for better or for worse. it's hardly my fault you dont follow computer news in the present day.

 

[Thermalrock]

i do else i wouldnt be here. if you dont think that ppl who cheated customers last year shouldnt be selling products this year thats your opinion not mine. this is not just about ethics but also quality. if you are able to produce quality you dont have to secretely build in devices that secretely overclock customers cpus without permission by a few % to beat the competition by fewer % and then make up silly excuses when someone catches you cheating. its your money i couldnt care less if you spend it on msi boards. im still gonna let ppl know msi sucks. if this bothers you i dont care. ppl have a right to know.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Thermalrock
dont get a msi board. they make crappy boards and last year they cheated. oced ppls cpus without asking them when the cpu load hit high %age just to win review benchmarks vs gigabyte and asus. that company shouldnt have any customers.

now there's another rather biased statement offered..

i have 2 msi boards - neo2 865pe and k8n platinum. they're both rock solid. as a matter of fact, the k8n has been picked the best s939 board by AnandTech, as well as several other review sites. most recently Hot Hardware. while 1 good review coupled with a bad reputation would make me skeptical, msi has a decent reputation (both in motherboards and video cards) and there are many reviews all picking the k8n as a top board. in addition, from following forums most people seem to like theirs.

while every part produced by a given manufacturer is not perfect, and it's quite possible you may have had a bad run with msi, that's no reason apply that to every product made by that company.

asus also makes a good s939 board, but frankly nf3 chipset has better features (love that i can have both ata/sata raid), and i don't particularly care for via chipsets.

 

[Tarrant64]

Thermalrock. Start another topic if you want to vent about a mobo company. This thread was AMD or Intel. NOT which mobo company sucks.
And it's stupid to base things on history. As far as I've seen MSI has got one of the better boards out there for the A64.

Anyways,

Intel - better multitasking. had a p4 2.66ghz on my alienware notebook and it multitasked really well. and it was very fast.

A64 - awesome for gaming. used a64 3200+ on desktop rig i recently built when my alienware broke. not as fast at multitasking, but still very quick and powerful.

It's just like everyone else says really. This is just my experience with the two processors.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64
Thermalrock. Start another topic if you want to vent about a mobo company. This thread was AMD or Intel. NOT which mobo company sucks.
And it's stupid to base things on history. As far as I've seen MSI has got one of the better boards out there for the A64.

Anyways,

Intel - better multitasking. had a p4 2.66ghz on my alienware notebook and it multitasked really well. and it was very fast.

A64 - awesome for gaming. used a64 3200+ on desktop rig i recently built when my alienware broke. not as fast at multitasking, but still very quick and powerful.

It's just like everyone else says really. This is just my experience with the two processors.

finally, an honest and logical post.

 

[Thermalrock]

no you didnt read what i said. its not about my experience with msi. i wouldnt touch the crap msi makes witha ten foot pole. they built in a feature in their first canterwood board, i875 chipset in case you dont know, that slightly overclocked the cpu when under high load. this led to msi beating all other brands slightly. i found it highly unethical and didnt have a problem with msi before that but ever since.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Thermalrock
no you didnt read what i said. its not about my experience with msi. i wouldnt touch the crap msi makes witha ten foot pole. they built in a feature in their first canterwood board, i875 chipset in case you dont know, that slightly overclocked the cpu when under high load. this led to msi beating all other brands slightly. i found it highly unethical and didnt have a problem with msi before that but ever since.

ok, so your bias is simply based on hearsay about a product you've never used. further, you even take it out of context (by the way, that "cheat" is avail in most if not all high end msi boards. it's called "core cell" with DOT - dynamic overclocking technology, and can be enabled/disabled within the bios).

for those of you who have no clue what this is all about, basically tom's hardware concluded there was some overclocking going on that was not "publicized" at the time (this was during some testing of incidentally the "springdale" motherboard, not canterwood LINK).

msi responded immediately with this:

To the Editors of Tom' s Hardware,
We are writing in response to your article "Intel Rigs Up: P4 Series with FSB800"

Indeed what your lab engineer discovered is true.

MSI does plan to use the said "logic circuit" or "dynamic overclocking" as a feature for this board.

The reason why we haven't announced it to anybody yet is because we are in the process of doing internal testing and applying for a patent.

This feature should be available for high-end MSI motherboard in our next BIOS release.

MSI's "dynamic overclocking" (the feature name still has not been finalized as of this writing) feature is exactly what your article described."The manufacturer has incorporated an ingenious logic circuit that increases the FSB speed between 6 and 8 percent while programs are running; the processor is automatically overclocked. However, FSB and CPU speeds are only increased when applications are started or when benchmark programs have finished - subject to CPU usage reaching close to 100 percent. And this is really interesting: the overclocking does not show up using conventional benchmarking utilities such as WCPUID, Intel CPU Frequency Display, CPUZ or SiSoft Sandra 2003. You need a very specialized tool to reveal the increased bus speed."

The reason why the overclocking does not show up on well-known utilities such as WCPUID, Intel Frequency Display, CPUZ and SiSoft Sandra 2003 is because these programs cannot detect dynamic overclocking. That is why you need a special developer's tool to detect dynamic overclocking in realtime.

We are also planning to incorporate this feature on MSI boards in the future as well, and we will offer an option to activate and deactivate this feature on these boards.

Once again, thanks for everything!!!

Best Regards,
MSI Marketing"

now you have the info, decide for yourself.

oh.. btw asus did the same thing in a following bios, so better not buy any of THEIR motherboards either

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Thermalrock
no you didnt read what i said. its not about my experience with msi. i wouldnt touch the crap msi makes witha ten foot pole. they built in a feature in their first canterwood board, i875 chipset in case you dont know, that slightly overclocked the cpu when under high load. this led to msi beating all other brands slightly. i found it highly unethical and didnt have a problem with msi before that but ever since.

and what do you think about bfg?

 

[Thermalrock]

they dont sell bfg here. i wouldnt know anything about them.

 

[RussianSensation]

Ahhhh .. the potential of 64-bit operating system....drool........don't forget 64-bit crawling OS bugs

Simply said:

A64 dominates in games, office/business apps, and general tasks like file decompression and compression (ie. WinRAR). For most users who user their computer for things other than video editing related, A64 system is a better system.

A64 3200+ for $175 on new 90nm process coupled with socket 939 motherboard will ensure all of the above against intel + 64-bit upgrading potential, and the utmost in upgrading path.

Massive Attack: Performance Tests of 14 Processors Priced at $200+
Anandtech's Review
Here you can estimate the performance of the A64

Choosing the Best CPU for Half-Life 2
here you can see just how well A64 3000+ 90nm does in one of the most cpu intensive games

Think about it, would I recommend an A64 cpu if I myself own an Intel if it wasn't worthy of my recommendation?