Intel IS superior

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like my Intel P4 3.0C better than my Barton 2500+. It runs things faster like games between the two. I don't have a 3200+ to compare though.

I guess I am Phant's apprentice. "Intel IS Superior." Muhahahahahaha. :p
 
Sorry bud, I think you've mistaken me for someone else... I hope... I think... I can't remember... What were we talking about?

I'm brand - spanking - new here.:grinthumb
 
drawing on

some post star trek humor, ..........forgive me my son, .......live long and prosper.
 
As long as you have a mobo with built in heat protection you're fine, I had my fan get a cable stuck in it recently on my 3200+ and guess what. The pc shut down automatically....No harm done, took care of the jam, and bam, back up again...

Dollar for dollar AMD's are better...
 
Originally posted by vassil3427 Dollar for dollar AMD's are better...

Now that is the truth.

The P4 might be a better processor these days (That hasn't always been the case...), but you certainly get a better value with AMD Athlon XPs.

And that's the way the market has been for the most part.

Athlon 64s kill though. :)
 
I have both a Pentium 4 2.6C (i865PE, 512MB of RAM) and a Barton 2500+ (nForce2, 1.5GB of RAM). My P4 machine is my main machine (this one) and my Barton is my secondary (it's my server, multimedia workstation, etc.) for a reason. The 2.6C does kick the Barton's *** at everything I have yet run, at the cost that the 2.6C was almost twice as expensive (Barton - $100 [but I got it for free], 2.6C - $180). Looking back on purchasing this 2.6C, I think I should have waited and saved for a Athlon64.

Intel chips are definitely better designed. Simply look at how much higher Intel chips can overclock. My 2.6C can run over 1GHz above it's rated speed, and at 1.65V of Vcore (1.525V is the default). I've never tried to overclock the Barton, because it's in an SFF case (Antec Aria - best small case ever made IMO), so heat is definitely an issue. But what I've heard of AMD's overclocking ability isn't too great. The Mobile 2500+ is supposed to be decent because they're the cream of the crop of the Barton line. It seems like either Intel only puts out the cream of the crop with their processors, or maybe their engineering is so superior that there is no such thing as "the cream of the crop". I have no idea, but Intel chips are better designed, with the cost of money of course.
 
I like how you state that Intel chips are better designed and your only argument seems to be that they can overclock better. To be honest I wouldn't say better designed, I'd say differently designed. And if you are stating that as the only reason then you won't like the move to the new LGA 775 socket which severely limits overclocking. To be honest when I made my decision to move to an A64 platform I looked at many benchmarks. And apart from encoding work the benchmarks between A64 3200+ and 3.2 P4 either had nothing in it or the A64 had a slight lead. Now if they were confident at running at these higher clocked speeds why didn't Intel just release a higher clocked P4 (I know they now have a 3.4 and possibly higher out). Instead they release the Prescott which has very dubious performance records and doesn't seem to offer much at all and the Extreme Edition rediculously priced model. I don't really view either chip as better designed (since I'm not really informed enough about SOI, number of layers used and other techniques and internal mechanisms of the processors). Intel may clock high and have HT, but AMDs execute 4 instructions per clock whereas Intels do 1.

Interesting thread on another forum (with some very informed people) about the new intel socket - http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=158139
 
Originally posted by Phantasm66
yeah, and what's all of this "performance rating" stuff all about???

Like you have to call a chip a 3333 or something when it actually runs at 2600 Mhz ?!?!?!

AMD try to say that they call it 3333 because it runs like an Intel 3333, but the truth is, IS DOESN'T!!! It runs like a 2600 Mhz AMD chip! Which is exactly what is it.

I know where you are coming from. I bought AMD for years. I spend hundreds of £££ on them. I resented Intel for charging higher prices based on what I thought was purely cashing in on the Intel name.

Then I actually bought an Intel and realised that it was far, far better than anything I had used for years. The chip was newer and faster, yes, but I've handled a sufficient number of machines over the years to be able to take that into account.

Face it... Intel chips are better made. They run faster and they are more stable. They run cooler. They are better.

So you don't like the performance ratings. Pity intel does and it swapping to an even more stupid rating system with their latest range. The new 775 socket version of your 3Ghz P4 is a 530 P4, nice naming eh. Every comparison of processors I've seen has equivalent AMD and P4 winning different benchmarks, usually not by much and tied in the rest of them. And the value AMD has given to the enthusiast by having socket A for so long. People who bought a board several years ago may find that a bios update would allow them to run one of the latest set of XP bartons whereas Intel have switched sockets several times. I mean starting with the P4 Willamett(sp?) which on its socket was beaten soundly by the AMD offering was not "a better design" and we had to wait for the northwood before they had a higher clocking chip with better performance. I recently made the decision to buy an A64 chip purely because I mostly game on my home system and it proved to be the better solution in almost every gaming benchmark.

And continuing with better design, have you seen a benchmark between dual opteron servers and dual Xeon servers. The performance difference is laughable. And how many companies have switched to Opteron servers. Quite a few. Before coming out with a statement such as Intel have a better design based on AMDs lacking thermal protection (which they haven't for a couple of years now - from my memory) please read a bit more about what they have actually been doing. The 925 Intel solution is finally allowing overclocking in the same realm as the 875 so I stand corrected but thats nothing to write home about. If Intel had had this out at the time I was buying a system and if it wasn't twice the price of the Athlon64 solution and was deemed a better gaming platform, I would have purchased it. But they didn't and it wasn't so there :p
 
Re: Re: traditional views

Originally posted by Phantasm66
How can it be better design if they had to modify their design to correct the fact that it was crap? How can they design better if they have to release copper shims to help with the problem that the socket design is crap and outdated?

AMD socket design is old, awkward and crap. Intel design is newer and more versitile.

As I've already stated AMD socket A is old but has offered their customers an upgrade option for much longer than Intel who has switched sockets a couple of times due to poor performance (can anyone say socket 423?) or just on a whim (thats how it has looked to me ;) from my experience etc..).
 
Originally posted by Phantasm66
Intel embraces everything that's up to date.

They led us into ATX, even when AMD platforms were sticking to AT. It will be the same thing when BTX comes. Intel will march forward bolding, bring us PCI Express and all sort of other advances, whilst AMD will be bringing us yesterday's news with inferior chips that are aimed at gamers and students.

Last I saw there were both Intel and AMD BTX, PCI-e, DDR2 systems on display at the latest computer expos.

So a dual 32bit/64bit architecture with onboard memory controller and the Hypertransport bus is yesterday's news. Right. Thats why Intel have been looking to adopt AMD's x86-64 solution?

Athlon 64 key architectural features
 
Originally posted by Phantasm66
As I said in my above post, both machines I have (one Intel, one AMD) had their mainboards, memory, chips and graphics cards replaced at roughly the same time.

The Intel one is superior.

Post the specs of the two systems then.
Is one your 2100+ GA-7VAXP system?

And your comparing that with your 3.0Ghz based P4?
 
AMD were first to roadmap dual core chips (due 2005). They designed the K8 to be multi-core capable from the start, whereas Intel don't have a multi-core capable architecture yet. Intel has now copied, much as it has copied AMD64 instruction set. Also, BTX was announced by Intel to provide better cooling for its very hot chips, something AMD does not suffer from.
 
Originally posted by Nic
AMD were first to roadmap dual core chips (due 2005). They designed the K8 to be multi-core capable from the start, whereas Intel don't have a multi-core capable architecture yet. Intel has now copied, much as it has copied AMD64 instruction set. Also, BTX was announced by Intel to provide better cooling for its very hot chips, something AMD does not suffer from.


Have you seen the size of some of the HSFs for BTX LGA775 setups!!!!

And the layout could be slightly problematic since the tracks in the PCB between memory and socket could be slightly longer which has been suggested could hinder performance with the A64 memory controller.

To be honest I don't think of BTX as a great leap in motherboard layout/design, as Nic says its to aid with the cooling of ultra hot P4s and newer chips to come.
 
Originally posted by Arris
The 925 Intel solution is finally allowing overclocking in the same realm as the 875 so I stand corrected but thats nothing to write home about.
Anandtech: Intel 925X: Exploring the Overclock Lock
Our early testing confirms what you may have already heard -- Intel has limited the overclocking on their new chipset to about 10%. In looking at boards from smaller or less savvy board makers, you simply can't overclock beyond 10% over specification. We first became suspicious of a lock because some Prescott chips are already overclocking as much as 50% and higher on Intel 875P systems. Given that fact, why should these same cores suddenly be such poor overclockers on 925X/915? The answer, of course, is that the chipset is different and it handles overclocking differently.

When an attempt is made to boot at more than about 10% on a 925X or 915, the system simply reboots or shuts-down. We have not been able to get any kind of official explanation from Intel, but board makers tell us that Intel has added an overclocking limiter that resets a PLL and reboots or shuts down the system if overclock attempts are made at speeds over about 110% of specification.
 
Thats what I thought too Mict up until I checked my facts to see if there were any that did allow decent overclocking using the 915 or 925 chipsets, I guess I should have said that some motherboards using the 925 chipset are allowing decent overclocking... :D

From HardOCP.com:

ABIT AA8 DuraMAX Motherboard

The ABIT AA8 DuraMAX has stepped up to the plate and proven to be a very worthy enthusiast motherboard. The AA8 handles the high power Prescott CPUs much more eloquently than many of the aging i875 chipset motherboards we have seen that were technically not up to Prescott spec. The AA8 offers all the voltage tweaks you could possibly need on a i925X motherboard including CPU, Ram, and northbridge. To our knowledge this i925X chipset will be supporting Intel’s upcoming 1066MHz bus speed, so we thought 266MHz FSB was a sure thing although we have yet to see any 925X board that would do it. That aside, the ABIT AA8 hardly let us down and let us make 750MHz of extra power with very little effort whatsoever and we felt comfortable doing it. The ABIT AA8 was simply made to overclock.


The 2.8GHz Pentium 4 LGA775

This LGA775 CPU did not let us down either. We simply expected the CPU to do at least a 3.5GHz clock speed and it did not disappoint. Don’t think that it did it while cool though. The Prescott core has a reputation for being hotter than a 3-alarm blaze and the 2.8GHz LGA775 package is no different. While we did have a fairly successful overclock at 3.22GHz (14 X 230MHz), the Prescott core was a little warm while doing it. At idle, the CPU registered 115°F according to ABIT’s EQ software. Under a 100% we saw the core reach a boiling 140°F very easily.
 
From Anandtech S939 roundup:

It was difficult to resist being a little sensationalist in this 939 roundup and titling the review, "Who needs 925X?" That would have been a fair title, however, since you can clearly see that all of the Socket 939/FX53 boards completely outperform Intel's top 560 on the top 925X motherboard. Even Media Encoding, the last bastion of Intel dominance, has fallen in benchmarks with our new AutoGK benchmark.
 
Intel IS inferior ...


3263.png


3231.png


3238.png
 
Shuttle unwraps 'fastest' SFF PC yet - The Register

Small form-factor barebones PC maker Shuttle today introduced its first Socket 939 Athlon 64 model, claiming the new machine will out-perform the company's Intel-oriented offerings ...

... The company also reckons it's the fastest: "When matched with an AMD Athlon 64 processor [the SN95G5] is the best-performing SFF PC in the world today - hands down," boasted Shuttle's enthusiastic chairman, David Yu. And that, no doubt, includes Shuttle's own Intel offerings.
 
If I hadn't already bought a 754 chip a while ago I would have been very interested in a SFF 939 box :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back