Intel IS superior

By Phantasm66 · 102 replies
Jul 18, 2004
  1. BrownPaper

    BrownPaper TS Rookie Posts: 407

    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
  2. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,549

    Agreed. ;)
  3. Scotty-B

    Scotty-B TS Rookie

  4. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,549

    We have our 'off' days too :=).
  5. SOB

    SOB Banned Posts: 119

    hey, scotty

    weren't you reported to have Alzheimers?
  6. Scotty-B

    Scotty-B TS Rookie

    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
  7. SOB

    SOB Banned Posts: 119

    drawing on

    some post star trek humor, ..........forgive me my son, long and prosper.
  8. vassil3427

    vassil3427 TS Rookie Posts: 640

    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...
  9. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 4,572   +65

    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. :)
  10. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,549

    All your P4 are belong to us. :D
  11. Vehementi

    Vehementi TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,704

    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.
  12. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

    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 -
  13. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

    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
  14. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

    Re: Re: traditional views

    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..).
  15. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

    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
  16. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

    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?
  17. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,549

    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.
  18. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

    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.
  19. Mictlantecuhtli

    Mictlantecuhtli TS Evangelist Posts: 4,345   +11

  20. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

    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

  21. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

  22. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,549

    Intel IS inferior ...



  23. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,549

    Shuttle unwraps 'fastest' SFF PC yet - The Register

  24. Godataloss

    Godataloss TS Rookie Posts: 482

    :slurp: lovely machine :approve:
  25. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

    If I hadn't already bought a 754 chip a while ago I would have been very interested in a SFF 939 box :D
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...