AMD - Intel Argument! Help me win!

L

Lord_Balance

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
198
I have a friend who wants a PC for web/video work. Her only complaint against AMD is that her father says INTEL is more efficient and the new P4's RUN COOLER than any AMD could and they are cheaper! She wont listen to just my argument (interspersed with bowel wrenching laughter) so I am looking for a mass attack. Can y'all help PROVE AMD is mo' bettah?

-/LB/-
 
Originally posted by Lord_Balance
they are cheaper!
Click to expand...
I want to know where he is buying his P4's. More efficient how? Heat? This is also not true.
 
P4s cheaper? The slowest P4 worth buying (2.4C) is almost as much as an A64, and a bit slower. P4s USED to run cooler, but not lately. The newest P4s, the E series, Prescott is it?, is very warm running.

Explain to her how the Athlon 64 3000/3200+ will run circles around similarly priced P4s and if the want cheaper, the cheapest P4s that are worth a crap are like $150 (2.4C) , wher you could purchase a $85 dollar Athlon XP (2500+) and run just as fast.
 
Hell you can get a PIII 1 gig for a 100$ at newegg, point them to that sweet deal!:eek:
 
For prices, show them the prices and they should be shocked unless they are so blinded that then can't compare numbers.

By efficiency, I'm not sure what type of argument that is. But it's a known fact that AMD has a higher IPC than P4 but P4 has SSE2 extensions to help P4 do better in multimedia benchmarks (generally speaking). If you friend is doing video editing, burning videos, etc. P4 should do better than AMD.

About P4s running cooler... Depends on which version as already stated the P4 E are hot, but I just had a friend who bought a P4 C 3.0 Ghz and using stock cooling getting 29C idle and 36 load. That seems pretty cool to me, when compared to my T-Bird.

Bottomline is, if your friend has moeny to spend let them waste their cash but most likely they'll buy a Dell anyways :p
 
Efficiency: AMD. This is blindly obvious by AMD's lower frequency compared to Intel and still acheiving the same performance. The formula for performance is IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) x frequency. AMD's can do 9 instructions per cycle, Intels can do 6. That's essentially 33% more efficiency for AMD per cycle. Most of this is due to the fact AMD's use a short and efficient pipeline, Intels use a long complex one which helps them ramp up clock speed quickly.

Cooler: About the same, depending on the chip. My P4 2.4C and XP 2800+ run around the same temp. Besides, temp doesn't really matter for most people a whole lot unless it's too high or overheating. Neither one would if you have a decent cooling solution.

Cheaper: AMD. This is way to obvious using any retailer to even explain.
 
AMD64 also has SSE2 extensions, and the newer mobile steeping has SSE3 (which is coming to desktop soon). Althouhg SSE3 is useless for now, because there aren't any programs that use those instructions.
 
Originally posted by M4d-K10wN
AMD64 also has SSE2 extensions, and the newer mobile steeping has SSE3 (which is coming to desktop soon). Althouhg SSE3 is useless for now, because there aren't any programs that use those instructions.
Click to expand...

So? Prescotts already have SSE3 extensions and Northwoods have SSE2.

On the cost factor, AMD is almost always cheaper. Unless your friend's first name is Michael and their last name is Dell. Just look at the 2.4C compared the 2500+. Even the $733 FX-53 is much cheaper than and outperforms the $999 3.4EE.

On the temp factor, show your friend some Prescott power specs. If that doesn't convince her, let her buy a Prescott and see how cool it runs with the stock heatsink/fan. Many reviews of the FX-53 stated that it runs very cool, and helps the oc'ing a lot. DON'T SHOW HER A PALOMINO!

Simply, AMD gives more bang for the buck. And as of now, AMD wears the performance crown.
 
AMD has worn the performance crown many times before. They made the best 286 386 and 486. K5 and K6 were oddballs.
 
Well if she's doing video work, then a P4 is probably going to suit her better even though her fathers arguments are wrong.
 
Originally posted by tdg
The formula for performance is IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) x frequency. AMD's can do 9 instructions per cycle, Intels can do 6. That's essentially 33% more efficiency for AMD per cycle. Most of this is due to the fact AMD's use a short and efficient pipeline, Intels use a long complex one which helps them ramp up clock speed quickly.
Click to expand...

I feel the need to correct this point a bit.
9 and 6 are the number of u-ops (micro operations) that the decoder (for amd's case) or the trace cache (P4's case) can dispatch per clock cycle. It is not their IPC, it is not even how many instructions can be executed by the backside of the die (unless you feel the need to include address generation as instructions).
And even there, the conditions under which K7/K8 can dispatch a full complement of u ops is very specific, a certain number of dicrect path instructions (ones that can be broken into a single u op), and a certian number of vector path instructions (complex instructions requiring multiple u ops each.
Athlon does have a much higher IPC, but it's not specificly because of u op bandwith. It's just a direct result of the concpet of high IPC, high parallelism.


Originally posted by M4d-K10wN
AMD has worn the performance crown many times before. They made the best 286 386 and 486. K5 and K6 were oddballs.
Click to expand...

How can 286 and 386 have had the performance crown for AMD when they were Intel's chips produced under liscense by AMD. (expcet those 386 clones that AMD produced without liscense, which of course got them sued).
486 was the first time AMD did any designing on x86, and then it was still only reworking the micro code architecture. (and only because the courts ruled that was intel's intellectual property and AMD had to stop using the 386 micro code)

K5 and K6 weren't oddballs, they were AMD learning to walk.
 
Originally posted by Zlash
Hell you can get a PIII 1 gig for a 100$ at newegg, point them to that sweet deal!:eek:
Click to expand...

ROFL!

WHOA! 1Gigamahertz fo teh Powr!
 
Originally posted by Lord_Balance
I have a friend who wants a PC for web/video work. Her only complaint against AMD is that her father says INTEL is more efficient and the new P4's RUN COOLER than any AMD could and they are cheaper! She wont listen to just my argument (interspersed with bowel wrenching laughter) so I am looking for a mass attack. Can y'all help PROVE AMD is mo' bettah?

-/LB/-
Click to expand...

I think you should kick him in the balls. Really hard. People that dumb should not reproduce.

I guess this technique doesn't really 'prove' anything, but you will feel better!:p
 
Originally posted by FreiDOg
I feel the need to correct this point a bit.
9 and 6 are the number of u-ops (micro operations) that the decoder (for amd's case) or the trace cache (P4's case) can dispatch per clock cycle. It is not their IPC, it is not even how many instructions can be executed by the backside of the die (unless you feel the need to include address generation as instructions).
And even there, the conditions under which K7/K8 can dispatch a full complement of u ops is very specific, a certain number of dicrect path instructions (ones that can be broken into a single u op), and a certian number of vector path instructions (complex instructions requiring multiple u ops each.
Athlon does have a much higher IPC, but it's not specificly because of u op bandwith. It's just a direct result of the concpet of high IPC, high parallelism.




How can 286 and 386 have had the performance crown for AMD when they were Intel's chips produced under liscense by AMD. (expcet those 386 clones that AMD produced without liscense, which of course got them sued).
486 was the first time AMD did any designing on x86, and then it was still only reworking the micro code architecture. (and only because the courts ruled that was intel's intellectual property and AMD had to stop using the 386 micro code)

K5 and K6 weren't oddballs, they were AMD learning to walk.
Click to expand...

As usual sir, you are always informative.

;)
 
Originally posted by FreiDOg

How can 286 and 386 have had the performance crown for AMD when they were Intel's chips produced under liscense by AMD. (expcet those 386 clones that AMD produced without liscense, which of course got them sued).
486 was the first time AMD did any designing on x86, and then it was still only reworking the micro code architecture. (and only because the courts ruled that was intel's intellectual property and AMD had to stop using the 386 micro code)

K5 and K6 weren't oddballs, they were AMD learning to walk.
Click to expand...

Very good point to bring out. If you didn't bring it out, I'm sure burningrave101 would've walked right in to argue about it. Anyways, AMD pretty much copied Intel for awhile. But if I seem to remember correctly, AMD produced the 286 and 386 much cheaper than Intel did. Or something like that. Or maybe it was later on. Ok I'll stop talking now.
 
Originally posted by leukotriene
Bah, it's a WinChip world, Intel and AMD just live in it ;)
Click to expand...

What if Microsoft uses PowerPC chips next? That would be interesting since the Xbox Next will use an IBM PowerPC chip. Can IBM still be bitter about losing their monopoly of the PC market? :eek:

WinIBM coming right up :p
 
I haven't even heard of intel back in the 286 times. IBM, you mean??? And the boards (there was no way to remove the CPU on most of them, lol) performed better than most other ones.
 
Originally posted by M4d-K10wN
I haven't even heard of intel back in the 286 times. IBM, you mean???
Click to expand...


No. I mean Intel.
You might want to take a trip down memory lane to familarize yourself with their controbutions, they were rather big and important 'back then.'
 
Originally posted by FreiDOg
No. I mean Intel.
You might want to take a trip down memory lane to familarize yourself with their controbutions, they were rather big and important 'back then.'
Click to expand...

You sir are very correct. If it was all still IBM we would probably be a 286 now, instead of where we are at. IBM the Big Blue Dinosaur.
 
MY BRAIN IS MELTING! I just started learning about CPUs, Motherboards, and RAM, because I am upgrading soon and need to know this stuff. I also wanted to figure out why a Pentium 4 CPU wouldn't work in the Motherboard (CUSL2-C) that my Coppermine Pentium 3 CPU currently runs in. Yes, I'm pathetic, but anyway. Which is better for gaming? AMD Athlon/XP or the Intel Celerons and Pentium 4s?

Here are my purchase options:
Intel Celeron 2.4 GHrz w/ 400 MHrz FSB and a 128 KB Cache
AMD Athlon XP 2600+ w/ 266 MHrz FSB and a 512 KB Cache

They both are the same price, so which is better for gaming? I'm talking about performance-needing games here, like Star Wars Galaxies, and Need for Speed Underground.
 
The Athlon XP there has a bigger cache and overclocks well, but I'd say find yourself an Athlon XP Mobile 2400+ or 2500+, it sports lower voltage requirements and much better cooling properties. Not to mension you can crank it up to 2.7ghz on air cooling :D
 
go with the AMD you get more bang for your buck + you can OC it :p and get more bang for the buck
 
Originally posted by Matt Welke
Here are my purchase options:
Intel Celeron 2.4 GHrz w/ 400 MHrz FSB and a 128 KB Cache
AMD Athlon XP 2600+ w/ 266 MHrz FSB and a 512 KB Cache
Click to expand...

LOL...ARE YOU SERIOUSLY COMPARING A CELERON TO AN ATHLON? A FREAKING DURON WOULD KICK THAT CELERON'S ASS BACK TO THE SCRAP HEAP IT BELONGS TO.

I'm not making fun of you or anything but, Celerons have sucked for a very long time. Period.
 
So has my income. $8 a week of guarenteed income with intervals of babysitting. I am 13! That explain why I am considering a Celeron? I have decided to go with an Athlon anyway though, AMD has a good gamer's history anyway. My purchase will be an Athlon XP Pro 2500+ with a 512KB cache @ 333MHrz FSB. Pretty decent if y'ask me. :)
 
Durons are almost impossibly better than celerons for much less money. Stay away from Celerons, seriously.
 
If any of ur gamers out there notice for amd and Intels...Amd's 64 series gets better game benchmarks with only single channel memory (WOW) this is because of the architecture. However, even a p4 2.8E gets better benchmarks in web/multimedia(also applies to most p4c models). This is because i dunno, lol im not much of an intel fan or have done any research. Prescott tho has a .9 micron process meaning smaller circuitry for faster computing which leads to HOTNAZZZZ! P4's dominate in multimedia. Amd kicks behind in Gaming(most stock settings).
-_-
-flipman
appology 4 gram gram grammars
 
If shes going to be doing Video Editing and encoding then its the P4C no questions about it!~But if its gaming then its the AMD64 chip that you want;)
The new A64 does run somewhat cooler than both the northwoods and prescHots:p
As for price the P4C are very well priced against the A64chips so no one wins the Budget crown there.
As for the Argument no one wins that really because it all depends on what you are USING the system for.;)
 
Originally posted by FreiDOg

How can 286 and 386 have had the performance crown for AMD when they were Intel's chips produced under liscense by AMD. (expcet those 386 clones that AMD produced without liscense, which of course got them sued).
486 was the first time AMD did any designing on x86, and then it was still only reworking the micro code architecture. (and only because the courts ruled that was intel's intellectual property and AMD had to stop using the 386 micro code)

K5 and K6 weren't oddballs, they were AMD learning to walk.
Click to expand...

What about the AMD 386-DX-40 and the whole POPAD bug/Industrial espionage fiasco? The DX-40 was faster than most of the clock doubled 486 chips that Intel was selling at the time. Intel also had no 386 clocked that high, and the DX-40 was a true 40Mhz chip. That's some pretty decent innovation.

I'll agree with you that Intel definately had the fastest 486 chips when the dust settled, but AMD definately took the 386 crown with that nasty little chip.

Oh, and anyone else remember a little chip called the AMD X5? I had one, and was one of my first overclocks. It was a triple clocked 486DX-133, and I got 166Mhz out of it. It was still slow as hell, considering it was pre-superscalar.

Matt.
 
Originally posted by fliptastic
Prescott tho has a .9 micron process meaning smaller circuitry for faster computing which leads to HOTNAZZZZ!
Click to expand...

No, usually a process shrink results in a decrease in power consumption. It's just that this time Intel is having heat problems with 90nm. Maybe it's the extra cache and other unaccounted for transistors.
 
Overally, how much better would an Athlon XP 2500+ be over a Pentium 3 750 MHrz Coppermine?
 
Overall? id say around 3.5x-4x faster? roughly?

here ya go
lol.jpg


My 2500 is only at 2.25ghz atm too ;)
 
If an Athlon 2600+ runs at 2.0 GHrz (roughly) then how is it possible that a 2500+ runs at 2.25 GHrz? You can overlclock Althons?
 
On AMD Xp's multiplier x FSB = core speed. Some athlons came out multiplier locked just like Intel lately. It is important for both brands to have the proper motherboard when Oc'ing. NVidia Motherboards are most definately the way to go as far as Athlon XP. Power supply and RAM also are important.

I went from 800 PIII to AXP 2500+, and love it.

If your friend is not playing games, then she might want HyperT. Intel is still quick for Web/Video, and doing two things at a time like word proccesing and surfing fell quicker on most Intels.

For the sake of man kind stay away from Celerons. Good lord, why do people still buy those?

Vette
 
I hate to bring this up, and I know that this is a Strictly AMD Forum, but a Mac G5 would spank any Intel Pentium System for video editing, but thats just me being naive. What do you think that they use for animations movies like Final Fantasy, and other animated movies? There is a lot of rendering in those movies, and Macs are pretty damn powerful and get the job done the FASTEST. (Im not supporting Macs, I am just saying from what I hear that's what everyone talks about)

Cheers!
 
Thanks for the benchmark! Really helped. So roughly 3.5-4x faster... Makes sense. I am also planning to get an NVidiaForce2 (or something liek that) motherboard, so you say those are good for Athlons?

Oh ya, and things like small businesses and schools buy Celerons. because they're cheap and get the job done. My school's computer lab uses Dell Optiplexes of something. They're slow, but atleast you can do stuff on em. I'm a gamer though, and it looks like AMD here I come!! Can't wait fo rthe upgrade!
 
One more thing before I go, how do you add more CPUs to your benchmark test in CPU-Z (or whatever program you use)? I wanna benchmark my old system to the new one once I upgrade, and maybe my brothers' too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top