AMD or INTEL ?

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:33:08 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>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.

Most business users I know find any current CPU plenty fast enough,
but they are HUGELY concerned about reliability and having their
system "just work".

Besides, while the AthlonXP 3000+ might match a P4 3.2GHz in Business
Winstone 2004, the P4 comes out on top far more often than not. It's
definitely the faster of the two chips, though whether it's worth the
extra $160 is another matter altogether.

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

For many applications it is a VERY good buy, particularly in the mid
price range. Until quite recently AMD has had rather big hole beyond
their AthlonXP 2700+ or 2800+. The prices tend to go up rather
rapidly when buying the 3000+ or 3200+ (assuming you are avoiding the
remarked chips sold by Pricewatch bottom-feeders), while those chips
just don't offer the performance of Intel's P4 2.8C or 3.0C processors
in the same price bracket.

The Athlon64 2800+ and 3000+ have come down in price somewhat to fill
in this hole, though motherboards are still a bit of a problem here.

In the end though, it comes down to what you're looking to do with the
system. If your main interest in the system is DivX encoding:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=7

Or 3D rendering:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=11

Than you would be better served by buying an Intel chip. Same goes
for certain games. On the other hand, AMD's chips perform better for
compiling code, some business applications and other games.

In short, buy what *YOU* need, not what someone else needs.

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

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:48:04 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>JK wrote:
>> 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.

Almost all laptops are built outside of North America and now most
low-end DESKTOPS are built overseas as well. I know that pretty much
every Compaq Presario and HP Pavilion system sold these days is being
assembled in China. Same probably goes for Dell Dimension systems as
well, though the higher-end business systems are still being produced
in the US for the most part.

I don't know quite how AMD/Intel count the sales of those processors.
The processors are being shipped overseas for assembly in systems, but
the complete units are being shipped back to North America (and
Europe, and everywhere else that they are sold) for final sale.

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

 

[jk]

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

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:33:08 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >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.
>
> Most business users I know find any current CPU plenty fast enough,
> but they are HUGELY concerned about reliability and having their
> system "just work".

Do you think paying more means higher reliability?

>
>
> Besides, while the AthlonXP 3000+ might match a P4 3.2GHz in Business
> Winstone 2004, the P4 comes out on top far more often than not.

Not running business software. That is what business users run.

> It's
> definitely the faster of the two chips,

Not running business software.

> though whether it's worth the
> extra $160 is another matter altogether.
>
> >> Which is probably the reason you will begin to see more people asking
> >> questions about Intels in homebuilt newsgroups
> >
> >You are dreaming
>
> For many applications it is a VERY good buy, particularly in the mid
> price range. Until quite recently AMD has had rather big hole beyond
> their AthlonXP 2700+ or 2800+. The prices tend to go up rather
> rapidly when buying the 3000+ or 3200+ (assuming you are avoiding the
> remarked chips sold by Pricewatch bottom-feeders), while those chips
> just don't offer the performance of Intel's P4 2.8C or 3.0C processors
> in the same price bracket.

The $100 XP3000+ beats the $260 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone
2004.

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

Many people who buy a pc never run games or video editing. They run business
software.

>
>
> The Athlon64 2800+ and 3000+ have come down in price somewhat to fill
> in this hole, though motherboards are still a bit of a problem here.

A problem? Good motherboards for an Athlon XP can be bought for around $50.

>
>
> In the end though, it comes down to what you're looking to do with the
> system. If your main interest in the system is DivX encoding:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=7

What percentage of pc users do that? Of those, how many spend more
than a quarter of their pc usage doing that? For that small number of people,

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=4

>
>
> Or 3D rendering:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=11

See above.

>
>
> Than you would be better served by buying an Intel chip.

Very funny.

> Same goes
> for certain games.

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

> On the other hand, AMD's chips perform better for
> compiling code, some business applications and other games.
>
> In short, buy what *YOU* need, not what someone else needs.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

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

Tony Hill wrote:
> I don't know quite how AMD/Intel count the sales of those processors.
> The processors are being shipped overseas for assembly in systems, but
> the complete units are being shipped back to North America (and
> Europe, and everywhere else that they are sold) for final sale.

They count these as sales to the overseas. Afterall, they don't care where
the finally assembled PC is going to end up, they just care where they
themselves are shipping their own processors.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

Codemutant wrote:
> 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?

I had a similar but opposite experience a couple of months back. I was out
of town visiting family. I'd been visiting a cousin with a Pentium 4 1.5Ghz,
and my brother-in-law with a 1.3Ghz Athlon XP. I was playing Age of Empires
on both machines, and to my astonishment, it just dragged on the P4, despite
the fact that the P4 had 200Mhz extra over the Athlon (of course in AMD
parlance, that 1.3Ghz would be rated a 1500+, so maybe the two computers
were equal). Similar amounts of RAM, 256MB, but the P4 also had DDR, whereas
the Athlon only had SDR. Despite these handicaps, the P4 still managed to
stink it up.

When I say it "dragged" on the P4, I mean literally, it couldn't keep up
with real-time game play on the P4, whereas the Athlon did it without a
whimper.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Ed]

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

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:41:51 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>When I say it "dragged" on the P4, I mean literally, it couldn't keep up
>with real-time game play on the P4, whereas the Athlon did it without a
>whimper.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

Maybe the P4 was running too hot and throttling back the clock speed?

My brother has a P4 2.2GHz 400fsb DDR system, I was never impressed with
it, even his old Gateway AMD 1.2GHz with PC-133 beats it in some
benchmarks!

Ed

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:51:44 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

>Do you think paying more means higher reliability?

Intel sends a replacement processor to the doorstep within a week or
two. AMD... you'll be lucky to hear anything after a month or two.

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

 

[jk]

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

The little lost angel wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:51:44 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Do you think paying more means higher reliability?
>
> Intel sends a replacement processor to the doorstep within a week or
> two. AMD... you'll be lucky to hear anything after a month or two.

Very funny. Why don't you post some links with your assertions?
How often do processors fail?

>
>
> --
> L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
> If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
> Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
> If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
> But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

 

[Guest]

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

The little lost angel wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:51:44 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you think paying more means higher reliability?
>
> Intel sends a replacement processor to the doorstep within a week or
> two. AMD... you'll be lucky to hear anything after a month or two.

More relevant if you're talking about servers than PCs. But in a server
environment you have the OEMs stocking replacement parts as part of their
service contract with a customer, so you should actually get a replacement
part in a matter of a few hours.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

JK wrote:
> Very funny. Why don't you post some links with your assertions?
> How often do processors fail?

They fail quite a lot, if you're in a server environment.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

Ed wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:41:51 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
> wrote:
>
>> When I say it "dragged" on the P4, I mean literally, it couldn't
>> keep up with real-time game play on the P4, whereas the Athlon did
>> it without a whimper.
>
> Maybe the P4 was running too hot and throttling back the clock speed?
>
> My brother has a P4 2.2GHz 400fsb DDR system, I was never impressed
> with it, even his old Gateway AMD 1.2GHz with PC-133 beats it in some
> benchmarks!

No idea what was going on there. Didn't care either. I was just showing to
the original poster, Codemorpher (or something), that the impressions are
entirely subjective, and these sort of things can only be indications of
each case-by-case.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:51:44 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>Tony Hill wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:33:08 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Most business users I know find any current CPU plenty fast enough,
>> but they are HUGELY concerned about reliability and having their
>> system "just work".
>
>Do you think paying more means higher reliability?

?!?! do you think that paying less means higher reliability?!

The simple fact of the matter is that the most business users do NOT
buy PCs with raw performance as their #1 concern. They'll easily give
up 10% in performance for a more reliable machine any day, AND they'll
spend a little bit extra for it.

>> Besides, while the AthlonXP 3000+ might match a P4 3.2GHz in Business
>> Winstone 2004, the P4 comes out on top far more often than not.
>
>Not running business software. That is what business users run.

Even in business software, it just depends on what benchmark you look
at. From the very same review that you keep quoting, check out the
SYSMark Office Productivity benchmark:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=5


Here the P4 3.2GHz is a full 30% faster than the AthlonXP 3000+. In
your Business Winstone 2004 test the AthlonXP 3000+ is 1% faster than
the P4 3.2GHz. So which benchmark is more better and more applicable
to the applications that Joe business-user runs?! And why?

"There are lies, damned lies and benchmarks".

>> The Athlon64 2800+ and 3000+ have come down in price somewhat to fill
>> in this hole, though motherboards are still a bit of a problem here.
>
>A problem? Good motherboards for an Athlon XP can be bought for around $50.

And that will do a hell of a lot of good for the Athlon64 2800+ and
3000+ processors I mentioned. What do you plan on doing, just
ignoring the extra ~300 pins on the processor and hoping that it'll
work?!

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

 

[jk]

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

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:51:44 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >Tony Hill wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:33:08 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Most business users I know find any current CPU plenty fast enough,
> >> but they are HUGELY concerned about reliability and having their
> >> system "just work".
> >
> >Do you think paying more means higher reliability?
>
> ?!?! do you think that paying less means higher reliability?!

Quite often it does. One must do some research.

>
>
> The simple fact of the matter is that the most business users do NOT
> buy PCs with raw performance as their #1 concern. They'll easily give
> up 10% in performance for a more reliable machine any day, AND they'll
> spend a little bit extra for it.

What if they pay much more, and get less reliability?

>
>
> >> Besides, while the AthlonXP 3000+ might match a P4 3.2GHz in Business
> >> Winstone 2004, the P4 comes out on top far more often than not.
> >
> >Not running business software. That is what business users run.
>
> Even in business software, it just depends on what benchmark you look
> at. From the very same review that you keep quoting, check out the
> SYSMark Office Productivity benchmark:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=5

Sysmark is Bapco benchmark. They have Dragon Naturally Speaking,
and Winzip added to the mix. I don't know anyone who uses those.
Past versions of Sysmark have been very controversial to say the least.
Therefore imo Bapco benchmarks should be ignored.

http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010814_Intel_SysMark/010814_Intel_SysMark.htm

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5274
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/northwood/6.shtml

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/prescott/8.shtml

>
>
> Here the P4 3.2GHz is a full 30% faster than the AthlonXP 3000+. In
> your Business Winstone 2004 test the AthlonXP 3000+ is 1% faster than
> the P4 3.2GHz. So which benchmark is more better and more applicable
> to the applications that Joe business-user runs?! And why?

See above.

>
>
> "There are lies, damned lies and benchmarks".
>
> >> The Athlon64 2800+ and 3000+ have come down in price somewhat to fill
> >> in this hole, though motherboards are still a bit of a problem here.
> >
> >A problem? Good motherboards for an Athlon XP can be bought for around $50.
>
> And that will do a hell of a lot of good for the Athlon64 2800+ and
> 3000+ processors I mentioned. What do you plan on doing, just
> ignoring the extra ~300 pins on the processor and hoping that it'll
> work?!

?????

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

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:06:43 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Even in business software, it just depends on what benchmark you look
>> at. From the very same review that you keep quoting, check out the
>> SYSMark Office Productivity benchmark:
>>
>> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=5
>
>Sysmark is Bapco benchmark. They have Dragon Naturally Speaking,
>and Winzip added to the mix. I don't know anyone who uses those.
>Past versions of Sysmark have been very controversial to say the least.
>Therefore imo Bapco benchmarks should be ignored.

Of course you want to ignore it because it doesn't show AMD processors
as the end-all, be-all processor. We've all read enough of your posts
to know that you're totally incapable of making an informed opinion
based on facts.

However, for anyone else reading this thread, SYSMark is every bit as
valid as Business Winstone.

>> >> The Athlon64 2800+ and 3000+ have come down in price somewhat to fill
>> >> in this hole, though motherboards are still a bit of a problem here.
>> >
>> >A problem? Good motherboards for an Athlon XP can be bought for around $50.
>>
>> And that will do a hell of a lot of good for the Athlon64 2800+ and
>> 3000+ processors I mentioned. What do you plan on doing, just
>> ignoring the extra ~300 pins on the processor and hoping that it'll
>> work?!
>
>?????

I said that finding motherboards for an Athlon64 was tough and you
pointed out that there are cheap boards for the AthlonXP, which really
doesn't help at all, given that the two processors require totally
different motherboards.

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

 

[jk]

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

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:06:43 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Even in business software, it just depends on what benchmark you look
> >> at. From the very same review that you keep quoting, check out the
> >> SYSMark Office Productivity benchmark:
> >>
> >> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=5
> >
> >Sysmark is Bapco benchmark. They have Dragon Naturally Speaking,
> >and Winzip added to the mix. I don't know anyone who uses those.
> >Past versions of Sysmark have been very controversial to say the least.
> >Therefore imo Bapco benchmarks should be ignored.
>
> Of course you want to ignore it because it doesn't show AMD processors
> as the end-all, be-all processor.

Did you read these articles? I guess not.

http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010814_Intel_SysMark/010814_Intel_SysMark.htm

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5274
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/northwood/6.shtml
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/prescott/8.shtml


> We've all read enough of your posts
> to know that you're totally incapable of making an informed opinion
> based on facts.



>
>
> However, for anyone else reading this thread, SYSMark is every bit as
> valid as Business Winstone.

Valid? What percentage of business users make use of Dragon Naturally Speaking and
Winzip?



>
>
> >> >> The Athlon64 2800+ and 3000+ have come down in price somewhat to fill
> >> >> in this hole, though motherboards are still a bit of a problem here.
> >> >
> >> >A problem? Good motherboards for an Athlon XP can be bought for around $50.
> >>
> >> And that will do a hell of a lot of good for the Athlon64 2800+ and
> >> 3000+ processors I mentioned. What do you plan on doing, just
> >> ignoring the extra ~300 pins on the processor and hoping that it'll
> >> work?!
> >
> >?????
>
> I said that finding motherboards for an Athlon64 was tough

Not tough. There are a number of Athlon 64 socket 754 motherboards
at around $80 or so.

> and you
> pointed out that there are cheap boards for the AthlonXP, which really
> doesn't help at all, given that the two processors require totally
> different motherboards.

The vast majority of business users don't need an Athlon 64. An Athlon XP3000+
would be more than enough for them.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Bitstring <41257C84.945D0E2@netscape.net>, from the wonderful person JK
<JK9821@netscape.net> said
<snip>
>The vast majority of business users don't need an Athlon 64. An Athlon XP3000+
>would be more than enough for them.

=Nobody= 'needs' an Athlon 64 (like they need air, water, etc.). I'd
have to allow it's =nice= for some people though.

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

 

[Guest]

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> Valid? What percentage of business users make use of
> Dragon Naturally Speaking and Winzip?

Please! Bosses are Dragons Naturally Speaking -- fire

OTOH, Winzip is _heavily_ used. At work, all email attachments
are translucently [de]compressed. Even PDFs, but intelligence
should not be expected from people who eagerly submit to and
inflict MS-[in]Active Directory. They have other motives. S&M?

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

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

JK wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Valid? What percentage of business users make use of Dragon Naturally Speaking and
> Winzip?

Why should 'average business usage' be of any concern for my choice? My
computing is mostly numerical processing, sometimes using the Intel Math kernel
Library, optimised for Intel.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:22:28 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:06:43 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> Even in business software, it just depends on what benchmark you look
>> >> at. From the very same review that you keep quoting, check out the
>> >> SYSMark Office Productivity benchmark:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=5
>> >
>> >Sysmark is Bapco benchmark. They have Dragon Naturally Speaking,
>> >and Winzip added to the mix. I don't know anyone who uses those.
>> >Past versions of Sysmark have been very controversial to say the least.
>> >Therefore imo Bapco benchmarks should be ignored.
>>
>> Of course you want to ignore it because it doesn't show AMD processors
>> as the end-all, be-all processor.
>
>Did you read these articles? I guess not.
>
>http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010814_Intel_SysMark/010814_Intel_SysMark.htm

Hmm, dated from 3 years ago, before AMD joined BAPco.

>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5274

2 years old, also from before AMD joined BAPco.

>http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/northwood/6.shtml

2 and a half years old on this one.

>http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/prescott/8.shtml

Uhh.. ok.. that lists what is included in the benchmark, though if
anyone wanted to know that they could just go to:

http://www.bapco.com/products/sysmark2004/applications.html

>> We've all read enough of your posts
>> to know that you're totally incapable of making an informed opinion
>> based on facts.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> However, for anyone else reading this thread, SYSMark is every bit as
>> valid as Business Winstone.
>
>Valid? What percentage of business users make use of Dragon Naturally Speaking and
>Winzip?

Damn near every business user I know of makes use of Winzip. I
suppose you could make an argument that Dragon Naturally Speaking
isn't widely used, and in fact that's the one of the few differences
between BAPco SYSMark 2004 and Business Winstone 2004. Here are the
lists of applications in each test:

BAPco SYSMark 2004 Office Productivity

Adobe® Acrobat® 5.0.5
Microsoft® Access 2002
Microsoft® Excel 2002
Microsoft® Internet Explorer 6
Microsoft® Outlook® 2002
Microsoft® PowerPoint® 2002
Microsoft® Word 2002
Network Associates® McAfee® VirusScan® 7.0
ScanSoft® Dragon Naturally Speaking® 6 Preferred
WinZip Computing WinZip® 8.1


Veritest Business Winstone 2004

Microsoft Access 2002
Microsoft Excel 2002
Microsoft FrontPage 2002
Microsoft Outlook 2002
Microsoft PowerPoint 2002
Microsoft Project 2002
Microsoft Word 2002
Norton AntiVirus Professional Edition 2003
WinZip 8.1


One thing I find odd is that Business Winstone does NOT include
Internet Explorer, possibly the most widely used application among
many "business" users these days (web-enabled applications seems to be
the technology that gets PHBs all excited these days). However I
think you'll notice that the difference between these apps is rather
small.

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

 

[jk]

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

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> JK wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > Valid? What percentage of business users make use of Dragon Naturally Speaking and
> > Winzip?
>
> Why should 'average business usage' be of any concern for my choice? My
> computing is mostly numerical processing,

You bought a Pentium 4 to do numerical processing? An Athlon XP2200+
beats a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz by a large margin in CPU Math Mark 3.0.


http://www.activewin.com/reviews/hardware/processors/intel/p428ghz/benchs.shtml

> sometimes using the Intel Math kernel
> Library, optimised for Intel.

 

[Guest]

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.

If you look at the computation orientated benchmarks you will notice
that the P4 core is great at signal processing style workloads. Audio/
video encoding and SETI are signal processing workloads by definition.
By contrast the K7 core is better suited for workloads that tend to do
lots of branches and the like (compiling, database, GUI code).

The approach should be to characterise your workload and then make
your choice rather than making your choice then hacking your workload
to fit. In the case of workloads most PCs run, I suspect that the K7/K8
cores are a far better fit. OTOH if I was planning on encoding video
or audio 24x7 I would probably go for a P4 core.

Cheers,
Rupert

 

[Guest]

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

JK wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
> > JK wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> > >
> > > Valid? What percentage of business users make use of Dragon Naturally Speaking and
> > > Winzip?
> >
> > Why should 'average business usage' be of any concern for my choice? My
> > computing is mostly numerical processing,
>
> You bought a Pentium 4 to do numerical processing? An Athlon XP2200+
> beats a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz by a large margin in CPU Math Mark 3.0.
>
> http://www.activewin.com/reviews/hardware/processors/intel/p428ghz/benchs.shtml

But not if you look at the MFLOP rates. I suspects that your Math Marks are
biased towards local operations that are locally dependent on each other, such
as e.g. iteration of pi, and not for vector and matrix operations.

And why is the AMD system fitted with 512MB when the P4 system 'only' has
256 MB? This memory may seem sufficient, but it all depends on OS system
& software overheads & autoload, so it's not very clever to use different
memory sizes.

 

[jk]

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

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> JK wrote:
> >
> > Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> >
> > > JK wrote:
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Valid? What percentage of business users make use of Dragon Naturally Speaking and
> > > > Winzip?
> > >
> > > Why should 'average business usage' be of any concern for my choice? My
> > > computing is mostly numerical processing,
> >
> > You bought a Pentium 4 to do numerical processing? An Athlon XP2200+
> > beats a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz by a large margin in CPU Math Mark 3.0.
> >
> > http://www.activewin.com/reviews/hardware/processors/intel/p428ghz/benchs.shtml
>
> But not if you look at the MFLOP rates. I suspects that your Math Marks are
> biased towards local operations that are locally dependent on each other, such
> as e.g. iteration of pi, and not for vector and matrix operations.
>
> And why is the AMD system fitted with 512MB when the P4 system 'only' has
> 256 MB?

That is a valid criticism. That is an old article(notice the use of RDRAM for the p4)
so the use of twice as much ram for the Athlon XP was to probably to compensate for the very
high RD ram cost. The test should have been repeated with equal ram sizes when DDR ram
motherboards for the P4 became available.

> is memory may seem sufficient, but it all depends on OS system
> & software overheads & autoload, so it's not very clever to use different
> memory sizes.

 

[Guest]

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

Rupert Pigott wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> If you look at the computation orientated benchmarks you will notice
> that the P4 core is great at signal processing style workloads. Audio/
> video encoding and SETI are signal processing workloads by definition.
> By contrast the K7 core is better suited for workloads that tend to do
> lots of branches and the like (compiling, database, GUI code).
>
> The approach should be to characterise your workload and then make
> your choice rather than making your choice then hacking your workload
> to fit. In the case of workloads most PCs run, I suspect that the K7/K8
> cores are a far better fit. OTOH if I was planning on encoding video
> or audio 24x7 I would probably go for a P4 core.
>

Because of the attention the SPEC benchmarks get and because Intel has
its own compiler, I'm guessing we know what P4 is capable of against
fixed source.

I'm less certain that we really know how well the strategy would work if
code were always tuned against a P4 pipeline at either the source or the
assembly language level.

A different way of characterizing workloads is how much work and how
much specificity you are going to put into the code, and K7 is generally
more friendly to nai-ve code than NetBurst. If you're willing to
settle on Intel and to use its compilers and tools like Vtune and the
Math Kernel Library, then you needn't always be writing code that is
hobbled for NetBurst, but you may be writing code that is less than
optimal for AMD.

That's a prospect that doesn't please advocates of AMD. Writing and
tuning for your own closed universe? AMD if you are writing nai-ve code,
Intel maybe if you are writing code that can make good use of Intel
productivity tools and are willing to fiddle. Writing for the world at
large? I don't know that I've ever seen a discussion of how commercial
developers have really dealt with not knowing whether they are writing
for K7 or P4, but I would assume it's safer to assume you are writing
for P4.

RM

 

[Guest]

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

JK wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
> > JK wrote:
> > >
> > > Johannes H Andersen wrote:
[...]
> >
> > But not if you look at the MFLOP rates. I suspects that your Math Marks are
> > biased towards local operations that are locally dependent on each other, such
> > as e.g. iteration of pi, and not for vector and matrix operations.
> >
> > And why is the AMD system fitted with 512MB when the P4 system 'only' has
> > 256 MB?
>
> That is a valid criticism. That is an old article(notice the use of RDRAM for the p4)
> so the use of twice as much ram for the Athlon XP was to probably to compensate for the very
> high RD ram cost. The test should have been repeated with equal ram sizes when DDR ram
> motherboards for the P4 became available.

And PC1066 RDRAM doesn't seem very fast. Luckily I avoided this era from Intel;
the 820 chipset cos Intel ~$250M or so? Just shows that chip making isn't always
plain sailing.