AMD vs Intel with DDR/DDR2

[bhendin]

I want a new system and am pretty much set on an X2/Opteron system as most of the benchmarks seem to beat the pants off of everything Intel has (except the EE in some cases).

In any event, usually when comparing system with different processors, everything else should be equal (where possible). Obviously the MoBo and chipset can't be the same, but what about RAM?

The intel chipsets support DDR2, were the tests done on system with DDR to compare to the AMD systems?

How disparate would the results be with Intel and DDR2? Negligible?

Had anyone seen any tests that take this into account?

Thanks

 

[julius]

all the dc intel review systems use ddr2 cause the 945 and 955 chipsets dont even support ddr, and in any case amd gets better performance out of ddr1

 

[DRAGoNX]

I want a new system and am pretty much set on an X2/Opteron system as most of the benchmarks seem to beat the pants off of everything Intel has (except the EE in some cases).

In any event, usually when comparing system with different processors, everything else should be equal (where possible). Obviously the MoBo and chipset can't be the same, but what about RAM?

The intel chipsets support DDR2, were the tests done on system with DDR to compare to the AMD systems?

How disparate would the results be with Intel and DDR2? Negligible?

Had anyone seen any tests that take this into account?

Thanks

This is a flamebait (sort of indirectly) and has been discussed before.
AMD is just plain better right now. Intels processors are slower than AMD's, create more heat, and the netburst architechture isn't the way of the future.

Anyone who says Intel is better than AMD AT THE MOMENT is a Intel fanboy, so get AMD. I don't want do cause a war hear so thats just my opinion AT THE MOMENT. (NOTICE I SAID AT THE MOMENT!!!)

Now that thats out of the way they both offer equal performance because both architechtures are optimized for each of the ram types. AMD is optimized for DDR1 since it has that nice on board memory controller, and DDR1 has some nice low timings.
Intel uses the northbridge of the mobo to communcate with the ram using the old fasion FSB. DDR2 may theoritically have more bandwith than ddr1 buy ddr2 has lower lantencies and all ddr2 mobos are for intel which doesn't really use the full extent of the ddr2's bandwith.

 

[Crashman]

You can read my Crucial Ballistix DDR2 review at SysOpt and see that I've compared it to DDR1. DDR2, at CAS3 or lower and 533MHz data rate or higher, beats DDR1 when used with the P4. Therefore DDR2 is the choice for best Intel platform performance. So when AMD beats Intel while AMD is using DDR1, it's a good win, both platforms are best optimised with Intel using low-latency DDR2 and AMD using low-latency DDR1.

The latest chipsets for the P4 don't even support DDR1 any longer, so your best hope is to compare similarly priced performance RAM optimised for each platform.

 

[mpasternak]

INTEL is better than AMD at the moment



at warming my coffee cup and heating my room when i need a portable heater. I just plug in the motherboard, take off the FAN and run it in open air for about 30 minutes. my room is a nice toasty temp

 

[DRAGoNX]

INTEL is better than AMD at the moment



at warming my coffee cup and heating my room when i need a portable heater. I just plug in the motherboard, take off the FAN and run it in open air for about 30 minutes. my room is a nice toasty temp

hehe...

 

[Max_C]

Before anyone calls me an Intel fanboy, I just want to make it clear that I just got my brand new Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego last night and am eagerly awaiting the new case to arrive to build my new baby.

That being said, I just want to share my recent findings with the group. Whether Intel or AMD is best totally depends on what you plan to do with your PC. As this CPU chart clearly shows:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/

AMD did do better on average, but there were some things that Intel did come out stronger in. For example:

Page 36 shows Intel single core processors averaging much better than AMD single cores on MPEG2 rendering. Same thing on page 35 for DiVX encoding.

Page 49 shows that among single core processors, Intel completely dominated the CPU Wheatstone MIPS test. (not that that directly translates into real-world uses.)

Page 50 shows similar results for PCMark05.

In general what I've seen is that the Intel processors seem to fair better for video and 3D rendering while the AMD processors are far superior for gaming and audio. What was difficult to interpret was which processors gave me the most bang for my buck. For example, the Pentium 4 550 Prescott 3.4GHz outperformed my 3700+ San Diego on a few of the tests that I thought were important to what I wanted to do with my PC, but then checked the price and it was $50 more than my 3700+. When I compared processors that were in the same price range, I found that the Pentium 4 640 Prescott 3.20GHz was more in line with my budget and didn't do nearly as well in the tests as the 550 3.4GHz or my 3700+.

I wish I had found this chart before ordering my new parts. I probably would have opted for the 3800+ Venice or Clawhammer core instead of the 3700+ San Diego. They're roughly the same price, but I thought the extra L2 Cache would give me an advantage. This chart only shows an advantage with games, which I'm really not in to all that much. Oh well. I can always eBay it later and get something else.

Hope that helps someone. I just like to keep it real.

Max.

 

[pat]

Today's CPU are sufficient enough for most job. While benchmark show one or the other performing better in some apps, in real life, that don't really apply because we don't benchmark our computer, but we rather use them.

So, for normal operation, I can say that the performance between one cpu and another is almost nil and sure enough, not noticable.

That being said, what do I use to decide which CPU to have? Easy, how noisy this rig is going to be without any fancy cooling.

Right now, for power and heat, AMD is the clear winner.

Just like chipset. Which one is the best.. the one that has no fan on it ...

Just my opinion ..

 

[Max_C]

Today's CPU are sufficient enough for most job. While benchmark show one or the other performing better in some apps, in real life, that don't really apply because we don't benchmark our computer, but we rather use them.

So, for normal operation, I can say that the performance between one cpu and another is almost nil and sure enough, not noticable.

That being said, what do I use to decide which CPU to have? Easy, how noisy this rig is going to be without any fancy cooling.

Right now, for power and heat, AMD is the clear winner.

Just like chipset. Which one is the best.. the one that has no fan on it ...

Just my opinion ..

It's true that typical benchmarks are pretty useless, but the stats posted here on THG are very applicable to the real world. They time encoding a particular file to DiVX or chart the frames per second of today's popular games. A user such as myself can look at these real world numbers and make choices on which processor would be the best for their particular application. IOW, I'm building a gaming machine. Athlon 64 for sure. Or, I'm building a 3D rendering box... might want to consider the higher end Pentiums... all based on real world numbers provided by THG.

Just my $0.02.
Max.

 

[pat]

when I encode divx, or do some rendering, I just don't watch the entire process while doing it... like if I was benchmarking it. I may be on the Internet downloading a file, or printing one document, while watching another pieces of video.. So, even for exact machine, my time encoding won't be close to Tom's one.

Rendering is the same..

To me, dual core should be a nice performance booster, but I don't really encode or render often enough to make it worth it right now.. I don't stress my current core most of the time, I don't want to waste anotther core...

I'll be considering Intel when I'll be able to have it running full load for many hours, with all my fans running half speed in my small 17 inches high with 3 HDD running inside... I don't hear this thing and to me it is the most important thing

 

[DRAGoNX]

Today's CPU are sufficient enough for most job. While benchmark show one or the other performing better in some apps, in real life, that don't really apply because we don't benchmark our computer, but we rather use them.

So, for normal operation, I can say that the performance between one cpu and another is almost nil and sure enough, not noticable.

That being said, what do I use to decide which CPU to have? Easy, how noisy this rig is going to be without any fancy cooling.

Right now, for power and heat, AMD is the clear winner.

Just like chipset. Which one is the best.. the one that has no fan on it ...

Just my opinion ..

It's true that typical benchmarks are pretty useless, but the stats posted here on THG are very applicable to the real world. They time encoding a particular file to DiVX or chart the frames per second of today's popular games. A user such as myself can look at these real world numbers and make choices on which processor would be the best for their particular application. IOW, I'm building a gaming machine. Athlon 64 for sure. Or, I'm building a 3D rendering box... might want to consider the higher end Pentiums... all based on real world numbers provided by THG.

Just my $0.02.
Max.

Now, even with 3d rendering, the A64s/X2's/Opterons (at least the higher up ones) are king. I wouldn't really consider an Intel processor (unless it was a Pentium M).
What I mean is RIGHT NOW I wouldn't consider an Intel Processor, I have no idea about the future, but as long as intel uses netburst, amd has my vote.

 

[Max_C]

Now, even with 3d rendering, the A64s/X2's/Opterons (at least the higher up ones) are king. I wouldn't really consider an Intel processor (unless it was a Pentium M).
What I mean is RIGHT NOW I wouldn't consider an Intel Processor, I have no idea about the future, but as long as intel uses netburst, amd has my vote.

So, you're not a fanboy either. I think we're on the same page.

Max.

 

[pat]

Well, when it is common sense, it's not that hard to understand.. or is it?

 

[Max_C]

Well, when it is common sense, it's not that hard to understand.. or is it?

I dunno. I certainly don't think it's as clear cut as others seem to. Many people here seem to support AMD by a knee-jerk reaction... avoiding Intel at all costs. According to the link I posted, there are some things that Intel processors are just better at. What made it difficult for me was finding the processor that was the best at what I considered important for the money I had to spend. At times that didn't seem to make much sense at all.

But what's done is done. I'm now the proud owner of an Athlon 64 3700+ for better or for worse. :roll:

Max.

 

[buddadude]

just generalizing here, it really depends on what your going to use your PC for, if mostly gaming, then go with AMD (FX), if your doing everything else then go for Intel or AMD (Dual Core), in my experience though, pricewise, AMD beats Intel for price/performance ratio.

 

[DRAGoNX]

just generalizing here, it really depends on what your going to use your PC for, if mostly gaming, then go with AMD (FX), if your doing everything else then go for Intel or AMD (Dual Core), in my experience though, pricewise, AMD beats Intel for price/performance ratio.

I agree with that...just remove all the intel parts and all the parts with FX. FX isn't worth it, my Opty gets to FX-57 speeds, and it's dual core.

I would consider Intel for anything at the moment, even video encoding. Don't look at Toms Hardware's benchs. Then mean nothing and (sounding like a fanboy) give Intel WAY to much credit.

 

[the_guru]

Before anyone calls me an Intel fanboy, I just want to make it clear that I just got my brand new Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego last night and am eagerly awaiting the new case to arrive to build my new baby.

That being said, I just want to share my recent findings with the group. Whether Intel or AMD is best totally depends on what you plan to do with your PC. As this CPU chart clearly shows:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/

AMD did do better on average, but there were some things that Intel did come out stronger in. For example:

Page 36 shows Intel single core processors averaging much better than AMD single cores on MPEG2 rendering. Same thing on page 35 for DiVX encoding.

Page 49 shows that among single core processors, Intel completely dominated the CPU Wheatstone MIPS test. (not that that directly translates into real-world uses.)

Page 50 shows similar results for PCMark05.

In general what I've seen is that the Intel processors seem to fair better for video and 3D rendering while the AMD processors are far superior for gaming and audio. What was difficult to interpret was which processors gave me the most bang for my buck. For example, the Pentium 4 550 Prescott 3.4GHz outperformed my 3700+ San Diego on a few of the tests that I thought were important to what I wanted to do with my PC, but then checked the price and it was $50 more than my 3700+. When I compared processors that were in the same price range, I found that the Pentium 4 640 Prescott 3.20GHz was more in line with my budget and didn't do nearly as well in the tests as the 550 3.4GHz or my 3700+.

I wish I had found this chart before ordering my new parts. I probably would have opted for the 3800+ Venice or Clawhammer core instead of the 3700+ San Diego. They're roughly the same price, but I thought the extra L2 Cache would give me an advantage. This chart only shows an advantage with games, which I'm really not in to all that much. Oh well. I can always eBay it later and get something else.

Hope that helps someone. I just like to keep it real.

Max.

One thing you fail to mention is the OC ability of the AMD 64. I would say a 3700+ is a poor choice of CPU. I've built over a dozen systems (for friends an relatives) based on AMD64 CPUs, all has been 3000+ or 3200+ and I've overclocked them all to about 4000+ (on stock cooling). The AMD64 is so easy to OC compared to older CPUs. And if you compare the price-tag with Intel CPUs there will be a huge difference.

 

[Crashman]

eh? Hey Guru, I've got a P4 530 here that does 3.8GHz, a 27% overclock. My 3200+ can't go over 25% overclock.

 

[endyen]

Information please.
Is that P4 on stock cooling? Will it run @ 3.8 @ 100%, 24/7?

 

[Crashman]

Yes, it's using the Sony supplied reference design cooler. It's actually 24/7 stable at 3.73GHz using that cooler, but it can run for an hour or so gaming at 3.8.

My A64 3200+ is 24/7 stable at 2.43GHz and can run various lengths of time (long enough for most gaming) at 2.49GHz.

 

[endyen]

Is that a venice core? Mine will run F@H 24/7 @ 2.5, will game for 1 hr+ @ 2.65 on stock cooling.
Does the 530 throttle?

 

[Crashman]

The 530 runs cool enough, the fan does its job but is annoyingly loud at full speed. The AMD is a Venice, and also runs fairly cool, but with much less heat and noise. Of course you realize I'd use the AMD in my own machine if not for the fact it's always busy in a test bench. As for the Intel, I'd sell it if I didn't need it for the test bench.

But overclocking, both are good, guys point to cheap AMD processors and say "But you can overclock the AMD", well, I'd just like to point out that you can overclock the Intel too.

Meanwhile, I might be doing more of my benchmarks using the Intel CPU, because...electric heat has gotten to be slightly cheaper than gas in my area, and damn it's cold in here!

 

[the_guru]

eh? Hey Guru, I've got a P4 530 here that does 3.8GHz, a 27% overclock. My 3200+ can't go over 25% overclock.

What motherboard do you have in your AMD system?

 

[Crashman]

It's not the board d00d, it's the processor. Asking me which board I've tried is like asking Paris Hilton what guy she's slept with.