amd vs. intel

tanya

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
269
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

hi,
i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
(as generally as possible and upToDate)
would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
thanks
 
G

Guest

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

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
<tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:

>i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
>(as generally as possible and upToDate)
>would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?

Umm.. that's a bit of a broad question, is there something a bit more
specific you're looking at?

I mean, simply contrasting the companies you might find that they are
both silicon companies, both founded in 1969 by different groups of
people that previously worked at Fairchild Semiconductor. Ohh, and
they both have their headquarters in Silicon Valley, actually just
down the road from one another (Sunnyvale for AMD, Santa Clara for
Intel, about 5KM away).

However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
links:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx.html

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/amd-hammer-1.ars

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-1.ars


Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
for.

The long-story short though is that both companies make good
processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
of a system.

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

Guest

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

Tony Hill wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
> <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
> >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
> >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
>
> Umm.. that's a bit of a broad question, is there something a bit more
> specific you're looking at?
>
> I mean, simply contrasting the companies you might find that they are
> both silicon companies, both founded in 1969 by different groups of
> people that previously worked at Fairchild Semiconductor. Ohh, and
> they both have their headquarters in Silicon Valley, actually just
> down the road from one another (Sunnyvale for AMD, Santa Clara for
> Intel, about 5KM away).
>
> However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
> their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
> links:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249
>
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx.html
>
> http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/amd-hammer-1.ars
>
> http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-1.ars
>
> Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
> though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
> for.
>
> The long-story short though is that both companies make good
> processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
> do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
> overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
> of a system.

Yeah, based on what I've learned so far, start by studying up on main
board bus archetecture (and chipset) and build system on that
foundation. Everything will fall into place from there. You might say
the same going the other way -- starting with processor -- but there's
probably too much quality, and design variation in boards that'll work
with the proc you pick to make that the way to go. Whereas if you start
with the best board you can figure out to get, you can then just pick
the best processor -- by the time you've learned about chipsets, and
bus archetechture, proc'll be a breeze -- that'll work with the board.

Bryan

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

Guest

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

Tony Hill wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
> <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
> >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
> >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
>
> Umm.. that's a bit of a broad question, is there something a bit more
> specific you're looking at?
>
> I mean, simply contrasting the companies you might find that they are
> both silicon companies, both founded in 1969 by different groups of
> people that previously worked at Fairchild Semiconductor. Ohh, and
> they both have their headquarters in Silicon Valley, actually just
> down the road from one another (Sunnyvale for AMD, Santa Clara for
> Intel, about 5KM away).
>
> However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
> their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
> links:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249
>
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx.html
>
> http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/amd-hammer-1.ars
>
> http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-1.ars
>
> Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
> though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
> for.
>
> The long-story short though is that both companies make good
> processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
> do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
> overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
> of a system.

Yeah, based on what I've learned so far, start by studying up on main
board bus archetecture (and chipset) and build system on that
foundation. Everything will fall into place from there. You might say
the same going the other way -- starting with processor -- but there's
probably too much quality, and design variation in boards that'll work
with the proc you pick to make that the way to go. Whereas if you start
with the best board you can figure out to get, you can then just pick
the best processor -- by the time you've learned about chipsets, and
bus archetechture, proc'll be a breeze -- that'll work with the board.

Bryan

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

Guest

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

Is your goal to build a system or systems for yourself from scratch, or
to simply buy ready-built systems with these processors on it? Or maybe
to upgrade an existing system with one of these processors?

Yousuf Khan
 

tanya

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
269
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bryan Hoover wrote:

> Tony Hill wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
> > <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
> > >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
> > >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?

<snip>

> > However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
> > their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
> > links:
> >
> > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353
> >
> > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249
> >
> > http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx.html
> >
> > http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/amd-hammer-1.ars
> >
> > http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-1.ars
> >
> > Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
> > though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
> > for.
> >
> > The long-story short though is that both companies make good
> > processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
> > do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
> > overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
> > of a system.
>
> Yeah, based on what I've learned so far, start by studying up on main
> board bus archetecture (and chipset) and build system on that
> foundation. Everything will fall into place from there. You might say
> the same going the other way -- starting with processor -- but there's
> probably too much quality, and design variation in boards that'll work
> with the proc you pick to make that the way to go. Whereas if you start
> with the best board you can figure out to get, you can then just pick
> the best processor -- by the time you've learned about chipsets, and
> bus archetechture, proc'll be a breeze -- that'll work with the board.

thanks for the reply...
perhaps chip set comparison would be more useful...
sincerely
Tanya
(the boards that i have seen for intel-based systems are fairly similar)


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

tanya

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
269
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
> <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
> >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
> >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
>
> Umm.. that's a bit of a broad question, is there something a bit more
> specific you're looking at?

<snip>

> However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
> their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
> links:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249
>
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx.html
>
> http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/amd-hammer-1.ars
>
> http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-1.ars
>
> Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
> though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
> for.
>
> The long-story short though is that both companies make good
> processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
> do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
> overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
> of a system.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

hi Tony,
i realize that the question is *broad* however if i mention that i want to
put together an intel-based (p4) system, i keep hearing that amd is better
and i would like to know in what?
i appreciate the links, they are interesting and helpful!

sincerely
Tanya
 

tanya

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
269
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

YKhan wrote:

> Is your goal to build a system or systems for yourself from scratch, or
> to simply buy ready-built systems with these processors on it? Or maybe
> to upgrade an existing system with one of these processors?
>
> Yousuf Khan

hi
i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
missing something
thanks
 
G

Guest

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

Tanya wrote:

>hi
>i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
>i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
>missing something
>thanks

Most everyone in this group will tell you that AMD is the better
choice, at this point in time. See my "Okay AMD lovers" thread (only
a few days old) for the system that I just built.
 
G

Guest

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

chrisv wrote:
> Tanya wrote:
>
>
>>hi
>>i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
>>i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
>>missing something
>>thanks
>
>
> Most everyone in this group will tell you that AMD is the better
> choice, at this point in time. See my "Okay AMD lovers" thread (only
> a few days old) for the system that I just built.
>

And chrisv was one of the hardest ones to convince too.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

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

Tanya wrote:
> hi
> i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
> i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
> missing something
> thanks

These days there's no reason to not consider AMD, but that applies
equally back to Intel. At one time, people who were looking to put
together a system on a budget used to look automatically to AMD,
nowadays some of Intel's high-end chips are as cheap as AMD's mid-price
chips. In fact, I'd say the Intels are a good bargain these days.

Also, you might have to do more research when building an AMD system
because there are often a bewildering array of choices for almost
everything. Not only would you have choices of motherboard makers (Asus,
Abit, ECS, MSI, Gigabyte, etc., etc.), but each motherboard maker might
have several similar models using a different chipset (VIA, Nvidia, SIS,
etc.). Also with AMD's new-found prestige, it's now catering to many
different markets all at once, with at least three different
socket-types depending on the performance you're looking for: value,
high-end, extremely high-end.

Intel on the other hand, doesn't have so many choices. You buy
somebody's motherboard with an Intel chipset, or you buy somebody else's
motherboard with the same Intel chipset. Makes it a little bit easier.
There was a recent socket change for Intels, but the new socket
basically erases from existence the older one. Celerons and Pentium 4's
are basically fitting into the same sockets again.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

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

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:48:42 -0500, Tanya
<tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> The long-story short though is that both companies make good
>> processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
>> do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
>> overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
>> of a system.
>>
>hi Tony,
>i realize that the question is *broad* however if i mention that i want to
>put together an intel-based (p4) system, i keep hearing that amd is better
>and i would like to know in what?
>i appreciate the links, they are interesting and helpful!

No problem! First off, as I mentioned above, both Intel and AMD make
very good chips and they're both available for pretty reasonable
prices, so it's tough to go too wrong with either one. However for
either situation it pays to spend a little bit of time looking into
some options and potential gotchas.

I know that a few others have mentioned motherboard chipsets, and I
would definitely second that. For Intel processors you have the
choice of Intel, VIA, ATi and SiS chipsets (and possibly a few other
niche players), but the vast bulk of people stick with Intel chipsets.
For AMD processors the selection is similar but the spread is a bit
more even. Not surprisingly Intel does not make chipsets for AMD, but
VIA, ATi and SiS do, as do ALi (aka ULi) and nVidia (AMD also makes
their own chipsets, but only for high-end workstations and servers).
Each of these companies have a variety of chipsets that have a range
of features and come in at different price-points. The end result can
be a bit of a mess, but it's probably the best place to start since
the motherboard and it's chipset pretty much for the base of
everything in the computer.


Personally if it were me that were building the system, I would look
either towards an Intel P4 sitting in an Intel i915(G) chipset or an
AMD Athlon64 sitting in an nForce4 chipset. These two seem to be
hitting a good price/performance point these days with decent feature
sets, so they would probably be good starting points if you're looking
into things.

A couple things to look into for motherboards these days include:

1. AGP vs. PCI-Express graphics slot

PCI-Express is the new replacement for AGP and is quickly becoming the
norm for video cards. While PCI-E boards might be a bit more
expensive, often they can use cheaper video cards which nullifies this
price difference. What's more, PCI-E is definitely the way things are
going, so I would generally recommend against getting an AGP board
unless you've already got a decent AGP graphics card to drop in the
system.


2. Integrated graphics vs. discrete graphics

Keeping with the graphics theme, there is the choice of getting a
board with built-in graphics or an add-in graphics card. Most people
here are rather opposed to integrated graphics because they really
don't do so good at computer games. They can also lower overall
system performance by a bit, though these days the difference is
pretty small. In many cases going for an integrated graphics solution
can save you quite a bit of money and you can even get boards with
AGP/PCI-Express slot for the later addition of an add-in card if you
so desire. One downside to AMD systems is that there isn't much in
the way of decent integrated graphics solutions available, while for
Intel chipsets they are quite common.


3. Number of ATA and SATA connectors

One of the real downsides, IMO, of Intel's i9xx series chipsets is
that they dropped one of the ATA controllers, leaving you with a
maximum of 2 ATA devices (ie hard drives and CD-ROMs). Now in theory
hard drives are moving towards the newer SATA standard, and you should
definitely get a board with at least a handful of SATA controllers,
however SATA CD drives (including DVDs, CD-RW, etc.) are almost
non-existent. In my system I've currently got 3 ATA drives (2 hard
drives and a CD-ROM), so I'd already be over the limit of Intel's new
chipsets. Fortunately many boards built using these new i9xx series
chipsets do include secondary ATA controllers on-board, though these
do complicate things slightly.


4. Dual vs. single channel memory, memory sockets and max memory

Many boards these days use dual-channel memory, ie they take their
memory in matched pairs. Here AMD and Intel do differ somewhat in
that AMD has their memory controller built right into the processor
while for Intel the memory controller is off on the chipset. For AMD
chips, any of their Athlon64s that fit into Socket 939 are
dual-channel, regardless of the chipset used, while those that fit
into Socket 754 are single channel. For Intel it's a little bit more
complicated in that, for example, the i915 is dual channel but the
i910 is single channel. Generally speaking, dual-channel is better
for performance and shouldn't change the price much, but you do have
to remember to add memory in matched pairs, which can complicate
upgrades slightly. For example, a dual-channel motherboard might have
4 memory sockets, but after you drop the first two sticks in you've
only got room for one more matched pair of memory to upgrade with down
the road. Keep in mind that two or three years after you get your
computer, upgrading the memory is almost always the best bang/buck
upgrade you can get.


Well, that should give you a bit of food for thought! Good luck!

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

tanya

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
269
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

hi Tony,
thanks again for replying!
[...below...]

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:48:42 -0500, Tanya
> <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Tony Hill wrote:
> >
> >> The long-story short though is that both companies make good
> >> processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
> >> do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
> >> overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
> >> of a system.
> >>
> >hi Tony,
> >i realize that the question is *broad* however if i mention that i want to
> >put together an intel-based (p4) system, i keep hearing that amd is better
> >and i would like to know in what?
> >i appreciate the links, they are interesting and helpful!
>
> No problem! First off, as I mentioned above, both Intel and AMD make
> very good chips and they're both available for pretty reasonable
> prices, so it's tough to go too wrong with either one. However for
> either situation it pays to spend a little bit of time looking into
> some options and potential gotchas.

actually i have spent a bit of time (but only on intel so far)

> I know that a few others have mentioned motherboard chipsets, and I
> would definitely second that. For Intel processors you have the
> choice of Intel, VIA, ATi and SiS chipsets (and possibly a few other
> niche players), but the vast bulk of people stick with Intel chipsets.
> For AMD processors the selection is similar but the spread is a bit
> more even. Not surprisingly Intel does not make chipsets for AMD, but
> VIA, ATi and SiS do, as do ALi (aka ULi) and nVidia (AMD also makes
> their own chipsets, but only for high-end workstations and servers).
> Each of these companies have a variety of chipsets that have a range
> of features and come in at different price-points. The end result can
> be a bit of a mess, but it's probably the best place to start since
> the motherboard and it's chipset pretty much for the base of
> everything in the computer.

i am strongly considering an asus board (p5gdc-v/dx) with the i915g chipset (as
opposed to i925xe chipset) and would like to know the operating difference
between the i915g and the i925xe chipsets
(from what i see, the i925xe is the only one to support the 1066 fsb) not sure
whether there are other differences

> Personally if it were me that were building the system, I would look
> either towards an Intel P4 sitting in an Intel i915(G) chipset or an
> AMD Athlon64 sitting in an nForce4 chipset. These two seem to be
> hitting a good price/performance point these days with decent feature
> sets, so they would probably be good starting points if you're looking
> into things.

thanks very much for posting the amd info (i have something to go on now)
i read a review on intel boards:
the asus p5gdc-vdx is compared to others with i925xe's and rates highly
(apparently has something to do with dissipating heat)
(it is socket 775))

> A couple things to look into for motherboards these days include:
>
> 1. AGP vs. PCI-Express graphics slot

this has onBoard (but also does have pci express x 16) and i could get the card
later (if needed or wanted)

> PCI-Express is the new replacement for AGP and is quickly becoming the
> norm for video cards. While PCI-E boards might be a bit more
> expensive, often they can use cheaper video cards which nullifies this
> price difference. What's more, PCI-E is definitely the way things are
> going, so I would generally recommend against getting an AGP board
> unless you've already got a decent AGP graphics card to drop in the
> system.

there's no mention of agp

> 2. Integrated graphics vs. discrete graphics
>
> Keeping with the graphics theme, there is the choice of getting a
> board with built-in graphics or an add-in graphics card. Most people
> here are rather opposed to integrated graphics because they really
> don't do so good at computer games.

won't be using it for games -- i think that the video memory is 32 mbs (iirc)
apparently, the onBoard video is not great for gaming -- however that does not
affect me)

> They can also lower overall
> system performance by a bit, though these days the difference is
> pretty small. In many cases going for an integrated graphics solution
> can save you quite a bit of money and you can even get boards with
> AGP/PCI-Express slot for the later addition of an add-in card if you
> so desire.

via a pci slot?

> One downside to AMD systems is that there isn't much in
> the way of decent integrated graphics solutions available, while for
> Intel chipsets they are quite common.
>
> 3. Number of ATA and SATA connectors

this is what it has:
slots: 1x pci-ex16, 2x pci-ex1, 3x pci.
ide: 1x ata 100 (up to 2 devices)
2x ata 133 (up to 4 devices with raid 0/1/0 +1 by ite 8212f)

sata/raid: 4x sata by ich6r with raid 0/1

> One of the real downsides, IMO, of Intel's i9xx series chipsets is
> that they dropped one of the ATA controllers, leaving you with a
> maximum of 2 ATA devices (ie hard drives and CD-ROMs). Now in theory
> hard drives are moving towards the newer SATA standard, and you should
> definitely get a board with at least a handful of SATA controllers,
> however SATA CD drives (including DVDs, CD-RW, etc.) are almost
> non-existent. In my system I've currently got 3 ATA drives (2 hard
> drives and a CD-ROM), so I'd already be over the limit of Intel's new
> chipsets. Fortunately many boards built using these new i9xx series
> chipsets do include secondary ATA controllers on-board, though these
> do complicate things slightly.

the above controllers should be okay shouldn't they?
(i could use the ata 100 for a cd-rw -- or 2:)
and the sata/raid for hdd?

> 4. Dual vs. single channel memory, memory sockets and max memory
>
> Many boards these days use dual-channel memory, ie they take their
> memory in matched pairs. Here AMD and Intel do differ somewhat in
> that AMD has their memory controller built right into the processor

having it built into the chip -- is this better? (rather than having the
controller on the chipset)?

> while for Intel the memory controller is off on the chipset. For AMD
> chips, any of their Athlon64s that fit into Socket 939 are
> dual-channel, regardless of the chipset used, while those that fit
> into Socket 754 are single channel. For Intel it's a little bit more
> complicated in that, for example, the i915 is dual channel but the
> i910 is single channel. Generally speaking, dual-channel is better
> for performance and shouldn't change the price much, but you do have
> to remember to add memory in matched pairs, which can complicate
> upgrades slightly. For example, a dual-channel motherboard might have
> 4 memory sockets, but after you drop the first two sticks in you've
> only got room for one more matched pair of memory to upgrade with down
> the road. Keep in mind that two or three years after you get your
> computer, upgrading the memory is almost always the best bang/buck
> upgrade you can get.

there are 4 sockets...
this board supports either ddr or ddr2 (it states [under the specs] that it
supports dual, single (perhaps the ddr2 will not require dual?))
i'd be using ddr initially
also the max is 4 gb

> Well, that should give you a bit of food for thought! Good luck!
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

with respect to the amd-based boards:
there are 3 categories; (on motherboards.org site)
(i realize that one cannot compare apples to oranges however which group would
be comparable [closest] to s775?)
socket a
socket 754, 939, 940
socket 939 (64-bit)

1 concern:
i've heard that the prescott series generates xs heat.
is this unavoidable?
thanks again for the reply!
i appreciate it
sincerely
Tanya
 

tanya

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
269
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

chrisv wrote:

> Tanya wrote:
>
> >hi
> >i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
> >i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
> >missing something
> >thanks
>
> Most everyone in this group will tell you that AMD is the better
> choice, at this point in time. See my "Okay AMD lovers" thread (only
> a few days old) for the system that I just built.

i'm reading it...
thank you for pointing it out
sincerely
Tanya
 

tanya

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
269
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

hi Yousuf,
thanks for the reply...
[...below...]

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Tanya wrote:
> > hi
> > i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
> > i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
> > missing something
> > thanks
>
> These days there's no reason to not consider AMD, but that applies
> equally back to Intel. At one time, people who were looking to put
> together a system on a budget used to look automatically to AMD,
> nowadays some of Intel's high-end chips are as cheap as AMD's mid-price
> chips. In fact, I'd say the Intels are a good bargain these days.

i've only owned intels (and find them reliable)
i heard somewhere that amd is not as reliable....

> Also, you might have to do more research when building an AMD system
> because there are often a bewildering array of choices for almost
> everything. Not only would you have choices of motherboard makers (Asus,
> Abit, ECS, MSI, Gigabyte, etc., etc.), but each motherboard maker might
> have several similar models using a different chipset (VIA, Nvidia, SIS,
> etc.). Also with AMD's new-found prestige, it's now catering to many
> different markets all at once, with at least three different
> socket-types depending on the performance you're looking for: value,
> high-end, extremely high-end.

maybe you can explain this: the categories (of ranking amds) are socket a;
socket 754, 939, 940; and socket 939)
which would be *comparible* to the lga 775 socket?

> Intel on the other hand, doesn't have so many choices. You buy
> somebody's motherboard with an Intel chipset, or you buy somebody else's
> motherboard with the same Intel chipset. Makes it a little bit easier.
> There was a recent socket change for Intels, but the new socket
> basically erases from existence the older one. Celerons and Pentium 4's
> are basically fitting into the same sockets again.

i see that for socket 478 but not 775.

> Yousuf Khan

thank you,
sincerely
Tanya
 
G

Guest

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

Hi,

Hope this can help you some more....

For games then Intel has to be serious choice though AMD can't be ruled
out because of its relatively cheap price, however... for offive based
applications etc then AMD becomes the favoured choice as its a HELL of
a lot cheaper than Intel and the functionality of the chips are
slightly better than Intel.

Hope this was helpful...!!

Martin
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:21:54 -0500, Tanya wrote:

> hi Yousuf,
> thanks for the reply...
> [...below...]
>
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> Tanya wrote:
>> > hi
>> > i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
>> > i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
>> > missing something
>> > thanks
>>
>> These days there's no reason to not consider AMD, but that applies
>> equally back to Intel. At one time, people who were looking to put
>> together a system on a budget used to look automatically to AMD,
>> nowadays some of Intel's high-end chips are as cheap as AMD's mid-price
>> chips. In fact, I'd say the Intels are a good bargain these days.
>
> i've only owned intels (and find them reliable)
> i heard somewhere that amd is not as reliable....

You heard wrong, though FUD has been the rule in this business since its
conception.

>> Also, you might have to do more research when building an AMD system
>> because there are often a bewildering array of choices for almost
>> everything. Not only would you have choices of motherboard makers (Asus,
>> Abit, ECS, MSI, Gigabyte, etc., etc.), but each motherboard maker might
>> have several similar models using a different chipset (VIA, Nvidia, SIS,
>> etc.). Also with AMD's new-found prestige, it's now catering to many
>> different markets all at once, with at least three different
>> socket-types depending on the performance you're looking for: value,
>> high-end, extremely high-end.
>
> maybe you can explain this: the categories (of ranking amds) are socket a;
> socket 754, 939, 940; and socket 939)
> which would be *comparible* to the lga 775 socket?

It depends on what you mean by "comparable". We've had the LGA discussion
here before. I'm not a fan of LGAs in this market at all. They're great
if the chip is permanently mounted, but call me skeptical of LGA sockets.

Socket-939 is likely the best choice for a "performance" system now.
Socket-940 requires registered DRAM, which is somewhat more expensive and
a (very) little lower performance. Socket-940 is really intended for
servers. IMO, socket-754 is dead-end and I don't see any reason to go
there. Socket-A is used for Athlons and a good choice for "value" systems.

One can build a rather impressive socket-A system on the cheap. I built
quite an impressive system for a friend for $400 (display, keyboard, and
OS recycled from one that had the magic smoke let out).

The big advantage AMD has (sockets 939 and 940) is the memory
architecture. The integrated DRAM controllers (vs. controller on the
northbridge) are a performance advantage, but also cost a lot of pins on
the processor chip.

>> Intel on the other hand, doesn't have so many choices. You buy
>> somebody's motherboard with an Intel chipset, or you buy somebody else's
>> motherboard with the same Intel chipset. Makes it a little bit easier.
>> There was a recent socket change for Intels, but the new socket
>> basically erases from existence the older one. Celerons and Pentium 4's
>> are basically fitting into the same sockets again.
>
> i see that for socket 478 but not 775.

In short, I'd go with a P4 if I were going to do a lot of streaming video,
P3M for a laptop, and Athlon64 for everything else. I do "everything
else" so have an Opteron (socket-940), which I bought before 939 was
generally available).

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:20:17 -0500, Tanya
<tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> I know that a few others have mentioned motherboard chipsets, and I
>> would definitely second that. For Intel processors you have the
>> choice of Intel, VIA, ATi and SiS chipsets (and possibly a few other
>> niche players), but the vast bulk of people stick with Intel chipsets.
>> For AMD processors the selection is similar but the spread is a bit
>> more even. Not surprisingly Intel does not make chipsets for AMD, but
>> VIA, ATi and SiS do, as do ALi (aka ULi) and nVidia (AMD also makes
>> their own chipsets, but only for high-end workstations and servers).
>> Each of these companies have a variety of chipsets that have a range
>> of features and come in at different price-points. The end result can
>> be a bit of a mess, but it's probably the best place to start since
>> the motherboard and it's chipset pretty much for the base of
>> everything in the computer.
>
>i am strongly considering an asus board (p5gdc-v/dx) with the i915g chipset (as
>opposed to i925xe chipset) and would like to know the operating difference
>between the i915g and the i925xe chipsets
>(from what i see, the i925xe is the only one to support the 1066 fsb) not sure
>whether there are other differences

The i925XE chipset adds support for the 1066MT/s processor bus, but
drops support for DDR memory in favor of DDR2. It also adds a good
$100+ to the price tag of the board. All else being equal, an i925XE
chipset should also be a tiny bit faster than an i915G chipset, but
the difference is quite small and, IMO, not worthwhile.

>> A couple things to look into for motherboards these days include:
>>
>> 1. AGP vs. PCI-Express graphics slot
>
>this has onBoard (but also does have pci express x 16) and i could get the card
>later (if needed or wanted)
>
>> PCI-Express is the new replacement for AGP and is quickly becoming the
>> norm for video cards. While PCI-E boards might be a bit more
>> expensive, often they can use cheaper video cards which nullifies this
>> price difference. What's more, PCI-E is definitely the way things are
>> going, so I would generally recommend against getting an AGP board
>> unless you've already got a decent AGP graphics card to drop in the
>> system.
>
>there's no mention of agp

None of the i9xx series of chipsets support AGP. Not really a big
loss unless you've already got an old AGP card you want to bring over
to the new system.

>> 2. Integrated graphics vs. discrete graphics
>>
>> Keeping with the graphics theme, there is the choice of getting a
>> board with built-in graphics or an add-in graphics card. Most people
>> here are rather opposed to integrated graphics because they really
>> don't do so good at computer games.
>
>won't be using it for games -- i think that the video memory is 32 mbs (iirc)
>apparently, the onBoard video is not great for gaming -- however that does not
>affect me)

The integrated video of the i915G is actually quite decent. Beyond
gaming, the only other sorts of applications where it really flops are
things like high-end graphics and CAD applications (particularly if
you're doing any sort of 3D CAD).

>> They can also lower overall
>> system performance by a bit, though these days the difference is
>> pretty small. In many cases going for an integrated graphics solution
>> can save you quite a bit of money and you can even get boards with
>> AGP/PCI-Express slot for the later addition of an add-in card if you
>> so desire.
>
>via a pci slot?

PCI-Express slot... Or PCI I guess, though it doesn't make much sense
to use that if you've got a PCI-Express 16x slot.

>> One downside to AMD systems is that there isn't much in
>> the way of decent integrated graphics solutions available, while for
>> Intel chipsets they are quite common.
>>
>> 3. Number of ATA and SATA connectors
>
>this is what it has:
>slots: 1x pci-ex16, 2x pci-ex1, 3x pci.
>ide: 1x ata 100 (up to 2 devices)

This connector will be the one connected directly to the chipset and
is the only ATA connector you can use to initially load your operating
system with.

>2x ata 133 (up to 4 devices with raid 0/1/0 +1 by ite 8212f)

These would be fine once Windows is loaded, but won't work for loading
the OS.

>sata/raid: 4x sata by ich6r with raid 0/1

This is where the important stuff is. Most likely you'll want to get
an SATA hard drive and throw it on one of these connectors. You
should be able to load the OS with no trouble on these. At least in
theory, SATA should be a bit faster than ATA as well.

>> One of the real downsides, IMO, of Intel's i9xx series chipsets is
>> that they dropped one of the ATA controllers, leaving you with a
>> maximum of 2 ATA devices (ie hard drives and CD-ROMs). Now in theory
>> hard drives are moving towards the newer SATA standard, and you should
>> definitely get a board with at least a handful of SATA controllers,
>> however SATA CD drives (including DVDs, CD-RW, etc.) are almost
>> non-existent. In my system I've currently got 3 ATA drives (2 hard
>> drives and a CD-ROM), so I'd already be over the limit of Intel's new
>> chipsets. Fortunately many boards built using these new i9xx series
>> chipsets do include secondary ATA controllers on-board, though these
>> do complicate things slightly.
>
>the above controllers should be okay shouldn't they?
>(i could use the ata 100 for a cd-rw -- or 2:)
>and the sata/raid for hdd?

Yup, should be plenty. Asus has decided to include a secondary ATA
controller on-board (the ITE one). As mentioned above, you can't
really use that until your OS is loaded, but that shouldn't be a big
worry, you just need a single hard drive (ATA or SATA) and a single
CD-ROM to load the OS. Additional devices can be left until later.

>> 4. Dual vs. single channel memory, memory sockets and max memory
>>
>> Many boards these days use dual-channel memory, ie they take their
>> memory in matched pairs. Here AMD and Intel do differ somewhat in
>> that AMD has their memory controller built right into the processor
>
>having it built into the chip -- is this better? (rather than having the
>controller on the chipset)?

Putting the memory controller on-chip reduces the time it takes to get
data to/from main memory by about 30%. This translates into about a
10-20% improvement in overall system performance and is one of the key
reasons why 2.0GHz Athlon64 chips are often faster than 3.0GHz P4
chips. Basically everyone in the chip-making business other than
Intel has decided the integrated memory controllers are the way to go.

Beyond performance though, it shouldn't change things much.

>> while for Intel the memory controller is off on the chipset. For AMD
>> chips, any of their Athlon64s that fit into Socket 939 are
>> dual-channel, regardless of the chipset used, while those that fit
>> into Socket 754 are single channel. For Intel it's a little bit more
>> complicated in that, for example, the i915 is dual channel but the
>> i910 is single channel. Generally speaking, dual-channel is better
>> for performance and shouldn't change the price much, but you do have
>> to remember to add memory in matched pairs, which can complicate
>> upgrades slightly. For example, a dual-channel motherboard might have
>> 4 memory sockets, but after you drop the first two sticks in you've
>> only got room for one more matched pair of memory to upgrade with down
>> the road. Keep in mind that two or three years after you get your
>> computer, upgrading the memory is almost always the best bang/buck
>> upgrade you can get.
>
>there are 4 sockets...
>this board supports either ddr or ddr2 (it states [under the specs] that it
>supports dual, single (perhaps the ddr2 will not require dual?))
>i'd be using ddr initially
>also the max is 4 gb

From the specs I can see there are 4 DDR sockets and 2 DDR2 sockets on
this board. Both DDR and DDR2 are best used in a dual-channel setup,
though sometimes it is possible to use a single-channel setup with
about a 10% performance loss, ie not a very good setup.

Note that even though this board supports both DDR and DDR2, it almost
certainly does NOT support both at the same time, it's one or the
other.

>with respect to the amd-based boards:
>there are 3 categories; (on motherboards.org site)
>(i realize that one cannot compare apples to oranges however which group would
>be comparable [closest] to s775?)
>socket a

Socket A is rather dated these days and is in the process of being
EOLed. It's had a good life (it was first introduced in late 2000 or
early 2001 if my memory serves me correctly) and can still be used for
a great low-budget system. However for the most part you can ignore
this one.

>socket 754, 939, 940

This is where the magic is happening for AMD systems.

Socket 754 - Older (single-channel memory) Athlon64 chips and Sempron
chips. Mainly a low-cost solution these days.

Socket 940 - Used pretty much exclusively for the AMD Opteron for
servers and workstations. This socket includes support for large
amounts of memory and multiple processors, but probably not of much
interest for most home users (err.. except for Keith, but he doesn't
count :> ). Socket 940 would be AMD's equivalent to Intel's Socket
604 for their Xeon processors.

Socket 939 - This is definitely the closest equivalent to Intel's
Socket 775 and would be what you would probably want to concentrate on
when looking at AMD-based systems. It is used for pretty much all the
new AMD Athlon64 based systems. It adds dual-channel memory when
compared to Socket 754 and lower costs when compared to Socket 940.

>socket 939 (64-bit)

This one hasn't exactly showed up yet, but it's expected to replace
Socket 754 for low-cost systems eventually.

>1 concern:
>i've heard that the prescott series generates xs heat.
>is this unavoidable?

It does generate a fair bit of heat, though the new 600 series P4
chips have made some improvements in this regard. Generally speaking
it is unavoidable, though a good heatsink and decent airflow in your
case can take care of it.

Speaking of those 600 series P4 chips, I would HIGHLY recommend
getting one of those if you're looking at a P4 system. Performance
should be about the same as a 500 series P4 of one higher model number
(ie the P4 640/3.2GHz should perform about the same as a 550/3.4GHz
chip). On top of that they do reduce the power consumption with a few
new tricks, but most importantly, they add 64-bit support. While
Microsoft still hasn't quite got around to releasing 64-bit Windows
(1.5 years late and counting) it is coming and this is going to be the
standard going forward.

For AMD Athlon64 chips you've already got 64-bit support and better
power consumption than any of the Pentium4 chips, so not such a big
worry.

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

Guest

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

tartan_martin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Hope this can help you some more....
>
> For games then Intel has to be serious choice though AMD can't be ruled
> out because of its relatively cheap price, however... for offive based
> applications etc then AMD becomes the favoured choice as its a HELL of
> a lot cheaper than Intel and the functionality of the chips are
> slightly better than Intel.
>
> Hope this was helpful...!!

I doubt it would help her, because that advice is two years out of date.
These days the games are AMD's domain, and actually you might find that
the Intel's are the cheaper choice.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

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

On 26 Feb 2005 10:26:23 -0800, "tartan_martin" <m_forbes2005@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Hope this can help you some more....
>
>For games then Intel has to be serious choice though AMD can't be ruled
>out because of its relatively cheap price, however... for offive based
>applications etc then AMD becomes the favoured choice as its a HELL of
>a lot cheaper than Intel and the functionality of the chips are
>slightly better than Intel.

Huh? Have you looked at performance recently? Intel CPUs are rarely even
close to the top end Athlon64s in most games - even the "mid-range" Athlon
64 3500+ does well when compared with the top Intel CPUs - games "like" low
latency for many of their ops. About the only place that Intel really
scores is on video processing and some other streaming apps where the HT
helps -- it *can* make things worse in some situations -- and where
agressive memory->cache pre-fetching is a benefit.

Oh and AMD is not a lot cheaper any longer... though some of the recent
Intel-based mbrds are getting pricey.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
 
G

Guest

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

Just an additional data point on heat generation issue...
Athlon 64 winchester (90nm) is pretty unbelievable when it
comes to heat generation/ power consumption. It generates
even less heat than old athlon xp (thoroughbred B). Figures:

Idle K7burn
3GHz P4 Prescott D0: 30W 90W
3GHz P4 Northwood: 18W 70W
2GHz AXP Barton: 38W 60W
2GHz A64 Newcastle: 15W 55W
2GHz A64 Winchester: <10W 30W

I have athlon 64 3000+, and I am often amazed that cpu fan
is at dead stop and hardly stirs even while after I've been
playing UT2004 for a while. And to confirm, yes the heat sink
is barely warm to touch, which is unbelievable for cpu of
this performance category.

-ax
 

tanya

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
269
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

hi Martin,
thank you for the reply and advice...

tartan_martin wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Hope this can help you some more....
>
> For games then Intel has to be serious choice though AMD can't be ruled
> out because of its relatively cheap price, however... for offive based
> applications etc then AMD becomes the favoured choice as its a HELL of
> a lot cheaper than Intel and the functionality of the chips are
> slightly better than Intel.

wherever i ask, amd seems to be a better choice (for anything / everything
:)
i guess i'll try it...
thanks for the info!
sincerely
Tanya

>
>
> Hope this was helpful...!!
>
> Martin
 

tanya

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
269
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

hi Tony,
thanks again for replying and for providing the information!
[...below...]

Tony Hill wrote:
<snip>

> >i am strongly considering an asus board (p5gdc-v/dx) with the i915g chipset (as
> >opposed to i925xe chipset) and would like to know the operating difference
> >between the i915g and the i925xe chipsets
> >(from what i see, the i925xe is the only one to support the 1066 fsb) not sure
> >whether there are other differences
>
> The i925XE chipset adds support for the 1066MT/s processor bus, but
> drops support for DDR memory in favor of DDR2. It also adds a good
> $100+ to the price tag of the board. All else being equal, an i925XE
> chipset should also be a tiny bit faster than an i915G chipset, but
> the difference is quite small and, IMO, not worthwhile.

getting more confused:)
read that a main determinant of performance is the "clock speed" (states that this
is not the same as operating frequency of the cpu (but is related)) and is a
function of the motherboard bus (however the only speeds on the motherboards seem to
be memory speeds...)
i was looking at the abit fatl1ty and the asus p5ad2-e (both supporting 1066 fsb
speed but only ddr2 (and more expen$ive) (chipset i925xe))

> >> A couple things to look into for motherboards these days include:
> >>
> >> 1. AGP vs. PCI-Express graphics slot

<snip>

> >there's no mention of agp
>
> None of the i9xx series of chipsets support AGP. Not really a big
> loss unless you've already got an old AGP card you want to bring over
> to the new system.

(i guess they are slower ...)

> >> 2. Integrated graphics vs. discrete graphics

<snip>

> >won't be using it for games -- i think that the video memory is 32 mbs (iirc)
> >apparently, the onBoard video is not great for gaming -- however that does not
> >affect me)
>
> The integrated video of the i915G is actually quite decent. Beyond
> gaming, the only other sorts of applications where it really flops are
> things like high-end graphics and CAD applications (particularly if
> you're doing any sort of 3D CAD).
>
> >> They can also lower overall
> >> system performance by a bit,

i would assume that if i bought a pci-express graphics card, the overall performance
would not be adversely affected (if it had been affected with the onBoard chip) ?

> though these days the difference is
> >> pretty small. In many cases going for an integrated graphics solution
> >> can save you quite a bit of money and you can even get boards with
> >> AGP/PCI-Express slot for the later addition of an add-in card if you
> >> so desire.
> >
> >via a pci slot?
>
> PCI-Express slot... Or PCI I guess, though it doesn't make much sense
> to use that if you've got a PCI-Express 16x slot.
>
> >> One downside to AMD systems is that there isn't much in
> >> the way of decent integrated graphics solutions available,

<snip>

> >> 3. Number of ATA and SATA connectors
> >
> >this is what it has:
> >slots: 1x pci-ex16, 2x pci-ex1, 3x pci.
> >ide: 1x ata 100 (up to 2 devices)
>
> This connector will be the one connected directly to the chipset and
> is the only ATA connector you can use to initially load your operating
> system with.
>
> >2x ata 133 (up to 4 devices with raid 0/1/0 +1 by ite 8212f)
>
> These would be fine once Windows is loaded, but won't work for loading
> the OS.
>
> >sata/raid: 4x sata by ich6r with raid 0/1
>
> This is where the important stuff is. Most likely you'll want to get
> an SATA hard drive and throw it on one of these connectors. You
> should be able to load the OS with no trouble on these. At least in
> theory, SATA should be a bit faster than ATA as well.

yes, plan on sata / raid drive

> >> One of the real downsides, IMO, of Intel's i9xx series chipsets is
> >> that they dropped one of the ATA controllers, leaving you with a
> >> maximum of 2 ATA devices (ie hard drives and CD-ROMs). Now in theory
> >> hard drives are moving towards the newer SATA standard, and you should
> >> definitely get a board with at least a handful of SATA controllers,
> >> however SATA CD drives (including DVDs, CD-RW, etc.) are almost
> >> non-existent. In my system I've currently got 3 ATA drives (2 hard
> >> drives and a CD-ROM), so I'd already be over the limit of Intel's new
> >> chipsets. Fortunately many boards built using these new i9xx series
> >> chipsets do include secondary ATA controllers on-board, though these
> >> do complicate things slightly.
> >
> >the above controllers should be okay shouldn't they?
> >(i could use the ata 100 for a cd-rw -- or 2:)
> >and the sata/raid for hdd?
>
> Yup, should be plenty. Asus has decided to include a secondary ATA
> controller on-board (the ITE one). As mentioned above, you can't
> really use that until your OS is loaded, but that shouldn't be a big
> worry, you just need a single hard drive (ATA or SATA) and a single
> CD-ROM to load the OS. Additional devices can be left until later.
>
> >> 4. Dual vs. single channel memory, memory sockets and max memory
> >>
> >> Many boards these days use dual-channel memory, ie they take their
> >> memory in matched pairs. Here AMD and Intel do differ somewhat in
> >> that AMD has their memory controller built right into the processor
> >
> >having it built into the chip -- is this better? (rather than having the
> >controller on the chipset)?
>
> Putting the memory controller on-chip reduces the time it takes to get
> data to/from main memory by about 30%. This translates into about a
> 10-20% improvement in overall system performance and is one of the key
> reasons why 2.0GHz Athlon64 chips are often faster than 3.0GHz P4
> chips. Basically everyone in the chip-making business other than
> Intel has decided the integrated memory controllers are the way to go.

not related to l2 cache (better to get a cpu with the l2 cache *built in* (vs. on
the board))?
and the memory controller being on the chip, is this why the l2 cache and the total
system mem are less than p4's?

> Beyond performance though, it shouldn't change things much.

> >> while for Intel the memory controller is off on the chipset. For AMD
> >> chips, any of their Athlon64s that fit into Socket 939 are
> >> dual-channel, regardless of the chipset used, while those that fit
> >> into Socket 754 are single channel. For Intel it's a little bit more
> >> complicated in that, for example, the i915 is dual channel but the
> >> i910 is single channel. Generally speaking, dual-channel is better
> >> for performance and shouldn't change the price much, but you do have
> >> to remember to add memory in matched pairs, which can complicate
> >> upgrades slightly. For example, a dual-channel motherboard might have
> >> 4 memory sockets, but after you drop the first two sticks in you've
> >> only got room for one more matched pair of memory to upgrade with down
> >> the road. Keep in mind that two or three years after you get your
> >> computer, upgrading the memory is almost always the best bang/buck
> >> upgrade you can get.
> >
> >there are 4 sockets...
> >this board supports either ddr or ddr2 (it states [under the specs] that it
> >supports dual, single (perhaps the ddr2 will not require dual?))
> >i'd be using ddr initially
> >also the max is 4 gb
>
> From the specs I can see there are 4 DDR sockets and 2 DDR2 sockets on
> this board. Both DDR and DDR2 are best used in a dual-channel setup,
> though sometimes it is possible to use a single-channel setup with
> about a 10% performance loss, ie not a very good setup.

> Note that even though this board supports both DDR and DDR2, it almost
> certainly does NOT support both at the same time, it's one or the
> other.

not sure whether 2 ddr2 chips are enough?
(i also found that it supports 2*ddr2 OR up to 4*ddr)

> >with respect to the amd-based boards:
> >there are 3 categories; (on motherboards.org site)
> >(i realize that one cannot compare apples to oranges however which group would
> >be comparable [closest] to s775?)
> >socket a
>
> Socket A is rather dated these days and is in the process of being
> EOLed. It's had a good life (it was first introduced in late 2000 or
> early 2001 if my memory serves me correctly) and can still be used for
> a great low-budget system. However for the most part you can ignore
> this one.
>
> >socket 754, 939, 940
>
> This is where the magic is happening for AMD systems.
>
> Socket 754 - Older (single-channel memory) Athlon64 chips and Sempron
> chips. Mainly a low-cost solution these days.
>
> Socket 940 - Used pretty much exclusively for the AMD Opteron for
> servers and workstations. This socket includes support for large
> amounts of memory and multiple processors, but probably not of much
> interest for most home users (err.. except for Keith, but he doesn't
> count :> ). Socket 940 would be AMD's equivalent to Intel's Socket
> 604 for their Xeon processors.
>
> Socket 939 - This is definitely the closest equivalent to Intel's
> Socket 775 and would be what you would probably want to concentrate on
> when looking at AMD-based systems. It is used for pretty much all the
> new AMD Athlon64 based systems. It adds dual-channel memory when
> compared to Socket 754 and lower costs when compared to Socket 940.
>
> >socket 939 (64-bit)
>
> This one hasn't exactly showed up yet, but it's expected to replace
> Socket 754 for low-cost systems eventually.

thanks for the above...i'll look into the socket 939......

> >1 concern:
> >i've heard that the prescott series generates xs heat.
> >is this unavoidable?
>
> It does generate a fair bit of heat, though the new 600 series P4
> chips have made some improvements in this regard. Generally speaking
> it is unavoidable, though a good heatsink and decent airflow in your
> case can take care of it.
>
> Speaking of those 600 series P4 chips, I would HIGHLY recommend
> getting one of those if you're looking at a P4 system. Performance
> should be about the same as a 500 series P4 of one higher model number
> (ie the P4 640/3.2GHz should perform about the same as a 550/3.4GHz
> chip). On top of that they do reduce the power consumption with a few
> new tricks, but most importantly, they add 64-bit support. While
> Microsoft still hasn't quite got around to releasing 64-bit Windows
> (1.5 years late and counting) it is coming and this is going to be the
> standard going forward.

aren't these the ones that have the 1066 mhz front side bus speed?
if they are not, i could still get the i915g board.......


> For AMD Athlon64 chips you've already got 64-bit support and better
> power consumption than any of the Pentium4 chips, so not such a big
> worry.

thanks a lot again!
very much appreciated!
sincerely
Tanya

>

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

tanya

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
269
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

hi Kieth, thanks for replying...
confused but...

keith wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:21:54 -0500, Tanya wrote:
>
> > hi Yousuf,
> > thanks for the reply...
> > [...below...]
> >
> > Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >
> >> Tanya wrote:
> >> > hi
> >> > i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
> >> > i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
> >> > missing something
> >> > thanks
> >>
> >> These days there's no reason to not consider AMD, but that applies
> >> equally back to Intel. At one time, people who were looking to put
> >> together a system on a budget used to look automatically to AMD,
> >> nowadays some of Intel's high-end chips are as cheap as AMD's mid-price
> >> chips. In fact, I'd say the Intels are a good bargain these days.
> >
> > i've only owned intels (and find them reliable)
> > i heard somewhere that amd is not as reliable....
>
> You heard wrong, though FUD has been the rule in this business since its
> conception.
>
> >> Also, you might have to do more research when building an AMD system
> >> because there are often a bewildering array of choices for almost
> >> everything. Not only would you have choices of motherboard makers (Asus,
> >> Abit, ECS, MSI, Gigabyte, etc., etc.), but each motherboard maker might
> >> have several similar models using a different chipset (VIA, Nvidia, SIS,
> >> etc.). Also with AMD's new-found prestige, it's now catering to many
> >> different markets all at once, with at least three different
> >> socket-types depending on the performance you're looking for: value,
> >> high-end, extremely high-end.
> >
> > maybe you can explain this: the categories (of ranking amds) are socket a;
> > socket 754, 939, 940; and socket 939)
> > which would be *comparible* to the lga 775 socket?
>
> It depends on what you mean by "comparable". We've had the LGA discussion
> here before. I'm not a fan of LGAs in this market at all. They're great
> if the chip is permanently mounted, but call me skeptical of LGA sockets.

comparable i guess is not possible... from what i've read, the operating
frequency, the fsb speed and the l2 cache size are the important determinants
(the amd is less in each category) HOWEVER, i read on amd's Web site that the
amd does more per cycle than the pentium also they (the amd Web site) compares a
p4 with an amd and the "overall performance" is better for the amd (i don't know
what they mean by overall performance.)


> Socket-939 is likely the best choice for a "performance" system now.
> Socket-940 requires registered DRAM, which is somewhat more expensive and
> a (very) little lower performance. Socket-940 is really intended for
> servers. IMO, socket-754 is dead-end and I don't see any reason to go
> there. Socket-A is used for Athlons and a good choice for "value" systems.
>
> One can build a rather impressive socket-A system on the cheap. I built
> quite an impressive system for a friend for $400 (display, keyboard, and
> OS recycled from one that had the magic smoke let out).
>
> The big advantage AMD has (sockets 939 and 940) is the memory
> architecture. The integrated DRAM controllers (vs. controller on the
> northbridge) are a performance advantage, but also cost a lot of pins on the
> processor chip.

is that why the boards hold less ram? and why the cpu performs better even with
a smaller l2 cache?

i appreciate the above info about the sockets a lot -- thanks

> >> Intel on the other hand, doesn't have so many choices. You buy
> >> somebody's motherboard with an Intel chipset, or you buy somebody else's
> >> motherboard with the same Intel chipset. Makes it a little bit easier.
> >> There was a recent socket change for Intels, but the new socket
> >> basically erases from existence the older one. Celerons and Pentium 4's
> >> are basically fitting into the same sockets again.
> >
> > i see that for socket 478 but not 775.
>
> In short, I'd go with a P4 if I were going to do a lot of streaming video,
> P3M for a laptop, and Athlon64 for everything else. I do "everything
> else" so have an Opteron (socket-940), which I bought before 939 was
> generally available).

even though the *numbers* (values) don't add up, (i.e. lower fsb speed, l2
cache, operating freq) your (and others) opinion are helpful -- i appreciate it
and now will look at (learn about) amd's.


> --
> Keith

sincerely,
Tanya
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:21:34 -0800, xtive_ax wrote:

> Just an additional data point on heat generation issue...
> Athlon 64 winchester (90nm) is pretty unbelievable when it
> comes to heat generation/ power consumption. It generates
> even less heat than old athlon xp (thoroughbred B). Figures:
>
> Idle K7burn
> 3GHz P4 Prescott D0: 30W 90W
> 3GHz P4 Northwood: 18W 70W
> 2GHz AXP Barton: 38W 60W
> 2GHz A64 Newcastle: 15W 55W
> 2GHz A64 Winchester: <10W 30W

Interesting. Do you have benchmarks for these. Say, Widget-ops/watt?

> I have athlon 64 3000+, and I am often amazed that cpu fan
> is at dead stop and hardly stirs even while after I've been
> playing UT2004 for a while. And to confirm, yes the heat sink
> is barely warm to touch, which is unbelievable for cpu of
> this performance category.

I find this amazing too.

--
Keith