I see absolutely no reason to go Intel now

[kinney]

I'm building a second system and checked out latest CPU prices, the XP 2500+ is at $70 and the A64 3000+ at $200.
Those are unbeatable high and mid range choices.
With both of them offering low prices to each respective segment.
The 2500+ is so low priced, that anything less is not worth considering IMO.

Someone tell me I'm wrong?
Fanboys need not apply, but I suppose I'll take the bump if you are going to waste this sites bandwidth.

----
Reject religon, embrace Jesus
Support the terrorists, vote democrat
NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil team leader
RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR

 

[endyen]

At $100 the mobile xp2500+ also deserves a mention. Not only does it oc like a trouper, or can be run at 45 watts for a quiet system, and has it's multipliers unlocked, but it should run on many older 133 fsb boards.

 

[jammydodger]

The 2.8c P4 (Northwood NOT Prescott) is not much more expensive than the XP3000+ and with dual channel RAM I think the P4 would beat the XP in most respects. I also prefer the Intel chipsets, seem more reliable than the VIA or SiS ones. But I cant deny that the XP's are a great deal at the mo.

[Insert witty comment here]

 

[endyen]

Nforce chips are as good or better than intel. Sandra 2004 says the xp3000 is closer to the P4 3.2c than to the 2.8

 

[kinney]

I noticed that. But I dont see it being worth to buy the 2.8C when I can get a A64 3000+ for $30 more.

And the $70 2500+ is close enough to the XP3000+ and 2.8 in performance to destroy both in bang for buck.

As far as chipsets, I'd agree.. thats why I use Nvidia sets. Rock solid just like intel.

----
Reject religon, embrace Jesus
Support the terrorists, vote democrat
NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil team leader
RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR

 

[kinney]

I forgot about the mobile chips.

I'd prob consider those. I've seen some interesting o/cing results come out of those chips!

As in like very high ocs coming out of them.

----
Reject religon, embrace Jesus
Support the terrorists, vote democrat
NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil team leader
RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR

 

[Mr_Nuke]

I would sugges Athlon FX-51, but that's around 700$ so if you don't want to spend that much stick with the A64. I never suggest 32-bit CPU's. Stick with the evolution!!!

 

[kinney]

Stick with the evolution!!!

Right on dude.

There hasnt been a single reason to purchase Intel for quite some time (even before AMD64) if you were to ask me.

I just wanted to see if some kind of argument that was reasonable could be presented on why I'd want to go 2.4C or 2.8C.
I got one but its comparing it to the overpriced 3000+ when the A64 is a better comparison that shows AMD in a better light.

----
Reject religon, embrace Jesus
Support the terrorists, vote democrat
NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil team leader
RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR

 

[P4Man]

If we ingore the mobile market, there are a few reasons I could think off:
1) you buy your computer to mostly run a single specific app which happens to be favour the P4 and/or HT (something like Lightwave).
2) you offered PC@home project by your employer for half the price, but your choice is limited to Dells.
3) you mother-in-law works for intel (you could of course buy a A64 and put it in an old Dell case)
4) you got more money than common sense, so you buy a P4EE now, and you give it away in a few months to buy a FX53 once windows64 ships.

Well, anyway, the first reason could be valid for some

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[blackphoenix77]

This is a great conversation getting us no where.

<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?michael" target="_new"> You Want To Click Me, Go Ahead </A>

 

[jammydodger]

I would sugges Athlon FX-51, but that's around 700$

I would wait untill the FX comes out in socket 939 form before buying one.

[Insert witty comment here]

 

[Snorkius]

If you are a crazy OC'er(a la fugger), Intel is still, IMO, the better choice.


That's like what, .000000001% of the population?

A long long time ago, but I can still remember, how that music used to make me smile... <A HREF="http://www.nexus.hu/zonix/DIGGER.MID" target="_new"><b><font color=blue>Digger rulz</font color=blue></b></A>

 

[kinney]

True.
But that partly has to do with their design to hit higher clocks... so of course they are always going to do better if your aim is to hit higher clocks.

But as far as a processor, intel is inferior.

I'd rather not polish a turd all day.

----
Reject religon, embrace Jesus
Support the terrorists, vote democrat
NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil team leader
RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR

 

[kinney]

1) you buy your computer to mostly run a single specific app which happens to be favour the P4 and/or HT (something like Lightwave).

Save your money, get AMD and spend an extra 5seconds waiting.
The difference between the lines in Intels "chosen apps" has been closing.
While AMDs preferred segment (games), they are still pulling away.

2) you offered PC@home project by your employer for half the price, but your choice is limited to Dells.

Time to get a new employer.

3) you mother-in-law works for intel (you could of course buy a A64 and put it in an old Dell case)

Your mother needs to get a new employer.

4) you got more money than common sense, so you buy a P4EE now, and you give it away in a few months to buy a FX53 once windows64 ships.

Well, maybe without having your job anymore.. but regaining your self respect in the process, you will be forced to knock sense into yourself, and buy AMD.

Hehe, you all know that I'm just playing around.

Seriously, are there ANY reasons to buy Intel?

----
Reject religon, embrace Jesus
Support the terrorists, vote democrat
NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil team leader
RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR

 

[CaptainNemo]

There might be fewer (or no) reasons to build an Intel system atm, but I wouldn't have a major gripe with anyone (especially a n00b) would built a 2.8c system for whatever reason.

I'm going to wait until socket 775 before I decide to jump ship or stick with AMD (my current system is fine for my needs).



Axis of Stupid = coop, Kanavit, FUGGER, and SoDNighthawk

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Sandra 2004 says the xp3000 is closer to the P4 3.2c than to the 2.8

Sandra doesn't reflect real world performance

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>

 

[Xeon]

Um on a side note I don't recall you ever seeing a reason to buy Intel products.

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>

 

[juin]

In real life HT have more use that anything.You have see the review of N250 the workload on networking of the A64 was reaching 50% while the P4 was at 30%.Something usefull for corpo

need to change useur name.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by juin on 03/11/04 09:36 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Johanthegnarler]

I'm not going against you on this, but if you would could you give me some links, becuase i still haven't noticed a difference between my 2.6c and my 2500@3200 AMD. But i only play games... so yea . Although the only difference i've noticed that in corel draw 10 my 2.6c has shadow boxes everywhere, where as my AMD doesn't. But i have a feeling it's due to memory.. not intel.
Both are using 1gb, but i'm using kingston hyperX in a msi neo2 board.

<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=1752623717" target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=1752623717</A>
45.5k mark? 85 dollars went a long way. So did that extra 15 dollars for cooling my video card.

 

[pauldh]

Are you seriously asking or just your usual stir and shake? I sure agree that XP2500+ and Mobile XP2500+ are the most value per dollar. And A64 is considered the gamers chip now. But a retail 2.8C is $40 cheaper than a retail A64 3000+. No it can't keep up with A64 in games but will for video editing and other media encoding. Hyperthreading is still valuable in proper aps. Not to mention NF2, i865pe & i875 chipsets are superior to NF3 or KT800. The P4 800 bus chips destroy athlon XP's. So why was there no need to buy one before? A 2.8C is better than an XP3200+ in 9 out of 10 cases, yet cost $35 less. So the XP's are clearly outmatched.

Back to A64. That is $40 one could put into a better video card. A64/FX5900XT or P4 2.8C/ R9800 Pro. Same price, which is the better gaming rig? Not to mention i865pe rock solid proven stability with better mobo choices. I know what i would chose. Anyway, I think A64 has a ton to offer, but why buy one now instead of waiting for better motherboards soon to be released?

Again, IMO XP2500+, Mobile 2500+, P4 2.8C, A64 3000+ are the current best values and which you choose depends on your budget and what you hope to do with it. Yes, 3 out of 4 of my choices are AMD, but ruling out a 2.8C altogether is a mistake.


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt

 

[pauldh]

Sandra also shows my Mobile XP2500+ @ 2.6GHz is far superior to an overclocked A64 3200+ @ 2300MHz. Do you believe that too?

LOL

Look <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-07.html" target="_new"> HERE </A>and you'll see 800 bus P4's destroy Athlon XP's one test after another.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt

 

[endyen]

I did look there. That is the problem. Intel wiped the floor in Sandra. The Intel chips got way better results than what Sandra says. On the other hand, the Amd chips were at half what Sandra and my own chips get.
If Tom's is so badly screwing the perf of the xp chips, and boosting the Intel so much, the only conclusion is that an xp3000+ is much better than a P4c 3.2 period.

 

[TechMan]

Practical reason to buy Intel: Peer pressure. You've got colleagues and the whole community who rarely view reviews and read forums. They only see ads like "Intel inside" and Dell's. They do not foresee that 64-bit desktop computing is coming sooner than what Intel wants us to believe. And majority rules.

 

[pauldh]

the only conclusion is that an xp3000+ is much better than a P4c 3.2 period.

Huh, What? Are you serious? Dream on.


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt

 

[pauldh]

the only conclusion is that an xp3000+ is much better than a P4c 3.2 period.

ROFLMBO, Actually, the conclusion I am drawing is that you have no idea what you are talking about in this topic.

So in your mind: Tom is out to get AMD in that review, and this one: <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030513/athlon_xp-22.html" target="_new"> "XP 2800+ would have been a more realistic label for the processor, which wouldn't have been a problem for anyone, if AMD still wants to go toe-to-toe with Intel's P4." </A>

And the ANAND also must be out to get AMD <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834&p=7" target="_new"> HERE </A> where the benchmarks again must be rigged and quotes from ANAND like

"With the introduction of the 800MHz, Intel has put the nail in the Athlon XP's coffin - whatever chances AMD had at regaining the performance crown with the Athlon XP were lost when Intel introduced the 865PE and 875P platforms."

are nothing but pro Intel propaganda.

And Alex "Sharkey" Ross threw this test for Intel too huh.

<A HREF="http://www.sharkeyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_2226901__4" target="_new"> P4 destroys A XP again </A>

Seriously, 3 experts, same conclusion. P4 - 800 bus chips destroy the Athlon XP chips. Give up this arguement. The lower clocked XP's like the XP2500+ are value champs, and they OC easily too. But the higher clocked XP's can not come close to competing with Intel's P4 "C" chips. Not in performance, name, or value.

If you want to claim AMD superiority, it has to be like Kinney originally posted. XP2500+ excellent value, A64 Current Gaming King with 64 bit support as a bonus. But when you claim Athlon XP 3000+ is superior to XP3200+ <font color=red>(EDIT: I meant P4 3.2C)</font color=red>and that Tom fixed his results, it just shows how little you know and how little you have read.

But I am sure many of the others here who now have the A64 to stick in Intels face for arguement sake, used to also claim Athlon XP superiority before A64 came out. I bet one could have some fun reading some of your posts from long ago.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Pauldh on 03/14/04 07:31 PM.</EM></FONT></P>