Price difference between Intel & AMD systems

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
F

Franklin

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2004
96
0
18,630
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
(I don't think memory depends on processor type)

Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
equivalent AMD system"?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Franklin wrote:

> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
> an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

Same power for what? In Doom 3 for example, an Athlon 64 3500+ beats
anything that Intel makes, even chips at almost 3x the price.

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

>
>
> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
>
> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
> equivalent AMD system"?

No. How do you determine which chips are equivalent? By benchmarks?
If so, then you need to figure out what applications you run , and how often
you run each, then come up with a weighted average performance level
for each chip based on your usage patterns. Then you can make a
comparison.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
> Franklin wrote:
>
> > Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
> > an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
>
> Same power for what? In Doom 3 for example, an Athlon 64 3500+ beats
> anything that Intel makes, even chips at almost 3x the price.

But nobody in their right mind would spend money on the Intel Extreme
Edition version. It was made for a particular purpose at a particular
time, and I understand that it is now discontinued. Hence it's ludicrous
to keep referring to "AMD beats Intel at 3x the price", but that's the
sort of arguments being used by AMD fanatics.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> JK wrote:
> >
> > Franklin wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
> > > an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
> >
> > Same power for what? In Doom 3 for example, an Athlon 64 3500+ beats
> > anything that Intel makes, even chips at almost 3x the price.
>
> But nobody in their right mind would spend money on the Intel Extreme
> Edition version. It was made for a particular purpose at a particular
> time

To compete against the Athlon 64 FX-53. It didn't do a good job at that though.
However since it is the best gaming chip Intel sells, a number of them
probably sold anyway.

> , and I understand that it is now discontinued.

It is? I heard that the 3.2 ghz was discontinued. I doubt Intel would discontinue
the 3.4 ghz one unless they came out with a replacement for it(perhaps a
3.6 ghz one?).

> Hence it's ludicrous
> to keep referring to "AMD beats Intel at 3x the price"

Not really. For those who love playing Doom 3 it is important.

> , but that's the
> sort of arguments being used by AMD fanatics.

Fanatics? LOL!
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 15:54:01 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
<johs@ezouvwnmzusxsizefitterzxursaxzoe.com> wrote:

>
>
>JK wrote:
>>
>> Franklin wrote:
>>
>> > Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
>> > an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
>>
>> Same power for what? In Doom 3 for example, an Athlon 64 3500+ beats
>> anything that Intel makes, even chips at almost 3x the price.
>
>But nobody in their right mind would spend money on the Intel Extreme
>Edition version. It was made for a particular purpose at a particular
>time, and I understand that it is now discontinued. Hence it's ludicrous
>to keep referring to "AMD beats Intel at 3x the price", but that's the
>sort of arguments being used by AMD fanatics.

ya and nobody in their right mind should of bought a P4 when the P4
first came out (slower then P3) but Intel sold millions of them.

EE is discontinued?, last I read Intel is doing the same thing AMD is on
the high end, when a new faster EE/FX is released the previous version
is discontinued.

Ed
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:414C5CFB.CECF9770@netscape.net...
>
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
> > JK wrote:
> > >
> > > Franklin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
between
> > > > an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
> > >
> > > Same power for what? In Doom 3 for example, an Athlon 64 3500+ beats
> > > anything that Intel makes, even chips at almost 3x the price.
> >
> > But nobody in their right mind would spend money on the Intel Extreme
> > Edition version. It was made for a particular purpose at a particular
> > time
>
> To compete against the Athlon 64 FX-53. It didn't do a good job at that
though.
> However since it is the best gaming chip Intel sells, a number of them
> probably sold anyway.
>
> > , and I understand that it is now discontinued.
>
> It is? I heard that the 3.2 ghz was discontinued. I doubt Intel would
discontinue
> the 3.4 ghz one unless they came out with a replacement for it(perhaps a
> 3.6 ghz one?).

They are changing the Extreme range to the LGA775 processors and moving the
FSB to 1066. nd to the prescott core I assume. They will be expensive
still tho.......
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

> Franklin wrote:
>
>> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price
>> difference between an AMD system and an Intel system of the
>> same power?

-- snip --

>> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
>> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
>>
>> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent
>> more than an equivalent AMD system"?
>
> No. How do you determine which chips are equivalent? By
> benchmarks? If so, then you need to figure out what
> applications you run , and how often you run each, then come up
> with a weighted average performance level for each chip based
> on your usage patterns. Then you can make a comparison.

I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
No games. No video or sound editing. No movie playing. No power use.

That is the sort of thing I would like to compare between AMD and Intel.

The final system may be something like a AMD Barton 2500+ with 1GB memory,
sound integrated on mobo and a very modest VIA-based graphics and 80 GN HDD.

But all I want to get anidea of is the relative cost on an AMD mobo &
porceesor compared to Intel.

Hope that helps.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9568B06CF333F31E75@130.133.1.4...
> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Franklin wrote:
> >
> >> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price
> >> difference between an AMD system and an Intel system of the
> >> same power?
>
> -- snip --
>
> >> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> >> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
> >>
> >> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent
> >> more than an equivalent AMD system"?
> >
> > No. How do you determine which chips are equivalent? By
> > benchmarks? If so, then you need to figure out what
> > applications you run , and how often you run each, then come up
> > with a weighted average performance level for each chip based
> > on your usage patterns. Then you can make a comparison.
>
> I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
> No games. No video or sound editing. No movie playing. No power use.
>
> That is the sort of thing I would like to compare between AMD and Intel.
>
> The final system may be something like a AMD Barton 2500+ with 1GB memory,
> sound integrated on mobo and a very modest VIA-based graphics and 80 GN
HDD.
>
> But all I want to get anidea of is the relative cost on an AMD mobo &
> porceesor compared to Intel.
>
> Hope that helps.
>

AMD will be a cheaper version and will do everything you need.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:20:36 +0100, Franklin <franklin_lo@mail.com>
wrote:

>JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Franklin wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price
>>> difference between an AMD system and an Intel system of the
>>> same power?
>
>-- snip --
>
>>> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
>>> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
>>>
>>> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent
>>> more than an equivalent AMD system"?
>>
>> No. How do you determine which chips are equivalent? By
>> benchmarks? If so, then you need to figure out what
>> applications you run , and how often you run each, then come up
>> with a weighted average performance level for each chip based
>> on your usage patterns. Then you can make a comparison.
>
>I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
>No games. No video or sound editing. No movie playing. No power use.
>
>That is the sort of thing I would like to compare between AMD and Intel.
>
>The final system may be something like a AMD Barton 2500+ with 1GB memory,
>sound integrated on mobo and a very modest VIA-based graphics and 80 GN HDD.
>
>But all I want to get anidea of is the relative cost on an AMD mobo &
>porceesor compared to Intel.

>
>Hope that helps.

Might want to take a look here to get some ideas...
http://www.pricewatch.com/
see combos...
Motherboard/CPU Combos
Mother Combos w/Memory

No games. No video etc..., then what are you going to do with it? If
you just want a PC to surf/email then you probably don't even need 1GB
of ram, 512MB would be enough, a 2500+ may even be overkill, AMD's
Durons are pretty impressive for their price too.

Ed
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:20:36 +0100, Franklin wrote:

> I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
> No games. No video or sound editing. No movie playing. No power use.
>
Then you really don't need much power.

> That is the sort of thing I would like to compare between AMD and
> Intel.
>
> The final system may be something like a AMD Barton 2500+ with 1GB
> memory, sound integrated on mobo and a very modest VIA-based graphics
> and 80 GN HDD.
>
> But all I want to get anidea of is the relative cost on an AMD mobo &
> porceesor compared to Intel.
>
Then compare an AMD 2500+ MB combo to a P4 2.6GHz MB combo. A quick
comparison on pricewatch puts the cheapest AMD 2500+combo at $93 and the
cheapest 2.6GHz P4 combo at $190, or $171 for a 2.53GHz P4 combo.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On 18/09/2004 Wes Newell wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:20:36 +0100, Franklin wrote:
>

[snipped]

> Then compare an AMD 2500+ MB combo to a P4 2.6GHz MB combo. A quick
> comparison on pricewatch puts the cheapest AMD 2500+combo at $93 and
> the cheapest 2.6GHz P4 combo at $190, or $171 for a 2.53GHz P4 combo.

Where do you find items in the UK priced in USD - or is your pound sign
broken?

--
Jeff Gaines - Damerham Hampshire UK
Posted with XanaNews 1.16.4.6
http://www.wilsonc.demon.co.uk/d7xananews.htm
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Franklin wrote:

> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Franklin wrote:
> >
> >> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price
> >> difference between an AMD system and an Intel system of the
> >> same power?
>
> -- snip --
>
> >> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> >> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
> >>
> >> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent
> >> more than an equivalent AMD system"?
> >
> > No. How do you determine which chips are equivalent? By
> > benchmarks? If so, then you need to figure out what
> > applications you run , and how often you run each, then come up
> > with a weighted average performance level for each chip based
> > on your usage patterns. Then you can make a comparison.
>
> I use my PC for home and "small office" use.

In that case an Athlon XP system would give you the best value.
An Athlon XP3000+ at around $100 beats a $220 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
in Business Winstone 2004.

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

>
> No games. No video or sound editing. No movie playing. No power use.
>
> That is the sort of thing I would like to compare between AMD and Intel.
>
> The final system may be something like a AMD Barton 2500+ with 1GB memory,
> sound integrated on mobo and a very modest VIA-based graphics and 80 GN HDD.
>
> But all I want to get anidea of is the relative cost on an AMD mobo &
> porceesor compared to Intel.

A good basic motherboard for an Athlon XP is cheap. Only around $50-60.

>
>
> Hope that helps.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
> Franklin wrote:
>
> > JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Franklin wrote:
> > >
> > >> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price
> > >> difference between an AMD system and an Intel system of the
> > >> same power?
> >
> > -- snip --
> >
> > >> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> > >> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
> > >>
> > >> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent
> > >> more than an equivalent AMD system"?
> > >
> > > No. How do you determine which chips are equivalent? By
> > > benchmarks? If so, then you need to figure out what
> > > applications you run , and how often you run each, then come up
> > > with a weighted average performance level for each chip based
> > > on your usage patterns. Then you can make a comparison.
> >
> > I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
>
> In that case an Athlon XP system would give you the best value.
> An Athlon XP3000+ at around $100 beats a $220 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
> in Business Winstone 2004.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

And on the same link, the Pentium 4 3.0 GHz Northwood beats the
Athlon XP3000+ in Content Creation Winstone 2004. Where do you get
those prices from? The Athlon XP are being replaced by less performing
Semprons for same PR numbers.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> JK wrote:
> >
> > Franklin wrote:
> >
> > > JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Franklin wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price
> > > >> difference between an AMD system and an Intel system of the
> > > >> same power?
> > >
> > > -- snip --
> > >
> > > >> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> > > >> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
> > > >>
> > > >> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent
> > > >> more than an equivalent AMD system"?
> > > >
> > > > No. How do you determine which chips are equivalent? By
> > > > benchmarks? If so, then you need to figure out what
> > > > applications you run , and how often you run each, then come up
> > > > with a weighted average performance level for each chip based
> > > > on your usage patterns. Then you can make a comparison.
> > >
> > > I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
> >
> > In that case an Athlon XP system would give you the best value.
> > An Athlon XP3000+ at around $100 beats a $220 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
> > in Business Winstone 2004.
> >
> > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6
>
> And on the same link, the Pentium 4 3.0 GHz Northwood beats the
> Athlon XP3000+ in Content Creation Winstone 2004. Where do you get

> those prices from?

www.pricewatch.com

> The Athlon XP are being replaced by less performing
> Semprons for same PR numbers.

The Sempron model number are meant to compare it to the Celeron.
Athlon XP chips are still available. It is not certain how much longer
they will still be available.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
> > JK wrote:
> > >
> > > Franklin wrote:
> > >
> > > > JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Franklin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price
> > > > >> difference between an AMD system and an Intel system of the
> > > > >> same power?
> > > >
> > > > -- snip --
> > > >
> > > > >> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> > > > >> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent
> > > > >> more than an equivalent AMD system"?
> > > > >
> > > > > No. How do you determine which chips are equivalent? By
> > > > > benchmarks? If so, then you need to figure out what
> > > > > applications you run , and how often you run each, then come up
> > > > > with a weighted average performance level for each chip based
> > > > > on your usage patterns. Then you can make a comparison.
> > > >
> > > > I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
> > >
> > > In that case an Athlon XP system would give you the best value.
> > > An Athlon XP3000+ at around $100 beats a $220 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
> > > in Business Winstone 2004.
> > >
> > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6
> >
> > And on the same link, the Pentium 4 3.0 GHz Northwood beats the
> > Athlon XP3000+ in Content Creation Winstone 2004. Where do you get
>
> > those prices from?
>
> www.pricewatch.com

Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz 800 MHz dual channel OEM ............$177

AMD Athlon XP 3000+ 2.16 GHz 400 MHz single channel OEM ..... $98

Not really much difference considering the total price of the PC.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> JK wrote:
> >
> > Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> >
> > > JK wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Franklin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Franklin wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price
> > > > > >> difference between an AMD system and an Intel system of the
> > > > > >> same power?
> > > > >
> > > > > -- snip --
> > > > >
> > > > > >> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> > > > > >> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent
> > > > > >> more than an equivalent AMD system"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No. How do you determine which chips are equivalent? By
> > > > > > benchmarks? If so, then you need to figure out what
> > > > > > applications you run , and how often you run each, then come up
> > > > > > with a weighted average performance level for each chip based
> > > > > > on your usage patterns. Then you can make a comparison.
> > > > >
> > > > > I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
> > > >
> > > > In that case an Athlon XP system would give you the best value.
> > > > An Athlon XP3000+ at around $100 beats a $220 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
> > > > in Business Winstone 2004.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6
> > >
> > > And on the same link, the Pentium 4 3.0 GHz Northwood beats the
> > > Athlon XP3000+ in Content Creation Winstone 2004. Where do you get
> >
> > > those prices from?
> >
> > www.pricewatch.com
>
> Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz 800 MHz dual channel OEM ............$177

A Pentium 4 3.2 ghz performs worse than an Athlon XP 3000+
running Business Winstone 2004. Perhaps you should compare a
Pentium 4 3ghz to an Athlon XP 2500+ or 2800+ for running business
applications. One could choose an Athlon 64 3000+ for less than
the cost of a Pentium 4 3ghz.

>
>
> AMD Athlon XP 3000+ 2.16 GHz 400 MHz single channel OEM ..... $98
>
> Not really much difference considering the total price of the PC.

Very funny. An Athlon XP 2500+ is only around $65. An XP 2500+ 333
is around $75. Why should someone pay around $100 more than they need to?

"Not really much difference considering the total price of the PC."

That excuse doesn't make sense. Using that type of excuse one could
say that spending $10,000 on a couch doesn't make much of difference
than buying a $2,000 one, since the cost of the house with the couch won't
be so different in percentage terms with each alternative.

An extra $100 could buy a DVD writer or a second hard drive. It could be
saved for future upgrades.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

>That excuse doesn't make sense. Using that type of excuse one could
>say that spending $10,000 on a couch doesn't make much of difference
>than buying a $2,000 one, since the cost of the house with the couch won't
>be so different in percentage terms with each alternative.

We're neither talking about an item with a £8000 price difference (is
your pound key broken?) or one which has an value in it's own right;
it's simply a component of the overall system.

Few people would disagree that an Intel-based PC costs a little more
than a comparable AMD-based system but it's hardly unaffordable in the
context of the overall cost. Some people prefer not to pay the
premium whereas others do not.

The same people who buy AMD because they're cheaper might conceivably
pay twice as much for, say, a high-end RAM or a top of the range
graphics card when parts priced at half the price would give very
similar performance, or pay a premium for OCZ or TwinMOS memory or
Hercules or Sapphire graphics cards over a cheaper functionally
similar equivalents. Fact is any reason for choosing any component
over another might seem no less whimsical to some people than the
reasons some people prefer one chip manufacturer over another.

One of the *few* reasons for building your own PC is to have this
degree of choice and flexibility so I find it incredible that
essentially like-minded people can get so hung-up about other peoples
choices!

--
>iv< Paul >iv<
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Paul Hopwood wrote:

> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >That excuse doesn't make sense. Using that type of excuse one could
> >say that spending $10,000 on a couch doesn't make much of difference
> >than buying a $2,000 one, since the cost of the house with the couch won't
> >be so different in percentage terms with each alternative.
>
> We're neither talking about an item with a £8000 price difference (is
> your pound key broken?)

Not everyone lives in the UK. Most of Europe has adopted to the Euro.
Why hasn't the UK adopted the Euro?

> or one which has an value in it's own right;
> it's simply a component of the overall system.

A couch is a component of a furnished house.

>
>
> Few people would disagree that an Intel-based PC costs a little more
> than a comparable AMD-based system but it's hardly unaffordable in the
> context of the overall cost.

Neither is a $10,000 couch compared to a $2,000 one, but is the extra
expense justified?

> Some people prefer not to pay the
> premium whereas others do not.
>
> The same people who buy AMD because they're cheaper

Many buy AMD for better performance.

> might conceivably
> pay twice as much for, say, a high-end RAM or a top of the range
> graphics card when parts priced at half the price would give very
> similar performance, or pay a premium for OCZ or TwinMOS memory or
> Hercules or Sapphire graphics cards over a cheaper functionally
> similar equivalents. Fact is any reason for choosing any component
> over another might seem no less whimsical to some people than the
> reasons some people prefer one chip manufacturer over another.
>
> One of the *few* reasons for building your own PC is to have this
> degree of choice and flexibility so I find it incredible that
> essentially like-minded people can get so hung-up about other peoples
> choices!

The worst part about choosing a Pentium 4 is that the vast majority of Pentium
4
processors out there are 32 bit chips. How will people feel if they buy a
32 bit processor in '04, then see great 64 bit software for sale in '05.
Will they buy a 64 bit processor and new motherboard then, and be
cursing that they were talked into buying a high priced 32 bit processor
in 2004?

>
>
> --
> >iv< Paul >iv<
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:13:32 +0100, Franklin <franklin_lo@mail.com>
wrote:
>
>Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
>an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

In a word, no.

>I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
>(I don't think memory depends on processor type)

To a certain extent memory does depend on the motherboard and/or
processor. For example, some setups (for both AMD and Intel) use
single channel memory while others use dual channel memory (ie memory
must be added in pairs). Some AMD systems, most notably the older
Socket 940 Athlon64 FX chips, require the use of registered memory,
while pretty much all others use unregistered memory.

>Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
>equivalent AMD system"?

Well, first off, defining "equivalent" is not a very easy thing to do.
In some applications Intel's P4 design tends to do pretty well, while
in others AMD's AthlonXP line does well and in others still it's AMD's
Athlon64 line that really pulls ahead. So equivalency here depends
largely on what application is most important to you.

What's more, prices are rather fluid and tend to change a lot
depending on where in the price/performance scale you are looking.
For example, Intel's top-end P4 Extreme Edition chips are VERY
expensive ($900+), and generally perform about the same as an Athlon64
3500+ ($365) or 3700+ ($500). On the other hand, if you were to
compare a P4 3.0GHz, it would usually perform more or less on par with
AMD's Athlon64 3000+ (again, depending on the applications you use),
where here AMD's processor is only about $20 cheaper.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:20:36 +0100, Franklin <franklin_lo@mail.com>
wrote:
>
>I use my PC for home and "small office" use.
>No games. No video or sound editing. No movie playing. No power use.
>
>That is the sort of thing I would like to compare between AMD and Intel.
>
>The final system may be something like a AMD Barton 2500+ with 1GB memory,
>sound integrated on mobo and a very modest VIA-based graphics and 80 GN HDD.

If you're going to use integrated graphics, stick to either Intel, ATI
or nVidia chipsets. SiS boards have VERY weak integrated graphics,
but even they are MUCH better than the trash that VIA puts out.

Interesting note about the Barton 2500+, it's now actually more
expensive than the Barton 2600+. Why? I really don't know. Only
thing I can think of is that overclockers feel that the Barton 2500+
is somehow a better processor.

>But all I want to get anidea of is the relative cost on an AMD mobo &
>porceesor compared to Intel.

Well, here's some numbers to toss out, all prices from www.newegg.com,
all using retail boxed processors (which include a heatsink and fan,
plus 3 year warranty). Note that these will not be the cheapest
prices you'll find from the Pricewatch bottom-feeders because Newegg
is, from all accounts, a reliable vendor and not some fly-by-night
shop.

AMD system:
AthlonXP 2600+ $94
MSI K7N2GM-L $72
PGI 2x512MB PC2700 $166
Total: $332

Intel Celeron D system
Celeron D 335 2.8GHz $111
MSI 865G NEO2-PLS $95
PDP 2x512MB PC3200 $159
Total: $365

Intel P4 system
P4 2.4C $157
MSI 865G NEO2-PLS $95
PDP 2x512MB PC3200 $159
Total: $411


All three of these systems are likely to be close enough in
performance that you won't notice the difference, though at a guess I
would say that the AthlonXP system would be the fastest, followed by
the P4 system with the Celeron being the slowest.

Anyway, comparing the price/performance of the AthlonXP vs. Celeron
system here, that would give you about a 10% difference in price when
taking just these components, or probably about a 5% difference in
price for the system as a whole.


Now, mind you, if your headers are to be believed, your over on the
other side of the pond, so prices might be a bit different there.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

>> >That excuse doesn't make sense. Using that type of excuse one could
>> >say that spending $10,000 on a couch doesn't make much of difference
>> >than buying a $2,000 one, since the cost of the house with the couch won't
>> >be so different in percentage terms with each alternative.

>> We're neither talking about an item with a £8000 price difference (is
>> your pound key broken?)

>Not everyone lives in the UK. Most of Europe has adopted to the Euro.
>Why hasn't the UK adopted the Euro?

I read the posting in uk.comp.homebuilt, which is a UK-based group. I
must presume therefore the OP is in the UK or the posting would be
off-topic.

>> or one which has an value in it's own right;
>> it's simply a component of the overall system.

>A couch is a component of a furnished house.

On it's own couch has no value and the house will not function without
it?

>> might conceivably
>> pay twice as much for, say, a high-end RAM or a top of the range
>> graphics card when parts priced at half the price would give very
>> similar performance, or pay a premium for OCZ or TwinMOS memory or
>> Hercules or Sapphire graphics cards over a cheaper functionally
>> similar equivalents. Fact is any reason for choosing any component
>> over another might seem no less whimsical to some people than the
>> reasons some people prefer one chip manufacturer over another.

>> One of the *few* reasons for building your own PC is to have this
>> degree of choice and flexibility so I find it incredible that
>> essentially like-minded people can get so hung-up about other peoples
>> choices!

>The worst part about choosing a Pentium 4 is that the vast majority of Pentium
>4
>processors out there are 32 bit chips. How will people feel if they buy a
>32 bit processor in '04, then see great 64 bit software for sale in '05.
>Will they buy a 64 bit processor and new motherboard then, and be
>cursing that they were talked into buying a high priced 32 bit processor
>in 2004?

I could get drawn into a P4/AMD or 32-bit vs 64-bit argument but you
seem to missing the point somewhat.

You evidently have your reasons for liking AMD Athlon-64s while other
people have different reasons for preferring alternative products,
all of which are valid and people choose how to spend their own money
as they see fit. Isn't that what PC building is all about, namely
choice?

--
>iv< Paul >iv<
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Paul Hopwood" <paul@hopwood.org.uk> wrote in message
news:6tgrk0thoccme3rf87gn6bg4ot8red3dr3@4ax.com...
> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>>Not everyone lives in the UK. Most of Europe has adopted to the Euro.
>>Why hasn't the UK adopted the Euro?
>
> I read the posting in uk.comp.homebuilt, which is a UK-based group. I
> must presume therefore the OP is in the UK or the posting would be
> off-topic.
>

Ah! Ok... Note: This was cross posted to comp.sys.intel, alt.comp.hardware,
hardware.overclocking.amd etc......

Carlo
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:414DB175.CE930E55@netscape.net...

> Not everyone lives in the UK. Most of Europe has adopted to the Euro.
> Why hasn't the UK adopted the Euro?

This is OT..

His ISP, rcn.com , is in the USA.... 105 Carnegie Center, Princeton, NJ
08540
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:13:32 +0100, Franklin <franklin_lo@mail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
> >an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
>
> In a word, no.
>
> >I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> >(I don't think memory depends on processor type)
>
> To a certain extent memory does depend on the motherboard and/or
> processor. For example, some setups (for both AMD and Intel) use
> single channel memory while others use dual channel memory (ie memory
> must be added in pairs). Some AMD systems, most notably the older
> Socket 940 Athlon64 FX chips, require the use of registered memory,
> while pretty much all others use unregistered memory.
>
> >Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
> >equivalent AMD system"?
>
> Well, first off, defining "equivalent" is not a very easy thing to do.
> In some applications Intel's P4 design tends to do pretty well, while
> in others AMD's AthlonXP line does well and in others still it's AMD's
> Athlon64 line that really pulls ahead. So equivalency here depends
> largely on what application is most important to you.
>
> What's more, prices are rather fluid and tend to change a lot
> depending on where in the price/performance scale you are looking.
> For example, Intel's top-end P4 Extreme Edition chips are VERY
> expensive ($900+), and generally perform about the same as an Athlon64
> 3500+ ($365) or 3700+ ($500). On the other hand, if you were to
> compare a P4 3.0GHz, it would usually perform more or less on par with
> AMD's Athlon64 3000+ (again, depending on the applications you use),
> where here AMD's processor is only about $20 cheaper.

Which wouldn't be so bad if the Pentium 4 being discussed was a 64 bit one.
Unfortunately it is a 32 bit one. Assigning no extra value to the Athlon 64's
64 bit mode doesn't seem to make much sense. In 2005 many of those
who bought a high priced 32 bit processor in '04 might become upset
that they didn't use foresight and buy a 64 bit processor. I wonder what great
64 bit applications we will see in 2005. I wonder what 32 bit applications will
be ported to 64 bits and show tremendous improvements in performance
when the 64 bit is run compared to the 32 bit version on an Athlon 64
or Opteron. Here is a link to one application already out in 64 bits whose
64 bit version runs 25% faster than the 32 bit version on an Athlon 64.

http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=257&p=1


Other applications might show a much greater performance increase.

>
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
[...]
> >
> > AMD Athlon XP 3000+ 2.16 GHz 400 MHz single channel OEM ..... $98
> >
> > Not really much difference considering the total price of the PC.
>
> Very funny. An Athlon XP 2500+ is only around $65. An XP 2500+ 333
> is around $75. Why should someone pay around $100 more than they need to?

And you base this comparison on a single Business Benchmark test? That
test could have a large I/O element and thus depend on other hardware
factors. And I just pointed out to you that on the very same site, the
P4 3.0 GHz beats the AMD Athlon XP 3000+ on Content Creation Benchmark.
You have to look at the whole performance spectrum. Not everybody run
databases or are interested in business tests. The Intels perform
traditionally very well for numerical modeling problems with vectors
and matrices. Special libraries are optimized for Intel. Also the
simplicity of plugging in an Intel P4 without having to worry about
many things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom