Price difference between Intel & AMD systems

[Guest]

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:
>
> And you base this comparison on a single Business Benchmark test?

Did you notice what the OP said he was doing with his PC? No games - no
video - no content creation - no 'nuttin' but surfin' and makin' word docs.
The OP could get by with a PIII 800 and any speedy HDD, but since he's doing
nuttin' but office stuff - that would be the appropriate benchmark to use
for comparisons.

 

[Guest]

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:

>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.

Perhaps similar to the reaction of the "let's buy 64-bit because it's
the latest and greatest thing" brigade when technologies such as BTX,
PCI-Express, faster FSBs, new sockets etc hit the market en-mass in
2005 and render their "latest and greatest" machines obsolete. Then
they might well wonder why they didn't buy 32-bit machines, have
saving themselves some money and wait until they actually needed it?

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

 

[jk]

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:
>
> >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.
>
> Perhaps similar to the reaction of the "let's buy 64-bit because it's
> the latest and greatest thing" brigade when technologies such as BTX,
> PCI-Express, faster FSBs, new sockets etc hit the market en-mass in
> 2005 and render their "latest and greatest" machines obsolete. Then
> they might well wonder why they didn't buy 32-bit machines, have
> saving themselves some money and wait until they actually needed it?

Buying a low priced 32 bit Athlon XP or Sempron might make sense,
especially for someone who runs only business software. Buying a 32
bit Pentium 4 at around the price of an Athlon 64 doesn't make much
sense for most people(notice I said most people, as there will be a few
who will say that more than 50% of their pc usage is video editing, and
they have no plans to ever want to upgrade to 64 bit editing software).

>
>
> --
> >iv< Paul >iv<

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:44:50 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> 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.

Don't hold your breath for too much. 64-bit is nothing new, it's been
around for 10+ years in other processors. The benefits and drawbacks
are well known. Usually those drawbacks (pointers twice as large and
therefore twice as much memory use/cache use/bandwidth use) outweigh
the benefits and applications tend to be slower unless you really need
64-bit integers (very rare for most apps) or you need more than ~2GB
of addressable memory (the real reason for 64-bit).

Of course, all is not equal in x86-64, as AMD also did a bit of
tidying and doubled the number of integer registers. This will tend
to make applications about 5% to 10% faster. For example, for SPEC
CINT2000 base, AMD showed an 8.9% improvement overall. However in
that 8.9% improvement there were three tests (181.mcf, 197.parser and
300.twolf) that ran slower, two that ran MUCH faster (186.crafty was
41% faster while 252.eon was 49% faster), and all the rest that were a
little bit faster.

Of course, all this will be for naught for 95%+ of all users if
Microsoft doesn't get their act together and get WinXP for x64
released sometime this decade.

> 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

More important than the 25% improvement is the issue they ran into on
the first page, some things were just not possible on a 32-bit machine
due to lack of memory address space. Kind of flies in the face of
those who say 64-bit is not necessary on the desktop for the next 5+
years.

>Other applications might show a much greater performance increase.

Some will. Some applications will show a 100% improvement in
performance. Others could easily show a 10% loss in performance.
Most will be about 5-10% faster. Not much, but it's free, so hey, why
not?

I do tend to agree with you, AMD's processors are often a better buy
these days even if the price is the same. However, that wasn't what
the original poster asked.

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

 

[jk]

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 Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:44:50 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >Tony Hill wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
>
> Don't hold your breath for too much. 64-bit is nothing new, it's been
> around for 10+ years in other processors.

Do any of the other 64 bit chips have integrated memory controllers?

> The benefits and drawbacks
> are well known.

Are they?

> Usually those drawbacks (pointers twice as large and
> therefore twice as much memory use/cache use/bandwidth use) outweigh
> the benefits and applications tend to be slower unless you really need
> 64-bit integers (very rare for most apps) or you need more than ~2GB
> of addressable memory (the real reason for 64-bit).
>
> Of course, all is not equal in x86-64, as AMD also did a bit of
> tidying and doubled the number of integer registers. This will tend
> to make applications about 5% to 10% faster. For example, for SPEC
> CINT2000 base, AMD showed an 8.9% improvement overall. However in
> that 8.9% improvement there were three tests (181.mcf, 197.parser and
> 300.twolf) that ran slower, two that ran MUCH faster (186.crafty was
> 41% faster while 252.eon was 49% faster), and all the rest that were a
> little bit faster.
>
> Of course, all this will be for naught for 95%+ of all users if
> Microsoft doesn't get their act together and get WinXP for x64
> released sometime this decade.
>
> > 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
>
> More important than the 25% improvement is the issue they ran into on
> the first page, some things were just not possible on a 32-bit machine
> due to lack of memory address space. Kind of flies in the face of
> those who say 64-bit is not necessary on the desktop for the next 5+
> years.
>
> >Other applications might show a much greater performance increase.
>
> Some will. Some applications will show a 100% improvement in
> performance. Others could easily show a 10% loss in performance.
> Most will be about 5-10% faster. Not much, but it's free, so hey, why
> not?
>
> I do tend to agree with you, AMD's processors are often a better buy
> these days even if the price is the same. However, that wasn't what
> the original poster asked.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Ed]

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

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:39:04 +0100, Tim Auton
<tim.auton@uton.groupSexWithoutTheY> wrote:

>The Celeron may be a dog, but it really doesn't matter much for an
>office system.
>

The P4 is a dog

>
>Tim

 

[Guest]

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

JK wrote:
>> Don't hold your breath for too much. 64-bit is nothing new, it's
>> been around for 10+ years in other processors.
>
> Do any of the other 64 bit chips have integrated memory controllers?

The Sun UltraSparc 3 & 4 do. I think one of the Alphas had an integrated
controller too, but it was a RAMBUS controller, so it wasn't quite the same
thing as what's currently needed.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:55:30 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> Don't hold your breath for too much. 64-bit is nothing new, it's been
>> around for 10+ years in other processors.
>
>Do any of the other 64 bit chips have integrated memory controllers?

Yes, most of them do these days. Sun UltraSparc 3 and US4, the HPaq
Alpha EV7 and IBM Power5 all have integrated memory controllers. I'm
fairly certain that there is at least one 64-bit MIPS core out there
with an integrated memory controller.

Nothing particularly unique about integrated memory controllers or
64-bit, the only thing that Athlon64/Opteron do is bring these
technologies alongside the x86 instruction set and a much lower price
than most others.

>> The benefits and drawbacks
>> are well known.
>
>Are they?

Yes, in fact they are. There's really nothing new about 64-bit, same
idea has been used in virtually every processor architecture on the
planet other than x86 for the past 10 years.

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

 

[Ed]

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

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:11:32 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
<snip>
>>Do any of the other 64 bit chips have integrated memory controllers?
>
>Yes, most of them do these days. Sun UltraSparc 3 and US4, the HPaq
>Alpha EV7 and IBM Power5 all have integrated memory controllers. I'm
>fairly certain that there is at least one 64-bit MIPS core out there
>with an integrated memory controller.

Does Intel have a CPU in the works that use an integrated memory
controller?
thanks,
Ed

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

 

[Franklin]

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

Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:

>
> How about you guys drop c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips from
> your crossposting ?
>
> Absolutely none of the regulars from this newsgroup
> are participating in this thread. Don't ask me
> why it was ever cross-posted here.


Hi Rob, I am the OP and I must aplogize if I am including a group which is
irrelevant to my original question which was ...

------- BEGIN QUOTE -------
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"?
------- END QUOTE -------

My thinking for including c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips in the original posting is
that the essential difference bewteen an Intel and an AMD system is the mobo
chipset (and of course the cpu).

I figured that you guys in c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips would know about relative
pricing of this sort of thing and about the cost the mobos that include
these chips. Am I off-topic?

 

[Guest]

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Franklin <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote:
> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> How about you guys drop c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips from
>> your crossposting ?
>>
>> Absolutely none of the regulars from this newsgroup are
>> participating in this thread. Don't ask me why it was
>> ever cross-posted here.

Absence of postings isn't proof of a lack of interest.
We all miss stuff. The subject _is_ topical, if inflammatory.

> Hi Rob, I am the OP and I must aplogize if I am including a
> group which is irrelevant to my original question which was ...

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

No generally acknowledged rule. Roughly US$100 retail systems.
Less at the low end/parts, more at the high end/mobile.

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

Currently true. For one _interesting_ period Intel systems
were tied to RDRAM for an additional premium.

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

I wouldn't put it in % terms because much of a system's cost
is in other stuff (MS-WinXP licence).


> My thinking for including c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips in the original
> posting is that the essential difference bewteen an Intel and
> an AMD system is the mobo chipset (and of course the cpu).

> I figured that you guys in c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips would know
> about relative pricing of this sort of thing and about the cost
> the mobos that include these chips. Am I off-topic?

I wouldn't say so. I'm less sure about a.c.h.o.a . This is a
very general, high-level question, and they are more into details.

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

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

Franklin wrote:

> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>How about you guys drop c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips from
>>your crossposting ?
>>
>>Absolutely none of the regulars from this newsgroup
>>are participating in this thread. Don't ask me
>>why it was ever cross-posted here.
>
>
>
> Hi Rob, I am the OP and I must aplogize if I am including a group which is
> irrelevant to my original question which was ...
>
> ------- BEGIN QUOTE -------
> 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"?
> ------- END QUOTE -------
>
> My thinking for including c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips in the original posting is
> that the essential difference bewteen an Intel and an AMD system is the mobo
> chipset (and of course the cpu).
>
> I figured that you guys in c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips would know about relative
> pricing of this sort of thing and about the cost the mobos that include
> these chips. Am I off-topic?

No, I don't think it is off-topic. It just didn't
seem to be garnishing any interest from the readers of
c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips. And I was probably in a
grumpy old man kind of funk when I made that comment,
for which I sincerely apologize.

The reason I was surprised it was cross-posted here
is that none of the people who were participating in the
thread seemed to regulars or even occasional visitors
to c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips. Cross-posting to groups
one does not normally participate in is not very common -
spammers aside, of course.


--
Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
Do not remove anything.

 

[Guest]

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

Franklin wrote:
> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> How about you guys drop c.s.i.pc.hardware.chips from
>> your crossposting ?
>>
>> Absolutely none of the regulars from this newsgroup
>> are participating in this thread. Don't ask me
>> why it was ever cross-posted here.
>
>
> Hi Rob, I am the OP and I must aplogize if I am including a group
> which is irrelevant to my original question which was ...

Well, actually now that Rob has answered, I guess it means csiphc has
muddled into the mix. 🙂

Actually, I'm seeing Tony Hill, Robert R., Ed. and a few others answering
too, so it looks like it's relevant again. 🙂

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

Ed wrote:
> Does Intel have a CPU in the works that use an integrated memory
> controller?
> thanks,
> Ed

There is rumours that it is working on it, yup. Some might even take the
fact that it's working on the FB-DIMM specification as a roundabout proof of
it. FB-DIMM has the potential to mask all technological differences between
different generations of DRAM. So a single memory controller that controls
DDR-RAM might be enough to control DDR2, or whatever else comes around in
the future.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:41:53 -0500, Ed <nosay@home.com> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:11:32 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
>wrote:
><snip>
>>>Do any of the other 64 bit chips have integrated memory controllers?
>>
>>Yes, most of them do these days. Sun UltraSparc 3 and US4, the HPaq
>>Alpha EV7 and IBM Power5 all have integrated memory controllers. I'm
>>fairly certain that there is at least one 64-bit MIPS core out there
>>with an integrated memory controller.
>
>Does Intel have a CPU in the works that use an integrated memory
>controller?

To the best of my knowledge, no. Err, well I guess their ARM chips
(XScale) have integrated memory controllers, but I'm guessing that
wasn't what you were thinking of.

Of course, I don't have any sort of secret insight into just what
Intel is doing. I would be rather surprised if they had not at least
looking into integrating memory controllers on their chips. There is
a certain trade-off between the added performance and reduced
flexibility that doing so entails, but all evidence seems to be
pointing the former is plenty reason enough to go down this path.

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

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:12:52 +0100, Franklin <franklin_lo@mail.com>
wrote:

>Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Absolutely none of the regulars from this newsgroup
>> are participating in this thread. Don't ask me
>> why it was ever cross-posted here.
>
>
>Hi Rob, I am the OP and I must aplogize if I am including a group which is
>irrelevant to my original question which was ...

Don't worry about it being off topic. I think Rob Stow was
sleepwalking *grin* when he typed that since I do see a number of
familiar nicknames in this thread and I know I don't frequent the
other NGs apart from CSIPHC 😛pPP

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,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.
> 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.

Probably $100, one way or the other. On total system price that's pretty
small and you are better off to balance what suits best.

There are two cases where the P4 is faster, those which get a big boost
from HT because of locking between threads, and apps which are compiled
for P4 and use FP features AMD doesn't have. There are a very few cases
where one or the other will do something unexpected, but I wouldn't
worry about it, it won't be on decent code.

Finally, depending on your app and price point one will be faster than
the other. The P4 has more memory bandwidth, that occasionally matters.
And finally at many price points the AMD will be somewhat faster for
some things (deliberately vague there).

Fun features: HT lets you see what multithreaded apps do vs. one CPU and
more context switching, while the top AMD offerings offer 64 bit
capability. Don't care? Then buy what you like on other features or price.

--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

 

[raj]

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

if your a gamer go for AMD, they push out more fps, and cost up to almost
50% less of a intel cpu, MHZ isn't all than counts its the instructions that
the cpu holds.
"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:0is4d.12207$3d1.10573@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> 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. 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.
>
> Probably $100, one way or the other. On total system price that's pretty
> small and you are better off to balance what suits best.
>
> There are two cases where the P4 is faster, those which get a big boost
> from HT because of locking between threads, and apps which are compiled
> for P4 and use FP features AMD doesn't have. There are a very few cases
> where one or the other will do something unexpected, but I wouldn't worry
> about it, it won't be on decent code.
>
> Finally, depending on your app and price point one will be faster than the
> other. The P4 has more memory bandwidth, that occasionally matters. And
> finally at many price points the AMD will be somewhat faster for some
> things (deliberately vague there).
>
> Fun features: HT lets you see what multithreaded apps do vs. one CPU and
> more context switching, while the top AMD offerings offer 64 bit
> capability. Don't care? Then buy what you like on other features or price.
>
> --
> bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
> SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
> Project Leader, USENET news
> http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

 

[Guest]

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

> > 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.
>
>

I gotta say..
I like that Couch/House comparision.. 😉

 

[Guest]

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😛1ark09khicslkbadfd3e4qec9i51btsp0@4ax.com...
> 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<


TwinMOS Is actually "Value" ram. I use TwinMOS because it's cheap.
If your building a low-end pc then I say just get what ever you feel is
going to be the least hassle.. If your wnating to build a higher end system
then go with amd (usually).. If your wanting to build the fastest system out
there then they usually compare cause AMD and Intel seem to price their top
chips at the same mark.

 

[Guest]

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

> 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 started off kinda good, ended it kinda silly tho..
If you start comparing Heat, a chip accessing the I/O better, special
software optimization, and things like that then your going a bit away from
the true scope of the diffence..
The difference between AMD and Intel systems is that AMD systems have an AMD
processor, Intel systems have an Intel processor.

Currently the p4's deliver much more heat than the athlons..
Go back a year or so ago and the Athlons were far hotter than the p4's..

Some code is Optimized for the p4 vs the AXP (p4 wins that product
Benchmark)
keep in mind Some code is Optimized for the A64 vs the p4 (A64 wins that
product Benchmark)

Got a Intel chipset with SATA support then it's better than a off-bridge
Sata solution (Intel boards with Intel chipsets often have both, AMD only
has the External) ..

Lets not forget about this wonderful HT technology too that so many people
love to talk about..
lets ALSO not forget that it only works on Windows XP
(http://www.intel.com/support/platform/ht/os.htm)

 

[Guest]

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

rstlne wrote:

> Got a Intel chipset with SATA support then it's better than a off-bridge
> Sata solution (Intel boards with Intel chipsets often have both, AMD only
> has the External) ..

In terms of board real estate, perhaps, and it seems logical. In
practice I don't know that there's any difference in performance. I
haven't seen a good independent benchmark yet.
>
> Lets not forget about this wonderful HT technology too that so many people
> love to talk about..
> lets ALSO not forget that it only works on Windows XP
> (http://www.intel.com/support/platform/ht/os.htm)

Who told you that? It works very well with recent Linux, better than any
Windows as far as I can tell, since it knows about HT and doesn't treat
the system as if it were SMP instead of SMT. And Linux winds in the case
of HT+SMP, if only because you need a server version of XP (or did) to
run more than two CPUs, even virtual ones.

--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

 

[Guest]

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

Raj wrote:
> if your a gamer go for AMD, they push out more fps, and cost up to almost
> 50% less of a intel cpu, MHZ isn't all than counts its the instructions that
> the cpu holds.

I have serious doubts that fps makes any difference after you reach the
limits of the human eye, say 70 fps max and 40 fps typical. So it has
become more of a bragging thing than anything else. There's a limit on
the rate of the monitor as well, which people tend to ignore when
comparing. If the monitor is doing 70 refresh that 150-200 fps you see
in a benchmark is ONLY seen in the benchmark.

--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

 

[Guest]

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

In <W6y4d.147$f81.116@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>,
rstlne <.@text.news.virgin.net> wrote:

> Got a Intel chipset with SATA support then it's better than a off-bridge
> Sata solution (Intel boards with Intel chipsets often have both, AMD only
> has the External) ..

VIA KT800 has on-bridge SATA doesn't it?

--
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html> for more reliable contact addresses.

 

[Guest]

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

"rstlne" <.@text.news.virgin.net> wrote in message
news:W6y4d.147$f81.116@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> Got a Intel chipset with SATA support then it's better than a off-bridge
> Sata solution (Intel boards with Intel chipsets often have both, AMD only
> has the External) ..
> > Lets not forget about this wonderful HT technology too that so many
> > people
> love to talk about..
> lets ALSO not forget that it only works on Windows XP
> (http://www.intel.com/support/platform/ht/os.htm)

I'm not sure that's entirely true, the nForce3 250GB comes with built in
SATA RAID support (actually built in any disk raid support that lets you mix
with PATA). As a matter of fact the nForce3 seems to be about the most
efficient desktop chipset desgin out there right now. A single chip gets you
Gigabit ethernet SATA RAID, Hardware firewall, AGP 8X etc..... Too bad for
P4 owners that Intel was silly enough not to Licence the BUS out to nVidia.

Carlo