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?)

"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:haA4d.12332$jS1.3503@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
> 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.
>
<SNIP SIGNATURE>

You're not a Doom 3 fan I take it?

Carlo

 

[Guest]

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

Bill Davidsen <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
>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.

In the real world we have blurring (and usually on film and TV - with
the start of Saving Private Ryan a notable counter-example). Games
don't do motion blur, so you do need more fps than you might think.
With fast motion (common in games), 40fps isn't enough to make it look
smooth.

Also remember that it's not the average framerate which matters, it's
the minimum. 150fps might sound stupid, but if that's the average you
get when you try to keep the minimum above 60 (or whatever) it's not
the waste of cash it may at first appear.


Tim
--
Guns Don't Kill People, Rappers Do.

 

[jk]

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"?

For Doom 3, it takes an $810 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE to come close to the
performance of a $150 Athlon 64 3000+.

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

For Business Winstone 2004, it takes a $220 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz to
come close in performance to a $95 Athlon XP3000+.

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

>
> ------- 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?

The motherboards aren't that different in price.A decent socket 754
motherboard is around $80, while a socket 939 one is around $110.
Of course there are more expensive ones. A decent Pentium 4 775
motherboard is at least $110.

 

[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:
>
[...]
>
> For Doom 3, it takes an $810 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE to come close to the
> performance of a $150 Athlon 64 3000+.

What is Doom 3 and why do you need to run it? ;-)

[...]

> The motherboards aren't that different in price.A decent socket 754
> motherboard is around $80, while a socket 939 one is around $110.
> Of course there are more expensive ones. A decent Pentium 4 775
> motherboard is at least $110.

And the cheapest AMD with dual channel costs $315 www.pricewatch.com !
All new Pentium 4 have dual channel.

 

[jk]

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:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > For Doom 3, it takes an $810 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE to come close to the
> > performance of a $150 Athlon 64 3000+.
>
> What is Doom 3 and why do you need to run it? ;-)
>
> [...]
>
> > The motherboards aren't that different in price.A decent socket 754
> > motherboard is around $80, while a socket 939 one is around $110.
> > Of course there are more expensive ones. A decent Pentium 4 775
> > motherboard is at least $110.
>
> And the cheapest AMD with dual channel costs $315

The Athlon 64 dual channel has the controllers on the processor,
so there is no bottleneck of a fsb running slower than the processor.
The Athlon 64 3000+ is available for socket 939(dual memory
controllers on the cpu) at around $185. The socket 754 version
is around $150. There is also an Athlon 64 3200+ socket 939
chip. As the supply of socket 754 chips is used up, and the
supply of socket 939 90 nm A64 3000+ and 3200+ chips increases,
expect the pricing on the 939 chips to drop.

> www.pricewatch.com !
> All new Pentium 4 have dual channel.

 

[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" <johs@ezouvwnmzusxsizefitterzxursaxzoe.com> wrote in
message news:41568088.82E409B9@ezouvwnmzusxsizefitterzxursaxzoe.com...
> JK wrote:
[snip]
> > The motherboards aren't that different in price.A decent socket 754
> > motherboard is around $80, while a socket 939 one is around $110.
> > Of course there are more expensive ones. A decent Pentium 4 775
> > motherboard is at least $110.
>
> And the cheapest AMD with dual channel costs $315 www.pricewatch.com !

AFAIK, all Socket 939 motherboards are dual channel. Anyway, see ebuyer
Quickfind code 64800.

> All new Pentium 4 have dual channel.

Suggesting that dual channel is an advantage of P4-based systems is similar
to suggesting that the higher CPU clockspeed is an advantage. In both cases,
a direct comparison is meaningless due to architectural differences.

Alex

 

[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 Tim Auton <> wrote:
> Games don't do motion blur, so you do need more fps than
> you might think. With fast motion (common in games),
> 40fps isn't enough to make it look smooth.

Blur is a point (and could be added!) but I think the
real problem is not the average 40 fps, but the occasional
slow frame/stutter. Also, 5 ms jitter around
the 25 ms frame rate might make a difference.

-- Robert

 

[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, 26 Sep 2004 08:40:34 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
<johs@ezouvwnmzusxsizefitterzxursaxzoe.com> wrote:
>
>> The motherboards aren't that different in price.A decent socket 754
>> motherboard is around $80, while a socket 939 one is around $110.
>> Of course there are more expensive ones. A decent Pentium 4 775
>> motherboard is at least $110.
>
>And the cheapest AMD with dual channel costs $315 www.pricewatch.com !

Low cost Athlon64 chips in a Socket 939 packaging should start
appearing over the next two weeks or so. These guys claim to have
them in stock now:

http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=M&Category_Code=AMD64


There are, of course, cheaper dual-channel AMD options available for
Socket A as well.

>All new Pentium 4 have dual channel.

Unless they use the low-cost i848 chipset or some of the non-Intel
chipsets. Not very common for the build-your-own crowd, but you will
often find the i848GL chipset (or even the older i845GV chipset) used
in the low-end OEM stuff from Dell and HPaq.

-------------
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?)

JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

>> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
>> equivalent AMD system"?
>
>For Doom 3, it takes an $810 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE to come close to the
>performance of a $150 Athlon 64 3000+.

Will you get off your P4-EE kick? No one buys that thing. It may as
well not exist, and using it for your "value" comparisons is stupid.

 

[Guest]

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

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tim Auton <> wrote:
>> Games don't do motion blur, so you do need more fps than
>> you might think. With fast motion (common in games),
>> 40fps isn't enough to make it look smooth.
>
> Blur is a point (and could be added!)

Good general motion blur cannot (AFAIK) efficiently be done with current
generation polygon blatters (though can be somewhat approximated, see Need
For Speed: Underground for example). To get good blur you need to support
volume rendering and use volumes instead of polygons, and even then it gets
dodgy if you've got rapidly (with respect to the frame rate) rotating
polygons. It's possible to do completely correct motion blur with a
raytracer and a good numerical integrator (each ray generates a line on the
polygon, then you need to integrate the texture data along the line) but I
don't know off the top of my head which (if any) raytracers that do this.
There's probably hundreds of other methods out there I haven't heard about
though

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open