The last CPU post until next fall - intel wins the THG $300

[jaywalker256]

That's a 256 mb Prescott, not the 512mb Cedar Mill. Cache is very important to netburst.

Obviously

 

[dragonsprayer]

amd's lead started at the end of the p4 line which was the 3.6 or 560j the 3.8 was a useless over priced chip - prior to late 2004 the amd 64 was a poor multitasker. The 560j ran best at 4.08ghz and up to 4.25ghz with little over volting and sandra memory bandwidth scores with ddr400 2-2-2-5 was just under 6000, usually above 5500mb.

The fact is nobody ran real good multitasking tests - even today you see very little multiple tests being run simultaneously to simulate real world computer use - for me that is gaming and music going with all background programs running (antivirus, antispyware etc). Magazine tests have always been bias in amd's favor since they do not do real multi-tasking testing and amd chips are good at single tasks - in fact they are better then Intel. But as soon as you turn on a few more programs those old 64's dog right down.

So I consider the release date of AMD's dual core as the day they took the true lead at the lead lasted until the release date of core 2. Many people AMD's performance on single tasking gaming not real world multitasking.

By the way - good job you intel junkies keep up the posts! Spirted debate is the point of the article. I buy and use AMD chips all the time. O ya Semprons are dogs!

 

[Shizamaaur]

O ya Semprons are dogs!

and so are celerons.. whats your point? they are low range

 

[dragonsprayer]

"AMD releases dual-core Athlon chips
5/31/2005 11:00:59 AM, by Eric Bangeman

AMD is letting the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 loose in the wild today, with the launch of four dual-core models. Priced from US$531 to US$1,001 in quantities of 1,000, the chips will offered for desktops made by HP and Alienware in the US, Acer in Europe, and Lenovo in"


I could be wrong it appears me amd's lead was form mid 2005 until july-aug 2006 or less then the 18 months i posted originally.

 

[Shizamaaur]

You're wanting a spirited debate but you come straight in here and start saying shit like

AMD is a second rate chip that only had its 18 months of glory. Anyone who thought 64 bit compute-ring was near in 2005 is stuck with a slow dog chip that still has not enough driver support for a complete system.

.... you know that's just dumb to say... are you mentally retarded? seriously think about that...

 

[ajfink]

No, the single-core chips were pretty dominant in a lot of benchmarks before that. Late socket 754 through the move to 939 was solid AMD victories.

 

[sandmanwn]

Its pointless to argue with someone that cant even figure out how to use the Quote button effectively.

Its like getting into an asskicking match with a one legged man.

 

[Shizamaaur]

Just because someone doesn't know how to quote effectively means you can't debate with them? weird...... haha
I really think this thread needs to be locked.. really no point to it..

 

[m25]

That's a 256 mb Prescott, not the 512mb Cedar Mill. Cache is very important to netburst.
The whole thing is moot, April 22 we will see Conroe based Celerons and Intel should have a good lead in the sucky CPU market.

I know people argue about these small details, but the extra 256K L2 will not make for the 30% of lag the celeronD has. If it's different, please, tell the authors to include the benchmarks they have shamefully withdrawn.

 

[Hex]

You don't bother arguing with people like DragonSprayer. All you can do is laugh at them and say to yourself, "I'm glad I'm not that dumb.".

 

[m25]

...Not to mention that this setup was carefully chosen to suit the Celeron (even though it can not with the full benchmarks); $10 less, the real ultra budget $40-50 zone, CeleronD's have nothing at all to match the Sempron 2800+- 3000+ and $5 more (than the celeron) and they hit into something like an A64 3000+ and God save the Celly, but, shhhhhhhh, don't tell anybody :lol:

 

[joefriday]

That's the big question right there. These are the first REAL benchmarks we've since for a Cedar Mill Celeron D (ie non sysnthetic). Shamefully we only get encoding benchmarks (which is a well known Netburst strongpoint) and Winrar (surprising how well the Celeron did in winrar though). I know the focus is not about the CPUs, but about $300 computer systems, but I would really like to see a budget CPU showdown with a Cedar Mill celeron D vs an equivalent priced AMD whatever. Hell, it could be socket 939 for all I care.

The best I can hope for at this point would be that Tom's reviews the new Celeron 400 series when they debut, and they throw in a Cedar Mill Celeron D as a comparison chip to show how much better the new 400 series is.

 

[corvetteguy]

Just because someone doesn't know how to quote effectively means you can't debate with them? weird...... haha
I really think this thread needs to be locked.. really no point to it..

I have already reported it and asked it to be locked. I hope it is soon.

NO, NO, why lock it when its this funny watching someone make themselves look like an idiot?

Dragonslayer, you are such a tard. Seriously, go die in a hole.

 

[m25]

That's the big question right there. These are the first REAL benchmarks we've since for a Cedar Mill Celeron D (ie non sysnthetic). Shamefully we only get encoding benchmarks (which is a well known Netburst strongpoint) and Winrar (surprising how well the Celeron did in winrar though). I know the focus is not about the CPUs, but about $300 computer systems, but I would really like to see a budget CPU showdown with a Cedar Mill celeron D vs an equivalent priced AMD whatever. Hell, it could be socket 939 for all I care.

I know, but the focus naturally goes there, because at the end, in each table you only read CeleronD and Sempron, no other specs. I guess we all know why they're not bringing up other benchmarks; that's an unfair, misleading, overall disinformating article

 

[Hex]

Just because someone doesn't know how to quote effectively means you can't debate with them? weird...... haha
I really think this thread needs to be locked.. really no point to it..

I have already reported it and asked it to be locked. I hope it is soon.

NO, NO, why lock it when its this funny watching someone make themselves look like an idiot?

Dragonslayer, you are such a tard. Seriously, go die in a hole.

Cheap entertainment. :lol: :lol:

 

[corvetteguy]

I thought this was a stupid line from the article.

"If you really go for the lowest-end, you can get processors for $40, a motherboard for $40 and a very simple hard drive for $50. This would save you another $70 for the AMD system and as much as $86 for the Intel system."

What does it prove? Oh wow, you could save an extra $16 bucks with intel, but wait, its min price is STILL higher than the AMD one...

 

[m25]

HAHAHA... and wanna hear more; these are some neatly put together sentences in the 'conclusions' section to fool occasional readers, just read the crap between the lines:

These CPUs are single-core devices, as opposed to dual and quad cores, they carry little cache memory and they operate at relatively low clock speeds (Sempron) or on an old micro architecture (Celeron).

This sounds like the old 'More GHz Intel song';holy crap, does not the E4300 run at the same 'relatively low clock speeds' of this Sempron :?: :!: , heyoohoo, anybody to answer on the other side :?: :!:

However, both systems had to adhere to our $ 300 budget, which we had to extend slightly for reasons of making the systems somewhat future-proof.

8O :?: You can find a good AM2 Sempron 2600+ for around $40, just as futureproof as the 3400+, but obviously, not a LGA775 CeleronD to stand near enough it :lol:

The remaining question is: Which is the better low-cost solution, the AMD or the Intel system? Most of the benchmarks are dominated by Intel's Celeron D processor 352, which was even cheaper than the Sempron 3400+.

Sure, if you chose this particular price and all you put on show is the benchmarks the Celeron is able to win :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[30below]

:twisted:its mm mikes evil twin brother

 

[rumimonkey]

Why get worked up over a post like this? The stated purpose was more or less to begin "spirited debate," i.e. to prompt another silly intel vs. amd argument. Wouldn't it be refreshing if everyone just ignored a thread such as this if it is indeed so pointless..? Which I, too, have failed to do...

That point aside, everyone is entitled to their opinion. No-one's asking for advice here; to each his own. Let folks bask in the sunshine of their own cozy realities.

 

[db101]

*sigh*

I was thinking along these lines as well:

If they are going to make comperable systems they should spend the same amount of money on each. They chose not to spend an extra $10 to get an Athlon 64 because it would have made their system exceed the $300 mark by $40 instead of $30. The Intel system however exceed the $300 by $60 so they seemed to have proven that if you give Intel a headstart they win.

I know, I know - the AMD CPU would cost more than the Intel one if they picked the Athlon64, but the overall system cost is still less - that's the goal of this exercise, right? To create a cheap system. It doesn't matter if you spend a couple bucks more on the CPU and a few less on the mobo.

 

[m25]

No, the goal was to totally mislead people into thinking that a CeleronD is a better choice than a Sempron, by showing the only benchmarks the Celeron could actually win.
I had been facing people who said a celeronD was better than a sempron because it could do SuperPI in less time but hearing something like from an authority like THG :?: :!: :roll:

 

[dragonsprayer]

The point of this thread has nothing to due with a celron d - you should buy a e6300 or 4300 if not get a used chip weather be amd or intel.

buy an 805 or I bet the ancient 3.0ghz p4 running at 3.6ghz might even beat a sempron or 3500+ am2 when doing true multitasking tests - or running multiple bench marking programs

I hoped all you amd fans would post real data showing the superior of your beloved amd chips - unfortunately not one post contains any data showing amd as a better real world chip or multitasker

the point here was for someone who wondered what was better amd or intel to get some facts - but all i see is whining about the thread or claims the amd was better for 3 years - its amazing not 29 months or 35 months but exactly 3 years - with no data!

I repeat amd dual core was a great chip from may of 05 until july of 06 - before that an over clocked p4 was better! show me the test data that says other wise.

Lets take a 3500+ am2 at ~$80 and compare it to 805 @ 4ghz winner intel

you amd guys make the claims based on gaming only tested set up to favor amd. So if you read this thread and wondering who is better its always intel as of 6/06 - and amd will not even have anything to offer for 6 months.

I see you amti lovers next fall! Show me the data and so we can discuss the facts.

 

[vangvace]

Silly question but since the article states that they're looking for a ~18 month system why not include s939? Heck my main rig still is Socket A

 

[m25]

1-I am not an AMD guy; I'd have done the same in the inverse situation.
2-At the beginnings of this thread I showed some Sempron vs CeleronD benchmarks but someone pointed out they were of a 351 instead of the 352; what can I do if you can't find recent CeleronD reviews?! Are you saying that the $300 PC was by any means a complete review?!
Take a look, this is a Sempron 3600+ review, but they didn't find any decent CeleronD to match it
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2004

 

[m25]

Silly question but since the article states that they're looking for a ~18 month system why not include s939? Heck my main rig still is Socket A

The socket 754 sempron 2600+ is the cheapest modern CPU available for the moment and can be coupled with the cheapest motherboard of the moment, and the cheapest RAM of the moment (the out phased DDR400); your answer it that it would end up in a $200 system that can not be matched by any means from a CeleronD system.