I Bought Intel Friends Tell me AMD better...

[mnarciso]

I recently bought an Intel Prescott 3.4 Ghz with D0 stepping. I've been reading a lot of reviews and that battle between A64 S939 and Intel S775.

In the past I've always bought AMD, they've been the cheapest and provided great performance. However, looking at the market now a days Intel and AMD prices are almost neck and neck with Intel being slightly more expensive in some cases. I bought an Intel processor because I believed it was an overall well rounded processor that could take on every obstacle without doing poorly in certain areas.

I've read all the articles, how they are glorifying AMD and stuff but honestly I'm looking at the differences and the difference is by like a hair or a few hairs at that and I'm just wondering what is all this hype about the AMD. Sure its a little cheaper now that Intel has dropped in price but did I really buy that bad of a processor?

I've always wanted to buy an Intel but never could afford it until recently as the computer market is kind of iffy at the moment with all this new stuff coming in. My friends tell me I got ripped off for buying my processor, got it for 240 bucks and stuck it in my shuttle and if you ask me I've never seen my cpu usage go beyond 45% while running UT2k4 in window mode and doing other things at the same time. It seems like its just a toss up.

I dunno I'm kind of frustrated with everyone sayin that Intel sucks etc. Any comments on this damn Processor war?

 

[Tom]

you are right, the differences are small to non-existent. Either processor is great.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Tom
you are right, the differences are small to non-existent. Either processor is great.

true.

amd = + :beer:

intel = :brokenheart:

 

[Lithan]

First off. Intel is socket 478 and 775. 754 is another AMD socket beside 939. Secondly, performance-wise AMD is in the lead by what is relatively a significant margin. That's not to say your processor is slow. It's just not as fast as a 3400+ would have been. The major problems with Prescotts are not lack of performance (Although they are the slowest processor made mhz/mhz since the p2, possibly even the p1) but rather their all-around poor architecture. They are inefficient, powerhungry spaceheaters. Definately not the processor for an SFF. But if you aren't having problems with it, who cares.

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: Lithan
First off. Intel is socket 478 and 775. 754 is another AMD socket beside 939. Secondly, performance-wise AMD is in the lead by what is relatively a significant margin. That's not to say your processor is slow. It's just not as fast as a 3400+ would have been. The major problems with Prescotts are not lack of performance (Although they are the slowest processor made mhz/mhz since the p2, possibly even the p1) but rather their all-around poor architecture. They are inefficient, powerhungry spaceheaters. Definately not the processor for an SFF. But if you aren't having problems with it, who cares.

The heat issue was corrected with the d0 revision.

 

[EightySix Four]

If it aint broke don't fix it, and from what you're saying, it aint broke for you. My choice was a 3400+ and I love it, but u also have a great processor. So I see no reason for buyers remorse.

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420

Originally posted by: Lithan
First off. Intel is socket 478 and 775. 754 is another AMD socket beside 939. Secondly, performance-wise AMD is in the lead by what is relatively a significant margin. That's not to say your processor is slow. It's just not as fast as a 3400+ would have been. The major problems with Prescotts are not lack of performance (Although they are the slowest processor made mhz/mhz since the p2, possibly even the p1) but rather their all-around poor architecture. They are inefficient, powerhungry spaceheaters. Definately not the processor for an SFF. But if you aren't having problems with it, who cares.

The heat issue was corrected with the d0 revision.

D0 revision prescott 3.4ghz 103watts
Winchester core 3500+ Amd Athlon 64 67watts

Right. The heat issue was corrected.

I also direct you to this...
http://tech-report.com/reviews/2004q4/athlon64-fx55/index.x?pg=15

 

[gobucks]

the D0 revision changed it from a furnace to a very hot processor. Yes, it's better, but it's by no means good. The A64 runs much cooler. Now, I've always been an AMD buyer, and probably will be for a while into the future, but I'll try not to go on a crusading rant here. When AMD released the Athlon 64, they managed to regain the performance lead from Intel, who had had it since the P4 Northwood took the crown away from the Thoroughbred Athlon a while ago. The lead is by no means absolute. AMD does better on average, but Intel leads in video encoding. AMD also has 64-bit instructions, which will be nice to have at some point in the future, although we don't know when. Both are decent processors, in the sense of real world performance. However, from an engineering standpoint, the P4 is a nightmare, a product of huge amounts of dollars spent in marketing MHz and in tweaking a doomed architecture so that it can compete. AMD, on the other hand, went back to the drawing board with the Athlon 64, developing the most advanced x86 CPU architecture around, a good base on which to design a whole generation of products, one that would support dual core and other new technologies easily. As an engineer, I like AMD's design better, and so I naturally want to choose them when it comes time for my new computer (hopefully soon, if nVidia can get any freakin nForce 4 boards into retail soon), since I like their focus on doing things right rather than just getting things done. Anyways, that all aside, I think that AMD is slightly better in performance, just as reliable (sometimes more so because of a lack of heat problems, even at 90nm), and no more expensive (actually cheaper due to the latest price cut) than comparable P4 systems. Throw in 64-bit support for free, and i think it's a done deal. However, you're certainly not "wrong" in your decision to get a P4, and if your new CPU is not causing any problems for you, then I'm sure it will be fast enough for you for some time to come.

 

[Tom]

I like cool running stuff as much as the next guy, but saying the P4 has heat issues is a false accusation unless you back it up.

The point isn't that the A64 runs cooler, to say the P4 has heat issues means you have to prove that P4s fail, or malfunction, where is your evidence ?

 

[cbehnken]

All systems will fail from heat if they are never cleaned inside. I have opened many cases to find a horible amount of dirt and dust buildup, with the CPU running so hot it reboots. This is an issue for both chips, but the Intel systems are going to be much more picky because they produce so much more heat. I can see many of these failing in the future, or just running very slowing due to thermal clock throtteling.

If you had a car and the temp gauge was always just a tick below the red, even since you bought it, wouldn't you be concerned?

 

[gururu]

its long been established that the prescotts run hot. BUT what does hot really mean? does it mean the cpu crashes? does it mean the cpu gets damaged? absolutely not on both cases.
the P4 series as it stands is VERY competitive with similarly priced competitors.

on newegg a P4 3.4E is 280.00 whereas an athlon 64 3400+ is 245.00.

the athlon is actually faster but not by much. but since you got the P4 at a good price, I wouldn't care if I were you.

 

[Concillian]

I think most people are impressed with AMD because you can buy the bottom of the line processor and get pretty close to FX53 performance when you overclock it.

For people not overclocking, the differences between Intel and AMD are very close in terms of performance and in price... unless you're talkinga bout LGA775 + DDR2, of course.

 

[konakona]

funny how when the first athlons came out intel camp was bashing the AMD for excessive heat although most were running their K7s stable with proper cooling. fast forward 4-5years and now the tables have turned...

 

[mnarciso]

alright i didn't mean to start another war which is prominent throughout most posts. Thank you for the correction on the socket type I meant to say 775 =).

Yeah I got a really good price for it and it was boxed although I didn't really need the stock cooler it was still cheaper then other OEM's. I also wanted PCI-E as I got a eVGA 6600GT for under 200 dollars and my Shuttle cases cooling keeps my CPU at 45 degrees idle and 62 under full load so it doesn't run that hot and everything works fine except 6600GT drivers are a bit buggy as they are still in the beta stage but other then that I'm happy.

I'm just not happy when they tell me I made a stupid mistake but whatever I'm just confirming from you pros that its pretty much too hard to notice a difference unless we are looking at benchmark differences. I appreciate everyones comments and I'll just be happy with what I got.

After all those AMD 90nm revised processors didn't those come out after the fact that Intel Prescott was just a little faster then AMD's S939?

 

[Goatie]

Originally posted by: mnarciso
alright i didn't mean to start another war which is prominent throughout most posts. Thank you for the correction on the socket type I meant to say 775 =).

Yeah I got a really good price for it and it was boxed although I didn't really need the stock cooler it was still cheaper then other OEM's. I also wanted PCI-E as I got a eVGA 6600GT for under 200 dollars and my Shuttle cases cooling keeps my CPU at 45 degrees idle and 62 under full load so it doesn't run that hot and everything works fine except 6600GT drivers are a bit buggy as they are still in the beta stage but other then that I'm happy.

I'm just not happy when they tell me I made a stupid mistake but whatever I'm just confirming from you pros that its pretty much too hard to notice a difference unless we are looking at benchmark differences. I appreciate everyones comments and I'll just be happy with what I got.

After all those AMD 90nm revised processors didn't those come out after the fact that Intel Prescott was just a little faster then AMD's S939?

Prescott has never been as fast as amd 939. Hell, Prescott has had trouble against northwood (untill doom3 came along).

It doesen't matter what anyone else thinks though. You've got a processor that can handle everythign you want to do with it, and it isn't "bad" by any means.

 

[Paratus]

If your concerned about temps I started a poll for prescott owners here

And don't be to worried about what others are saying about P4 vs A64. Your 3.4 is going to run everything out there very well. Some folks get very worked up over a couple of percentage points difference

 

[Lithan]

I had a 2.8e in a Dell400Sc (with the upgraded heatpipe cooler). It overheated. I know about a dozen guys who had prescotts throttling on them when using stock coolers in average environments.

Fact is, what I said is completely accurate. Prescotts dump more watts heat than anything before them. They also are the most inefficient processors available when it comes to performance/heat or performance/power consumption.

 

[Acanthus]

Effeciency doesnt matter, at all.

How it does the job isnt relevant, its how FAST it completes the work that matters.

Im sick of all this clock for clock and efficiancy BS.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Lithan
I had a 2.8e in a Dell400Sc (with the upgraded heatpipe cooler). It overheated. I know about a dozen guys who had prescotts throttling on them when using stock coolers in average environments.

Fact is, what I said is completely accurate. Prescotts dump more watts heat than anything before them. They also are the most inefficient processors available when it comes to performance/heat or performance/power consumption.

When did the 400sc come from Dell with Prescotts ? I have only ever seen them with Northwoods.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: Lithan
I had a 2.8e in a Dell400Sc (with the upgraded heatpipe cooler). It overheated. I know about a dozen guys who had prescotts throttling on them when using stock coolers in average environments.

Fact is, what I said is completely accurate. Prescotts dump more watts heat than anything before them. They also are the most inefficient processors available when it comes to performance/heat or performance/power consumption.

Not denying any of this. Simple fact remains though as long as its not throttling, sounds like the OPs is not, then the 3.4 will run any application they want very well. Maybe not as cool or quite as fast as a 3400+ or P4C at 3.4 but it'll get the job done.

Don't get caught up in the fact that while Prescott is probably a mistake for Intel it doesn't mean its suddenly dog slow for the consumer. Both P4s and A64 are very capable processors.

 

[Lithan]

It's not dog slow. It's just slower then a Northwood (for most stuff) and hot. It's still faster than say Williamette.

 

[justly]

mnarciso, first off don't get stressed out about what people say.

Both Intel and AMD have outstanding products for the power user and budget minded alike. It would be very hard to find a "bad" processor in todays market. The only reason people should be telling you any processor is a bad is if you payed to much for it, or it doesn't fit your needs.

There is one thing in your original post that I must say I disagree with, and that is your belief that the P4 is an "overall well rounded processor". Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say the P4 is bad, just that it is built with the intention that performance comes form a combination of high bandwith, fast MHz/GHz AND optomized code. The Athlon 64, while still benifiting from optomizations such as SSE/SSE2 does not rely on these extentions the way the P4 does. In my opinion that makes the Athlon a more well rounded processor.

Back to the sublect at hand, the P4 is an exceptional processor especially if you do a lot of intence multitasking, encoding (or any other streaming type application) and the majority of your programs have P4 optomizations. The Athlon 64 is also an exceptional processor but for different reasons, some being its ability to perform well with any code (optomized or not), its gaming prowess and fast performance on branch heavy code.

I think it is safe to say that as long as you are aware of these diferences it isn't to hard to decide what is better for your own needs, but if the wrong choice was made or your needs have changed there really isn't anything to worry about since both options should still perform admirably even if they are not the best for the job at hand.

 

[BKF]

I like my prescott. At the same time I'm computing, I'm also heating the room I'm in. Saves me from turning on the heat and using up all that natural gas! It's like 2 for 1!

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: BKF
I like my prescott. At the same time I'm computing, I'm also heating the room I'm in. Saves me from turning on the heat and using up all that natural gas! It's like 2 for 1!

Same here ! Except I have 7 CPU's that give me the same heat at one preshot !

 

[IamTHEsnake]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Effeciency doesnt matter, at all.

How it does the job isnt relevant, its how FAST it completes the work that matters.

Im sick of all this clock for clock and efficiancy BS.

Word