I think Intel might be better in some cases now! :-(

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Strych9

Originally posted by: BD231
Intel offers a more advanced cpu so it's obvious it's a better choice if your building a computer from scratch

BD231,
I hope you are trying to be funny. If not, that is the dumbest statement I have seen in a long time.

The 3.06 DOES have a clear lead over the 2800+. Anyone who disagrees, show me some benches.

 

[RanDum72]

How thoughtful of you to quote me then misrepresent my statements. If the XP2800+ is AMD's top chip then it should be compared to the 3.06MHz P4, not the 2.8GHz P4. The XP2600+ and XP2700+ are the second tier of AMD, both running at 68W - the same level as the 2.8GHz P4.

Now you are trying to compare heat ouput by where the CPU is in the company's pecking order (second tier, third tier)? LOL, that is even more absurd. To have a FAIR comparison, you compare a 2.8ghz P4 to AMD's 'comparable' CPU (at least in PR rating), which is the 2800+. AMD doesn't have anything to compare to the 3.06 ghz P4 right now so lets get it out of the picture.

2800+ = 74w
2.8ghz P4 = 68w.

Now who puts out more heat?

If a 2.25ghz 0.13 micron AMD CPU puts out 74w, just imagine how hot it would be if clocked at 2.8ghz. AMD either needs to improve their manufacturing process or lower the voltages of their CPU's.

Please don't make this a 'gray' area kind of argument. Compare the latest CPU's with the latest manufacturing process from each company. 0.13 micron compared to 0.13micron CPU's ( and 0.18micron to 0.18micron CPU's). In order to make a fair comparison, compare CPU's by their ACTUAL clock speed. Even compare the actual clock speed of the P4 to the corresponding PR rating of AMD CPU's.
Now tell me, which CPU's put out more heat?

 

[Krk3561]

My Intel motherboard fits pretty well in my computer's case. I haven't tried an AMD one so i can't say if it fits better.

 

[Macro2]

RE:"The 3.06 DOES have a clear lead over the 2800+. Anyone who disagrees, show me some benches"

Just show me some benches where there isn't some Intel optomized application running in the background and the real bench is running in the foreground.

Also for those who are arguing about heat. Stop and think how much that P4 is drawing when hyperthreading is in play. I'll bet that puppy is pulling more watts than they are telling us. Maybe even to the point where clock throttling kicks in?

mac

 

[Paulson]

I'm still an AMD man... I've had no problems with either of the amd systems I've had and I don't plan on switching anytime soon.

I don't run the heaviest programs and what not, but my amd gets the job done and does it well and more effectively price wise.

 

[BD231]

I hope you are trying to be funny. If not, that is the dumbest statement I have seen in a long time.

I don't quite follow , perhaps that's a bad way to put it. I was speaking in terms of longevity hence the "building from scratch", advanced meaning "up to date". The current Athlon looks to be on it's way out and the P4 seems to have a little more life left to it. MHZ don't buy me, I know that clock for clock the Athlon is far better, but with AMD moving to it's next gen CPU very soon I think support for the P4 will last a bit longer. I'm pretty tierd of new CPU's coming out, motherboard makers cut support for up to date boards simply so they can sell the latest and greatest chipset from VIA while their older boards are completely capeable of supporting newer CPU's. I'll get a Barton from AMD but if I need anything more than my KT333 chipset based board then the Barton realease is pointless.

The 3.06 DOES have a clear lead over the 2800+. Anyone who disagrees, show me some benches

Yeah when Hyperthreading is not CUTTING cpu performance from it's added overhead, which is why it can be disabled in the BIOS. I'm not going to get into it though, these 2 CPU's are to close to eachother in performance and heat output for me to even care.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: RanDum72Now you are trying to compare heat ouput by where the CPU is in the company's pecking order (second tier, third tier)? LOL, that is even more absurd. To have a FAIR comparison, you compare a 2.8ghz P4 to AMD's 'comparable' CPU (at least in PR rating), which is the 2800+. AMD doesn't have anything to compare to the 3.06 ghz P4 right now so lets get it out of the picture.

Why do you want it out of the picture? AMD is who controls their products, not you or I. They compare the XP 2800+ to the 3.06 P4.

Originally posted by: RanDum72If a 2.25ghz 0.13 micron AMD CPU puts out 74w, just imagine how hot it would be if clocked at 2.8ghz. AMD either needs to improve their manufacturing process or lower the voltages of their CPU's.

Please don't make this a 'gray' area kind of argument. Compare the latest CPU's with the latest manufacturing process from each company. 0.13 micron compared to 0.13micron CPU's ( and 0.18micron to 0.18micron CPU's). In order to make a fair comparison, compare CPU's by their ACTUAL clock speed. Even compare the actual clock speed of the P4 to the corresponding PR rating of AMD CPU's.
Now tell me, which CPU's put out more heat?

You said "please" so it must still be my choice by your statement. I choose not to compare a 2GHz P4 to a 2GHz XP. Its not fair to Intel. If it was about clock speeds then we'd be comparing apples to oranges knowing full well that Intel doesn't have anywhere near the IPC. Even if a chip gave off 300W of heat at comparable clock speeds, if one CPU had double the other's performance then the power user consumer would still choose the higher performance chip. Heat is not an issue for the power user.

 

[RanDum72]

Why do you want it out of the picture? AMD is who controls their products, not you or I. They compare the XP 2800+ to the 3.06 P4.

Ahh..lets see.. for the sake of having a fair comparison, how's that.

If it was about clock speeds then we'd be comparing apples to oranges knowing full well that Intel doesn't have anywhere near the IPC.

Then compare them by PR rating then. Even so, Intel is still the cooler running chip.

Heat is not an issue for the power user.

Heat is an issue for computers and electronics, period. It directly or indirectly affect a user regardless of user 'level'. Heat consumes more electricity. A room full of AMD PC's mean the AC is going on all the time, meaning bills are going to be high (God knows how utility costs have gone up here in CA). More heat means better cooling solutions, which sometimes means louder fans (noise polution), more expense. It also means higher capacity PSU (again, more $$). HIgher temps mean higher likelihood of failiure with electronics. Downtime and lost productivity again costs $$$. When you add it all up, a cooler system does make a difference. This has obviously not gone unnoticed by PC makers such as Dell. They KNOW that having a hotter running CPU will amount to more problems and costs in the future.

 

[Tbirdkid]

Put a Intel chip at 2.26 next to an amd chip clocked at 2.26 and you will see who is king. See the biggest opinion about this is that it is apples to oranges because obviously intel cannot hang with amd when it comes to actual clock speed. If you talk clock speed equality amd straight schools intel. You cant talk price comparison in that order because they are damn sure not equal and pr rating i think is a bs way for intel to hang in there with amd. Ask me.... ( and i have had intel and amd) I will take an amd chip anyday over intel. You may as well be paying $25 for a pack of bubbalicious if you buy intel. That is the straight skinny...

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: RanDum72Heat is an issue for computers and electronics, period. It directly or indirectly affect a user regardless of user 'level'. Heat consumes more electricity. A room full of AMD PC's mean the AC is going on all the time, meaning bills are going to be high (God knows how utility costs have gone up here in CA). More heat means better cooling solutions, which sometimes means louder fans (noise polution), more expense. It also means higher capacity PSU (again, more $$). HIgher temps mean higher likelihood of failiure with electronics. Downtime and lost productivity again costs $$$. When you add it all up, a cooler system does make a difference. This has obviously not gone unnoticed by PC makers such as Dell. They KNOW that having a hotter running CPU will amount to more problems and costs in the future.

You aren't making sense. You are making alot of suppositions. Top end Intel and AMD systems use the same amount of electricity.

 

[jkellynewyork]

Just my two cents-

I have been using AMD in all my systems but I think that I might go with Intel for my next system. It looks like they have the best value right now for a higher end system.

 

[cmdrdredd]

here's the deal...if you're comparing top of the line systems you compare the best against the best...the P4 3.06 against the 2800+ Athlon. That's not fair you say? Why not? The P4 costs more? That's not an excuse...the XP is clocked differently? Oh...how does that make it unfair. We're comparing the BEST TO THE BEST so the best that AMD has doesn't stack up to the best that Intel has? Oh well, guess it's not fair because Intel makes billions more profit than AMD huh?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Tbirdkid
Put a Intel chip at 2.26 next to an amd chip clocked at 2.26 and you will see who is king. See the biggest opinion about this is that it is apples to oranges because obviously intel cannot hang with amd when it comes to actual clock speed. If you talk clock speed equality amd straight schools intel. You cant talk price comparison in that order because they are damn sure not equal and pr rating i think is a bs way for intel to hang in there with amd. Ask me.... ( and i have had intel and amd) I will take an amd chip anyday over intel. You may as well be paying $25 for a pack of bubbalicious if you buy intel. That is the straight skinny...

OK, this really doesn't make sense.

It is ridiculous for either side to make the following two statements which I hear all the time on these boards:
1. AMD is obviously better because a 2Ghz Athlon performs much better than a 2Ghz Pentium
2. Intel is obviously better because they have a 3Ghz chip and AMD only has a 2Ghz chip.

This is just dumb. AMD and Intel chose different architectures. The AMD can process more instructions per cycle but the Intel has more cycles per second. So neither automatically has an advantage in performance. The only valid comparison is: on the applications you use the most, which performs faster, a $200 chip from Intel or a $200 chip from AMD.

BD231,

Intel offers a more advanced cpu so it's obvious it's a better choice if your building a computer from scratch

Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant by advanced. But it sounded like you were saying the Pentium is obviously a technologically superior product, which seems like a very debatable statement and not at all obvious.

 

[fkloster]

Originally posted by: Tbirdkid
Put a Intel chip at 2.26 next to an amd chip clocked at 2.26 and you will see who is king. See the biggest opinion about this is that it is apples to oranges because obviously intel cannot hang with amd when it comes to actual clock speed. If you talk clock speed equality amd straight schools intel. You cant talk price comparison in that order because they are damn sure not equal and pr rating i think is a bs way for intel to hang in there with amd. Ask me.... ( and i have had intel and amd) I will take an amd chip anyday over intel. You may as well be paying $25 for a pack of bubbalicious if you buy intel. That is the straight skinny...

This logic is not only extremely flawed and not applicable, but moderators should add this fallacy to the F.A.Q. under the heading "IT SERVES NO PURPOSE COMPARING DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURES in a CLOCK FOR CLOCK BASIS"

Comparable extremely flawed logic:

1) 6 cylinder camaro fanboy preaches that his car is faster than mustangs 'cylinder for cylinder' (for practical purposes...the 1967 camaro cost 3200 dollars and can go 100mph)

2) 8 cylinder mustang fanboy preaches that his car is faster than the 6 cylinder camaros (the 1967 mustang cost 4000 dollars and can go 120mph)

3) 6 cylinder camaro fanboy cries that if the mustang had 6 cylinders, his camaro would beat it 'cylinder for cylinder'

4) 8 cylinder mustang fanboy screams "MY CAR DOESN'T HAVE 6 CYLINDERS...IT HAS 8 CYLINDERS....AND IT KICKS YOUR CAMARO TO THE CURB!!!!"

5) 6 cylinder camaro fanboy scrathes head "I don't get it"

 

[snidy]

Monarch has the Pent 4, 3.06 for $750.00

 

[ProviaFan]

Even though intel may be better in some cases, AMD still has a few areas where they are the best. For example, distributed computing programs (especially Folding@Home, which I run, and also the former ECCp) run much better on Athlon XPs than Pentium 4s. Since I happen to be a distributed computing freak who also does other sorts of FPU-intensive work, Athlons will be my processor of choice for a while into the future, unless Intel improves their FPU performance, or gives enough extra MHz for the money to make up the difference.

 

[Degenerate]

FFS.. How hard is it to see that AMD cpu's are hotter? Clock for clock, PR to clock it dosent matter. Some points just aint worth arguing.

 

[MadRat]

Because PR to clock they are not hotter. Some of you still insist comparing the AMD 2800+ to the Intel 2.8GHz Pentium4 when that is not the chip with which it compares. AMD's PR is not rated against Pentium 4 but rather its always been based on their own Thunderbird. The XP 1800+ was compared to the 2.2GHz Pentium 4 and so on up the line until we now have the present XP 2800+ versus the 3.06GHz Pentium4. These chips run identical in thermal characteristics.