Printable View
I dont know whether to get and intel chip or an AMD chip all my friends say that the AMD chips are faster but I find it hard to believe that a chip with a 333mhz bus could be faster than a chip with a 533mhz bus. When i run benchmarks on the intel chips with its competeing AMD chip the intel chip is always faster. Which chips are faster the P4s or the athlon xps? Also whcih chip would be better for overclocking?
Well when you say faster, what do you mean? For what applications, and also, do you mean clock for clock?Quote:
Originally posted by joeshmofro
I dont know whether to get and intel chip or an AMD chip all my friends say that the AMD chips are faster but I find it hard to believe that a chip with a 333mhz bus could be faster than a chip with a 533mhz bus. When i run benchmarks on the intel chips with its competeing AMD chip the intel chip is always faster. Which chips are faster the P4s or the athlon xps? Also whcih chip would be better for overclocking?
An Athlon XP at 2500MHz would completely, utterly, and horribly mutilate a Pentium 4 2533.
Some will most definitely say INTEL has the faster chips, disregarding the huge MHZ abyss between the faster INTEL chip and the faster AMD chip.Quote:
Originally posted by joeshmofro
I dont know whether to get and intel chip or an AMD chip all my friends say that the AMD chips are faster but I find it hard to believe that a chip with a 333mhz bus could be faster than a chip with a 533mhz bus. When i run benchmarks on the intel chips with its competeing AMD chip the intel chip is always faster. Which chips are faster the P4s or the athlon xps? Also whcih chip would be better for overclocking?
INTEL has the faster chip, right now.
It's not a huge lead over AMD, but it's clearly a win for them. On the other hand, if you want a chip that performs almost as well as the 3 GHz INTEL flagship and is comparively cheap, then you'd go for AMD.
Right now, people who have GF4 TI 4800 or ATi Radeon 9700 Pro, a fast HD, fast memories, won't notice any difference between INTEL's 3 GHz and AMD's 3000+. Out of 150 FPS plus, what significance does it have more or less 12 FPS? With both chips, you'll get a terrific performance.
How much are you prepared to pay? If a lot, then go for INTEL.
Chronus
right now its a toss up both intel and amd are priced similarly in the mid to high range, but for budget its amd. personally anything under the 3.06ghz p4 id go amd simply because of hyperthreading
you'll never get a straight answer. It all depends on the application. Even from floating point intesive applicatiosn you get different results from different games because the software access's the hardware in different ways according to how the developers decide they want it to work. I prefer AMD chips because most of them cost / performance is greater. Both manufacturers make good chips and they are definintely not all created equally. Anyone in their right mind woudl tell you a comparitively clocked AMD chip will completely out perform a intel chip. However, intel has much higher clock chips available at the moment.
Basically look at many benchmarking sources and note what you like to use your computer for (dont pay too much attention to application benchmarks and more to the games you like to play). So basically the games you like to play is what you should be looking at benchmarks for. And maybe encdoing and decoding (mp3/video). Then find what has the best price compared to performance of what your looking for and that should be your choice. Also, consider the athlon 2100+ that everyone is crazy about on here literally can be overclocked to run faster than a pentium 4 3.06 HT in many benchmarks for a mear $93 bux at newegg (garanteed b core tbred).
just my .02 good luck!
kirkyg
If you want to compare the two. You need to have them both at the same clock speed. So a 2Ghz AMD chip would blow away a 2Ghz Intel chip.
But a XP2800 vs a Intel 2.8Ghz. The performance IMO is better with the Intel.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
If you want to compare the two. You need to have them both at the same clock speed. So a 2Ghz AMD chip would blow away a 2Ghz Intel chip.
But a XP2800 vs a Intel 2.8Ghz. The performance IMO is better with the Intel.
In most cases, a XP xxxx+ will be slightly slower than an Intel at a comparitive clock to the XP's PR (Performance Rating)
It REALLY depends on what you want to do with the processor.
this i think is faulty. ok, Colossus, i'll do a little comparison, and according to your factors, i must have them at the same clockspeed.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
If you want to compare the two. You need to have them both at the same clock speed.
2.0GHz P4 vs. 2.0GHz XP (2400+). Obviously the amd wins on this one. about $30 difference.
2.26GHz P4 vs. 2.25 XP (XP2800+). I'm pretty sure the XP wins here too. but it does cost $368 at newegg. not exactly budget.
2.4B vs. ???? oops, none at the same clockspeed. does this mean intel wins?
2.5/2.53 vs ???? oops.
2.6/2.66 vs ????
2.8 vs ????
3.06GHz vs ????
see how faulty your argument looks? AMD has several very capable processors that can compete with those P4 processors, like the 2800+, but according to your argument, we can't compare them (your words, not mine).
AMD has great budget procs, no doubt about it. but once you get into their newer processors, they are quite pricy.
That is not exactly what I stated :)
I stated that clock vs. clock AMD will win hands down.
Now as soon as you get Intel clock vs. AMD Pr rating. It would depend on what test you run, but Intel does win 1/2 - 3/4th of the benchmarks.
Its not Intel's fault that AMD's clock speed is so low compared to Intel. If AMD gets on the ball and pumps that processor speed. Then we will see some serious action there.
Like I stated before, I gave two forms of reference. One at clock vs. clock. The other as clock vs. AMD PR.
So you can think what you like :)
Now here is the other side of the coin. AMD was always the best bang for the buck. Now with the new Bartons. That just doesnt fit anymore since the Barton 3000+ XP cost more then the Intel 3.06Ghz.
And that is a OEM AMD vs. a RETAIL Intel.
Go figure. AMD needs to drop there prices on there flagship if you want to state AMD has the best bang for the buck :)
But there golden AMD processor IMO has always been the XP 2100+. Great price, Great performance :)
You are totaly right in your argument, however you forget that a 2100+ does 2.6 if you try hard enough :DQuote:
Originally posted by deeznuts
this i think is faulty. ok, Colossus, i'll do a little comparison, and according to your factors, i must have them at the same clockspeed.
2.0GHz P4 vs. 2.0GHz XP (2400+). Obviously the amd wins on this one. about $30 difference.
2.26GHz P4 vs. 2.25 XP (XP2800+). I'm pretty sure the XP wins here too. but it does cost $368 at newegg. not exactly budget.
2.4B vs. ???? oops, none at the same clockspeed. does this mean intel wins?
2.5/2.53 vs ???? oops.
2.6/2.66 vs ????
2.8 vs ????
3.06GHz vs ????
see how faulty your argument looks? AMD has several very capable processors that can compete with those P4 processors, like the 2800+, but according to your argument, we can't compare them (your words, not mine).
AMD has great budget procs, no doubt about it. but once you get into their newer processors, they are quite pricy.
I think he just means in order to really compare how fast each processor is... in general, not specific models.Quote:
Originally posted by deeznuts
this i think is faulty. ok, Colossus, i'll do a little comparison, and according to your factors, i must have them at the same clockspeed.
2.0GHz P4 vs. 2.0GHz XP (2400+). Obviously the amd wins on this one. about $30 difference.
2.26GHz P4 vs. 2.25 XP (XP2800+). I'm pretty sure the XP wins here too. but it does cost $368 at newegg. not exactly budget.
2.4B vs. ???? oops, none at the same clockspeed. does this mean intel wins?
2.5/2.53 vs ???? oops.
2.6/2.66 vs ????
2.8 vs ????
3.06GHz vs ????
see how faulty your argument looks? AMD has several very capable processors that can compete with those P4 processors, like the 2800+, but according to your argument, we can't compare them (your words, not mine).
AMD has great budget procs, no doubt about it. but once you get into their newer processors, they are quite pricy.
Man, I'm so tired of this worthless argument. You want to compare at equal price points, fine. But just simply testing them at the same clock does absolutely nothing but pit a strength of the AMD against a weakness of the P4. Like it has been mentioned P4's are available at much higher clockspeeds that you can get an AMD. Pit a 3.0 Athlon against a 3.0 P4 and the P4 DESTROYS THE AMD..........because there is NO Athlon at that speed. Let's just retire the "clock for clock" argument.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
If you want to compare the two. You need to have them both at the same clock speed. So a 2Ghz AMD chip would blow away a 2Ghz Intel chip.
But a XP2800 vs a Intel 2.8Ghz. The performance IMO is better with the Intel.
Like stated before, it really depends on what programs you use. I don't know about performance with CAD, photoshop, and web design; but for gaming, intel is a little smoother. If you look at the low end XP's, you can easily see that amd has the whole "budget" thing won. As for overclocking, overall, I'd say intel. But if we were to talk about recently, amd would be better because of the 2100 tbred b.
Worthless arguments.... More like your posts are...
There are more then one way to create a fast processor. Intel had chosen the brute force of clockspeed while AMD had taken a different path that doesnt require such a high clockspeed to hit there mark.
It doesnt make one better then the other.