Is AMD faster than intel

Ok lets settle down there is no clock for clock arguement anymore and there can never again be one. Once intel releases the p4s with the 800mhz bus even AMD will be lost and so will intel simply because there will be no way to compare the 2 anymore.

As for which is faster clock for clock AMD wins in every case period form 1ghz and up. In PR rating vs P4 clock speed again there is some faulty info floating around here. From 1500+ to 2400+ palamonie and tbred the XP wins and yes i know this is debateable but it is a proven fact that a 1600+ and a 1.6ghz intel the AMD will win. But once AMD changes its PR ratings with the introduction of 333fsb. Past 333 fsb the bartons are way off period so dont even think about them but the 2600+ is abotu the same maybe alittle worse than the p4 2.66 past that it only get worse for AMD but the performance is still only measurabel in fractions of a percent.

But again it all matters on what you are doing with the CPU a rather crude analogy is a dumptruck might have 250 horse power and a ferrari might have 600hp but if you want to haul something you would go with the dump trunk. In more AI intensive games the AMD wins in more graphics intense games the P4 wins. As far as applications go many apps are and never have been truly optimized for athlon processors simply because the workstation world has never welcomed AMD cpus so most applications other than simple office applications the P4 will when.

Also your friends may have been refering to the earlier athlons like the tbirds which were AMDs golden age they had no PR ratings and at equal clock would kill a p4 in everything.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Colossus
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.

---

At least I'm not posting arguments that were debunked 2 years ago. Don't shoot the messenger bro. What you posted basically focuses on the path AMD took, while negating the one Intel took. That is why it is worthless.

He asked a simple questioned and I answered it. My answer was correct.

I looked at both paths from what AMD and Intel had taken to get to where they are now.

But I liked joerg post had stated. Wait till the new system bus processors are released. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by joerg
Ok lets settle down there is no clock for clock arguement anymore and there can never again be one. Once intel releases the p4s with the 800mhz bus even AMD will be lost and so will intel simply because there will be no way to compare the 2 anymore.

As for which is faster clock for clock AMD wins in every case period form 1ghz and up. In PR rating vs P4 clock speed again there is some faulty info floating around here. From 1500+ to 2400+ palamonie and tbred the XP wins and yes i know this is debateable but it is a proven fact that a 1600+ and a 1.6ghz intel the AMD will win. But once AMD changes its PR ratings with the introduction of 333fsb. Past 333 fsb the bartons are way off period so dont even think about them but the 2600+ is abotu the same maybe alittle worse than the p4 2.66 past that it only get worse for AMD but the performance is still only measurabel in fractions of a percent.

But again it all matters on what you are doing with the CPU a rather crude analogy is a dumptruck might have 250 horse power and a ferrari might have 600hp but if you want to haul something you would go with the dump trunk. In more AI intensive games the AMD wins in more graphics intense games the P4 wins. As far as applications go many apps are and never have been truly optimized for athlon processors simply because the workstation world has never welcomed AMD cpus so most applications other than simple office applications the P4 will when.

Also your friends may have been refering to the earlier athlons like the tbirds which were AMDs golden age they had no PR ratings and at equal clock would kill a p4 in everything.

---

Actually the Athlon had fairly "optimized" code to work on since it's release since it performed very well on legacy code unlike the P4. Now the P4 is getting optimized code to work on(and afaik, most of these optimizations help the P3/K7 processors too, just not nearly to the extent they help P4's). AMD typically makes their processors to perform well on code that is out when it's released...Intel sometimes sacrifices performance in the short term for better performance down the road.

AMD has to use current code beacause they are well aware that they dont have the power to force Intel and software companies in an alterncative direction. Once hammer comes out it will be the first time AMD has really ventured out by there selves and it will likely make or break AMD and form the sound of it around many of you think there will be very few people supporting AMD at the software front. But my point was that the workstaion market is dominated by Intel cpus for 2 reasons the first being that Intel cpus have through the years gained a reuptaion of stability over AMD which im sure most will agree doesnt still exist but the idea still remains and if the Intel setup is supposedly more stable then some oen dealing wiht expensive timeconsumign content will naturally choose the sytem with less of a risk. I am by no means saying AMD processors as of late are unstable but AMD cpus in the past have been placed in very unstable setups. The other reason for Intel dominating the market is the fact that Most OEMs place Intel cpus in there more expensive systems which are often equiped with better hardware where as it is hard to find a AMD setup with high end components form an oem.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Colossus

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.

---

exactly. that's why i hate ever comparing two cpu's at same clockspeed. i only use prices as a comparison, and oc'ability. i paid around $180 for my 2.4B and $90 (i think) for my 2100+. got the 2100 to around 2.4 before i sold it (damn nforce mobo was way to shaky for me) and i get my 2.4B up to around 3.2. i was doing some heavy video encoding that month, and the P4 straight flew. but shoot, on every day activity, a duron 1.0Ghz does just fine (i have two of those as well :p )

Quote:

---

Originally posted by joerg
AMD has to use current code beacause they are well aware that they dont have the power to force Intel and software companies in an alterncative direction. Once hammer comes out it will be the first time AMD has really ventured out by there selves and it will likely make or break AMD and form the sound of it around many of you think there will be very few people supporting AMD at the software front. But my point was that the workstaion market is dominated by Intel cpus for 2 reasons the first being that Intel cpus have through the years gained a reuptaion of stability over AMD which im sure most will agree doesnt still exist but the idea still remains and if the Intel setup is supposedly more stable then some oen dealing wiht expensive timeconsumign content will naturally choose the sytem with less of a risk. I am by no means saying AMD processors as of late are unstable but AMD cpus in the past have been placed in very unstable setups. The other reason for Intel dominating the market is the fact that Most OEMs place Intel cpus in there more expensive systems which are often equiped with better hardware where as it is hard to find a AMD setup with high end components form an oem.

---

i just wished amd would make more chipsets. i loved my first amd board, epox 8K7A, even though it used a via SB. since then i used sis735 (cheap but good boards), a Kt266A, and nforce2. my nforce was quite buggy, but the KT266A was ok. but i loved that epox, and i think it was due in large part to the amd chipset. it was slower than the VIA chipset, but only by a few percent, which i would trade any day.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by deeznuts


exactly. that's why i hate ever comparing two cpu's at same clockspeed. i only use prices as a comparison, and oc'ability. i paid around $180 for my 2.4B and $90 (i think) for my 2100+. got the 2100 to around 2.4 before i sold it (damn nforce mobo was way to shaky for me) and i get my 2.4B up to around 3.2. i was doing some heavy video encoding that month, and the P4 straight flew. but shoot, on every day activity, a duron 1.0Ghz does just fine (i have two of those as well :p )

---

Well I am not a AMD fan but they are very good chips. But your P4 2.4Ghz would be faster then the XP2100. You have almost a 1Ghz lead on that processor :D So obviously your P4 would fly :) :D

But what happens when your athlon is running at 2.4 ghz? OUCH the tables reverse. ;) :D

kirkyg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kirkyg
But what happens when your athlon is running at 2.4 ghz? OUCH the tables reverse. ;) :D

kirkyg

---

are you referring to me? cuz if you are, my 2100 was running at 2.4. my 2.4B was running around 3.2.

well, if you ask my opinion (which you havent but hey) price will always rule the day, AMD are generally cheaper, probably coz intel think they can get away with higher prices just because they are "intel".

Bang for Buck

my point being, theres no point paying $100 (or £) more if you can oc the chip for $20 extra and a little time

[EDIT] i didnt answer the question, i cant tbh, intel have higher clock speeds, but AMD have a reputation for giving a solution to a problem at a lower cost, with same/close results as intel.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bisonator
well, if you ask my opinion (which you havent but hey) price will always rule the day, AMD are generally cheaper, probably coz intel think they can get away with higher prices just because they are "intel".

Bang for Buck

my point being, theres no point paying $100 (or £) more if you can oc the chip for $20 extra and a little time

[EDIT] i didnt answer the question, i cant tbh, intel have higher clock speeds, but AMD have a reputation for giving a solution to a problem at a lower cost, with same/close results as intel.

---

Maybe you havent checked prices lately, but AMD's flagship chip is more than Intel's. If your looking purely on an overclockers standpoint, then yes I woould say the edge would go to AMD.

I'll put myself in the line.

Arguing mhz vs mhz is idiotic.
way too simplistic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Extol



Maybe you havent checked prices lately, but AMD's flagship chip is more than Intel's. If your looking purely on an overclockers standpoint, then yes I woould say the edge would go to AMD.

---

Of course which eventually they will big time undercut intel like they always do. But the important stuff is the chips that overclock well and are like half the price of a comparitively performing pentium 4.

kirkyg

Intel make their own chipset witch is a +, but the Nforce chipset is looking good so maybe that advantage will be dissapere in the future.

Intel chips have the core covered witch is good (less risk of core crush and better heat transfer), but again new AMD processors should have this too.

The overheatprotection is good, but again VIA and Nforce have this feature too nowdays.

The memory bandwith is the only thing that AMD (VIA, Nforce) can´t match.

Some of the P4 chips are still expensive if you compare to AMD.

Im not going to start to compare CPU:s, but in my opinion for pepole like me that haven´t got that much money to spend on computers. The T-bred 1700+ -> 2400+ are cheap and clock pretty good, so AMD is still atleast my first choice.

Just my 2 cents

//ThAz