Tractor Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,711 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
link

It seems that most of you people here prefer AMD processors to Intel. I have an AMD XP2000 myself, but don't know much about the X86 chips, other than AMD seems to be a better value. I wonder if the performance gain of the 3.8 will be all that significant.

I wonder why Dell does not offer AMD processors? AMD's are cheaper, right? You think they could offer AMD's at the same price as the Intel equipped machines and make a better profit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
I would say Dell gets those Intel chips real cheap at the volume the buy. I'm happy with my AMD2500. I still have to get some more memory though. 512 just isn't enough with win xp pro.
 

·
a day ahead of y'all
Joined
·
1,311 Posts
Way out of my league on this, but does it make any sense to have a screaming processor mounted on a board without a buss(sp?) speed that can match it? What about the other chips?

Kinda like offering a high performance 450hp engine that will rev 10,000rpm with old tech transmission/diff etc. The car won't be able to use the full advantage of the engine unless you match it with say a complete high performance drive train, No?

I wonder where they are at with this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,711 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
You could say the same about the Motorola G4 processors, Greg. They have always been crippled by a slow FSB. Altivec in the chip architecture makes them decent performers for graphic applications, though. Whether the IBM G5 will totally replace the Motorola G4's in Apple's lineup remains to be seen. The G4 runs pretty cool an requires less power than the G5. The G5 runs hotter but has a much wider bus and appears to scale higher than the G4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
Originally posted by MowHoward2210
I wonder why Dell does not offer AMD processors? AMD's are cheaper, right? You think they could offer AMD's at the same price as the Intel equipped machines and make a better profit.
Here's a LINK to a news article that provides a pretty good insight into the mind of Dell's management. Basically, they've got a cozy relationship w/Intel & they drag out the AMD club to squeeze more pricing concessions from Intel, not just on processors, but chipsets (mobos) too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,711 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Re: Re: Intel to release 3.8 GHz Pentium 4

Originally posted by CatDaddy
Here's a LINK to a news article that provides a pretty good insight into the mind of Dell's management. Basically, they've got a cozy relationship w/Intel & they drag out the AMD club to squeeze more pricing concessions from Intel, not just on processors, but chipsets (mobos) too.
Interesting! I wonder how that long that strategy will continue?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
Originally posted by Greg
Way out of my league on this, but does it make any sense to have a screaming processor mounted on a board without a buss(sp?) speed that can match it? What about the other chips?
Greg,

Mobo manufacturers use chipsets from the major mfgrs (Intel, VIA, nVidia, & ATI's starting to get into the act too). VIA, et al match their chipsets bus speeds to the external bus speeds of AMD & Intel CPUs. It doesn't do any good to have a higher bus than a CPU will use, it only makes production more complicated & expensive.

A processor's clock speed is a function of FSB (front side bus) times the multiplier. But that alone isn't the measure of a processor's performance, The Mac G4 & G5 chips have a fairly low clock speed, but the handle a large number of instructions per cycle. AMD chips run at a higher speed than the Mac, but perform fewer instructions per cycle. Intel has the fastest internal clock speed, but they perform the fewest operations per cycle. The biggest problem with speed is the watse heat generated in progressively smaller CPU cores.

Intel has been a "speed" whore for the last couple of years but the P-4 platform has reached the end of it's thermal efficiency/speed lifecycle. (The newest P-4s are mini ovens.) AMD came out with it's "PR" ratings a few years back for comparison purposes with Intel. An AMD XP2500+ chip doesn't actually run at 2.5Ghz, it runs at ~1.8GHz, but it performs about the same as a 2.5GHz P-4.

I use an XP-M 2400+ processor in my main rig. The AMD mobile processors are 'unlocked' for both the FSB & multiplier, so I cranked it up to XP3200+ speeds (200FSBx11mult=2.2GHz). I can run at that speed while still using low, low XP-M voltages - with resultant lower heat. I was also able to buy the CPU for $77 vs $269 for the XP-3200+.

I could crank it up even further, but the voltage will have to go up & heat will go up. (These CPUs will hit 2.4-2.5 GHz on air, 2.6-2.7 GHz with water cooling, and 3GHz or higher if you run a phase-change/peltier cooler!)

Angel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,711 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
It seems like all the chip fabricators are kind of hitting a wall lately due to the smaller cores/heat issues. IBM's 2.5GHz G5 is water cooled in the dual processor config'd PowerMac!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
I built this system 2 years ago and I currently am using it as a Main, have 3 hard drives and 512 MB of memory with an Amd XP 2800 It currently is running at 46 degrees C (core die temp)as I type this and supporting dual monitors !

I'm interested how any of yours compare? so far I have seen no reason to improve it!!

Results from similar systems
The table below shows average scores for systems with similar clock speed to yours. The first row represents the current score for this system. Note that AMD and Intel systems often perform very differently at the same clock frequency; AMD uses a "processor rating" for many of their CPUs rather than the actual clock MHz.

CPU
Type Clock
MHz # PCs
Tested CPU
Score Memory
Score Disk
Score
AMD Athlon XP 2250 (mine) 6457 5630 44
AMD Athlon XP 2227 13 6434 5793 34
AMD Athlon XP 2231 43 6449 5937 49
AMD Athlon XP 2232 16 6459 5886 41
AMD Athlon XP 2267 530 6487 5842 40
AMD Athlon XP M 2267 20 6494 5996 35
AMD Athlon64 3000+ 2267 12 7062 8506 45
AMD Athlon64 3200+ 2267 103 6993 8463 44
AMD Athlon64 3400+ 2267 42 6998 8602 54
AMD Athlon64 3500+ 2267 97 6943 8527 52
Intel Pentium 4 2267 1262 3702 5032 29
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
What benchmark tool did you use to generate your score?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,711 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Most people here give AMD higher marks than to Intel. Is this purely from a cost standpoint? I know they perform differently. Is there that much difference in performance? Are these evaluations dependent on what you are using them for, like gaming, multimedia, etc.?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
AMD is cheaper.
AMD games better.
AMD (usually) overclocks better.
AMD was the first to have x86-64 capable processors (but there's no 64bit OS or desktop applications).

Intel has a slight edge in multimedia apps due to their implementation of HyperThreading, but AMD is closing that gap with HyperTransport.

AMD & Intel are equal in most desktop applications.

Intel had PCI-Express chipsets ready first, but AMD chipset mfgrs are getting them into the distribution pipeline now.
Intel is bigger, they have more fabs, they get their product out the door when promised (usually).
Intel is a known quantity & isn't leveraged to the hilt. It won't fold over night (like Cyrix did, and AMD sometimes seems ready to).

So, most commodity computer manufacturers (Dell, Gateway) use Intel, but HP/Compaq and eMachines are switching to AMD for profitability's sake.

AMD is making headway into the server market, but that's such a small segment of overall market share as to be negligable for AMD's long-term survivability. And in a similar vein, the same holds true for dual-processor workstations.

-=A=-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
Dean,
I have a butt-pile of benchmarking tools. I wanted to be sure we were comparing... umm... peaches to peaches.:D

So, I guess I should have said "Which particular tool, and which module, did you use to generate those particular scores?"

-=A=-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,711 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Originally posted by CatDaddy
Dean,
I have a butt-pile of benchmarking tools. I wanted to be sure we were comparing... umm... peaches to peaches.:D

So, I guess I should have said "Which particular tool, and which module, did you use to generate those particular scores?"

-=A=-
I've seen a lot of benchmarking results. What an inexact process that can be. Especially when your comparing peaches to uh... non-peaches! One side will claim a test is compiled or optimized for a certain processor or OS, then the other side will say "well why should we use your test when it favors your flavor". Makes for heated debates!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
Originally posted by MowHoward2210
I've seen a lot of benchmarking results. What an inexact process that can be. Especially when your comparing peaches to uh... non-peaches! One side will claim a test is compiled or optimized for a certain processor or OS, then the other side will say "well why should we use your test when it favors your flavor". Makes for heated debates!
That's why most hardware sites use Sandra, and run "non-optimized" modules within Sandra, and they will run older 'Demo' game modules that aren't readily optimizable (Quake 3, UT2003, AquaMark 3, etc). Then they'll usually do some MPEG encoding and WinStone benchmarks to be thorough.

As long as the testers are independent AND "Fair & Balanced", the results are reasonably honest.

-=A=-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
Originally posted by CatDaddy
Dean,
I have a butt-pile of benchmarking tools. I wanted to be sure we were comparing... umm... peaches to peaches.:D

So, I guess I should have said "Which particular tool, and which module, did you use to generate those particular scores?"

-=A=-
The tool I presented the marks for was PC Pitstop , it's quick and non biased with a large data base of similiars!!

I only presented these to provide info , not who's butt-pile is bigger-stronger-faster-prettier-or has more Orange Graphics!!!

:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
I can give you a little more insight into the AMD vs Intel thing.

Back in a former life I was a "MomandPop" Computer store. At that time AMD didn't have the quality, or the warranty support. At one point I supported AMD, but I got really tired of the excuses and the costs when the product came in DOA. AMD simply did not back their product and would not do warranty replacement. If it died I was expected to tell my customer that that was too bad and they should buy another CPU to replace their non-warrantied dead CPU. And typically, the customer would want to move to Intel, and was not at all happy that I didn't feel I should provide a new board to fit their new processor.

After a while I got to the point that I would only make you an AMD machine if you prepaid, and you signed an order that basically said there was no warranty on the board or processor, that the customer had selected the processor, and that in the event it failed, you, the customer were solely responsible...... Then I still had to mark them up to cover a 20% DOA rate, which made them uncompetitive.

And frankly, I could never see the "AMD is faster, a better game machine......." thing anyway. All the people who said that to me used benchmarks like "how fast the cards go back in the deck when I win at solitaire". Since my 800MHZ Intel Pentium II did that so fast you couldn't see it, just a screen flicker, that didn't seem like a useful test for a machine AMD rated as a 2500mhz

But the real killer was the time I had a customer's machine on the bench and the AMD fan quit. There were flames before I could reach the switch and turn the damn thing off. Not a machine I want left running in my building!
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top