-
March 25th, 2005, 02:56 PM
#1
Registered User
AMD versus INTEL Benchmarking
Is there anywhere on the web I can go to compare like for like AMD and Intel processors? I have always had Intel but I am tempted to go AMD for my new machine. It is 3.4GHZ Intel P4 versus a 3.5GHZ AMD ATHLON 64 for my particular chosen build at Evesham Technology UK.
-
March 25th, 2005, 03:28 PM
#2
Registered User
There are lots of benchmarks out there, most people will tell you that the A64 3500 (doesnt mean its 3.5ghz) will beat the P4 3.4.
Read here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/index.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/index.html
Good benchmarks.
-
March 25th, 2005, 04:47 PM
#3
Geezer
-
March 25th, 2005, 06:05 PM
#4
Registered User
Thank you for the info. I have configured exactly the same specification except for the processor and there is less than two UK pounds between the Intel P4 3.4GHZ and AMD Athlon 64 3500+ machine.
Thanks for pointing out that the AMD 3500+ is not 3.5ghz. Here are the specs for the two processors as on the Evesham configurator
AMD Athlon 64 processor 3500+
IntelŪ PentiumŪ 4 processor 550 (3.4GHz)
I must admit I find it all a bit confusing. I really want whichever is the fastest and quietest in respect of cooling requirement.
I noticed about three years ago when I started to take an interest in benchmarking that Athlon was faster at a lower given speed than Intel.
Last edited by MorseLady; March 25th, 2005 at 06:15 PM.
-
March 25th, 2005, 06:57 PM
#5
Registered User
Here are a couple of pro's / con's that I have noticed between the two
- P4 has hyperthreading and AMD does not.
- Besides Windows XP 64 beta,.. there really isn't any 64 bit software out there so what's the point?
-
March 25th, 2005, 07:26 PM
#6
Geezer
Originally Posted by WebHead
- P4 has hyperthreading and AMD does not.
- Besides Windows XP 64 beta,.. there really isn't any 64 bit software out there so what's the point?
You need apps that are designed to use hyperthreading to get any 'substantial' benefit (or many might say any at all ! it can slow stuff down ! Link ) & xp 64 bit is at RC2 stage - so as the phrase goes, coming soon at a store near you
-
March 26th, 2005, 04:00 AM
#7
Registered User
Originally Posted by confus-ed
You need apps that are designed to use hyperthreading to get any 'substantial' benefit (or many might say any at all ! it can slow stuff down ! Link ) & xp 64 bit is at RC2 stage - so as the phrase goes, coming soon at a store near you
However, based on the definition of hyperthreading,... there will never be apps written specifically for it. It processes multiple strings of data simultaneously rather than the old way of sharing data through a que in the processor. So by definition, HT increases performance in software by allowing multiple applications to be processed at the same time.
It's kinda like with AMD 64 you have much faster cars now, but you are still bottlenecked into one lane of traffic as usual, but with Intel P4 w/ HT you have cars that are nearly the same speed and in addition you have opened up more lanes of traffic. In a sense, you end up with more processing bandwidth on an HT processor.
Btw,.. as I've said before, I think 64 bit processors are just a stepping stone. Nothing to get too excited over. Dual core processing is going to be the next best thing.
-
March 26th, 2005, 06:08 AM
#8
Registered User
for the moment, all though I dont like it, I would say go for the AMD. Thats my opinion. Take a look at those benchmarks too.
-
March 26th, 2005, 07:50 PM
#9
Geezer
Originally Posted by WebHead
However, based on the definition of hyperthreading,... there will never be apps written specifically for it. It processes multiple strings of data simultaneously rather than the old way of sharing data through a que in the processor. So by definition, HT increases performance in software by allowing multiple applications to be processed at the same time...
Its like speculative fetch - if you don't know what the other thread is doing in reference to the one that has control, its no damn good as you might just be wasting your time doing it, if you don't need it - applications need designing to use it, to benefit from it. So no, by definition it does NOT
-
March 30th, 2005, 06:27 PM
#10
Banned
Originally Posted by MorseLady
Is there anywhere on the web I can go to compare like for like AMD and Intel processors? I have always had Intel but I am tempted to go AMD for my new machine. It is 3.4GHZ Intel P4 versus a 3.5GHZ AMD ATHLON 64 for my particular chosen build at Evesham Technology UK.
We run both AMD 3000+
and Intel 3.0
I'd give the AMD the edge
-
April 5th, 2005, 09:34 PM
#11
Go with intel. They ROCK!!
I got a 3.4EE here, and love it!
-
April 7th, 2005, 09:47 PM
#12
Flabooble!
Originally Posted by MorseLady
Is there anywhere on the web I can go to compare like for like AMD and Intel processors? I have always had Intel but I am tempted to go AMD for my new machine. It is 3.4GHZ Intel P4 versus a 3.5GHZ AMD ATHLON 64 for my particular chosen build at Evesham Technology UK.
At this time the amd 64's are faster than the competing Pentium chips but in any of the speed comparisons when they compare the same generations of chips (p4 3ghz to amd 3000) the difference is miniscule at best.
The way to choose is to look at price, preformance and what you will use it for, IMO there is no right or wrong processor. Heck, even celerons have their place in the world. I use both Intel and AMD and honestly, I don't see a major differnce except in price.
-
April 9th, 2005, 10:25 PM
#13
Registered User
Originally Posted by monkeyman2
Go with intel. They ROCK!!
I got a 3.4EE here, and love it!
so I guess that means you paid too much for a processor. P4 EE (Expensive Edition) AMD offers a better value and will not have the bottlenecks intel does due to its integrated memory controller. The advantages of that will become more clear once Dual Core processors hit the market.
-
April 10th, 2005, 12:11 AM
#14
Registered User
Originally Posted by TechZ
Running both the AMD 3500+ and Intel 3.0Gig processors on Asus top of the line boards (A8N-SLI-Deluxe and P4P800-Deluxe respectively), the AMD outperforms the pentium in games and the pentium outperforms (drastically) the AMD in business apps.
I read benchmarks and articals. I take them with a grain of salt and wonder where their sponsership comes from.
Running them back to back ^^ yeilds my own personal findings.
Deliver me from Swedish furniture!
-
April 10th, 2005, 12:45 AM
#15
Registered User
Originally Posted by silencio
Running both the AMD 3500+ and Intel 3.0Gig processors on Asus top of the line boards (A8N-SLI-Deluxe and P4P800-Deluxe respectively), the AMD outperforms the pentium in games and the pentium outperforms (drastically) the AMD in business apps.
Its 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. I wouldn't say that Intel "drastically" outperforms AMD in business apps. We are talking a matter of a seconds here. Besides AMD processors are 800 - 1000 mhz slower than the P4s they are running up against and yet the can keep up just fine. Seeing as AMD wins some and Intel wins some and usually only by a thin margin, I would go with the better value. Currently that is AMD. If someone is willing to pay more for intel than that is their business. I know I have an intel machine, but the only reason for that is because the motherboard and processor were free. Otherwise I would have all AMD. They run all my applications just fine.
Similar Threads
-
By Saf in forum Windows 95/98/98SE/ME
Replies: 5
Last Post: December 17th, 2004, 08:38 AM
-
By thomasca in forum Tech Lounge & Tales
Replies: 18
Last Post: August 21st, 2004, 09:53 AM
-
By Hippie_Techs in forum Tech-To-Tech
Replies: 7
Last Post: September 27th, 2001, 09:32 AM
-
By Hippie_Techs in forum Tech Lounge & Tales
Replies: 12
Last Post: September 14th, 2001, 07:43 PM
-
By NasuTheFly in forum Tech Lounge & Tales
Replies: 0
Last Post: July 5th, 1999, 03:49 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks