AMD versus INTEL Benchmarking

[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.

[TechZ]

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.

[confus-ed]

AMD Athlon 3500+ is actually running at 2200 Mhz - but that's an 'apples & oranges' comparrison - there's all that 9 to 6 fetches stuff, & ones 64 bit & the other 32 & that's before we start to think about how memory technologies can come into play..

AMD were absolutely hammering Intel Benchmark wise until Intel started upping the cache on its chips (to a very healthy 1mb on some - check those specs! ), which under 32 bit windoze puts them back pretty close together for many/most applications .

I think its fair to conclude that all that seperates them really is price (& that's narrowing sharply as Intel loose market share & finally are waking up & smelling the roses - or more likely are a bit sick of folks firmly concluding who wins in the 'bang for bucks' stakes !)

[MorseLady]

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+

Intel® Pentium® 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.

[WebHead]

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?

[confus-ed]

- 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

[WebHead]

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.

[TechZ]

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.

[confus-ed]

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

[slavedriver]

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

[monkeyman2]

Go with intel. They ROCK!!

I got a 3.4EE here, and love it!

[ilovetheusers]

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.

[BOB IROC]

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.

[silencio]

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.

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.

[BOB IROC]

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.