• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Discussing Possible Moves from AMD Systems to INTEL

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Fushyuguru

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Location
WPAFB, OH
Now first off I'm not trying to make a thread where people start arguing AMD this INTEL that. I really don't want any kind fanboys clogging up this thread. So please just post thoughts if you could, keep responses to posts to a minimum. I hope the local mod can help me out if this thread turns that way. Having everyones thoughts in one place would be good for anyone thinking of plunging into the x86-64 world to look through.

Topic: Now Im sure I'm not the only one who has been noticing all of the trends in AMD's buisiness decisions as of late. Not only from Ed's comments on the front page but from every financial evaluation of the company Ive seen for Q1+2 of 2004 for AMD. The company is trying so hard to break into a new market for its processors incorperating x86-64 archetecture. Though in their stern efforts it looks as if the company is ignoring those of us who have chosen their platforms and processors because we enjoy the hobby of overclocking, and not having to pay too much for the thrill of it. Their new line and price projections have left out most of us looking to move forward in our hobbying unless we want to pay top dollar for an on-par product compared to an INTEL system.

Question: If you own or use AMD systems and have been having second thoughts on buying AMD next round, I would love to hear your thoughts, fears, plans, opinions. Heres some example questions to answer --

1.What type of system do you have now?
2.How much do you normally spend on a CPU/Mobo upgrade?
3.What do you believe will be your next platform and when?
4.How much are you willing to pay for an x86-64 Amd Chip and what type?
5.Have the late business trends from AMD changed your views of the company?
6.If INTEL comes out with a 64bit desktop chip, how would that affect any descision you make?
7.Does Prescott look tempting to you if it holds a lower pricetag than an AMD solution?
8.How would you feel about the previousquestion if they were consistently hitting 4.2-4.6ghz?
9.How do you feel about AMD making only one unlocked chip (FX51) and expecting overclockers to buy it?
10.Do you expect AMD's pricing stategy to suceed?

Say anything you want. Its time to have your thoughts posted. Just heed to what what said up above in bold please.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I had second thoughts about going AMD since my last AMD rig. I used to have an NF7-S, a 2100+ OC'd to 210 FSB and 512 Corsair 3200. That's why i have an intel now and will NEVER go back. 64-FX-what?

Questions answered:
1. Check my sig.
2. $170, roughly.
3. Intel's 64-bit chip, when it comes out.
4. $200 tops. The 64-FX. The regular 64-bit one doesn't do much better than any old intel chip.
5. I don't really pay much attention to their business decisions, but I think that the fact that they've lost millions upon million for the past several years shows something about their company.
6. I'd buy it.
7. Mmm... not really. One would assume Prescott is an uber-P4. But, SSE3 software will not exist at the Prescott launch date. Like most hardware releases, the software of today doesn't need the hardware of today, because the hardware of today is pretty much the hardware of tomorrow... or next week...
8. If they were hitting that high, I'd probably get one for the hell of it. Anything above 4.0 Ghz would be ridiculous.
9. Do they actually expect to make more money this way? Maybe if they stopped making any other chip. Who the heck cares about unlocking chips? Intel hasn't had an unlockable chip forever and people have been OCing them like crazy anyways.
10. No.
 
Heres my reply to my post:

I have been buying AMD systems ever since I broke into the enthusiast computing thing back with the T-Birds. The platforms were cheaper than Intel solutions, they were easy to learn how to overclock with and a joy to work with. This feeling of joy whenever I bought a new AMD motherboard or chip has continued up untill now. even though the economics of the company always seemed rocky, they offered me a much better price versus performance alternative to overclocking Intel systems. I enjoyed not haveing to break the bank every time a new "hot" stepping came out. Now I am faced with massive changes in the companys products, pricing and overall attitude to the area of the market that I fit into.

I always thought that if Intel made a "hot" stepping that fit into my hobbying budget, I would switch in an instant to blue. Though now that things may be looking that way in the next year. I feel some apprehention. Maybe its because I have been used to a precident where I could lay down $70-100 for a cpu and I those days may be numbered.

I will say, I would love to own a Hammer system, hell I would even prefer it somewhat (underdogs are always fun). But if AMD keeps pricing the way it looks, with no midrange priced processor for me to play with, Im going blue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will switch to blue for any number of combinations of these:

IF Intel systems are working on par or better with overclocking than what people are getting with the same priced overclocked Hammer system.

IF Intel can offer me a system within 6-12 months that will overclock like above and not cost any more than $180 for a cpu.

IF Intel commits to an x86-64 technology, than I definitely will switch (face it, they will be skeevy and will make it incompatable with AMD, if not then ill reconsider).

IF Prescott power consumption issues are ironed out.

IF Hammer shows power consumption issues.

IF AMD does not offer a socket 939 sub $200 Hammer with substantial cache (1mb is not that expensive AMD, comeon! But at least 512k).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of any switch to Intel, I will always tend to have a bitter taste in my mouth from AMD's business standpoint the past 6 months. I somewhat feel insulted that they have disregarded the market overclocking hobbyists like me encompass, and then turn around and offer me a ferrari if I want to keep driving fast. Sure its just what Im looking for, but it carries a ferrari pricetag. I just wanna go fast, not break the bank. They seem to have said "Tough luck, were going high society now. We dont need youre revenue." And all the long forgoten whose been paying their bills and keeping them alive all this time.

In the end though, it is just a tool. Tools cost money, and new tools cost more. Tools dont have feelings and you shouldnt feel for your tools. You can feel good about what you do with them but they dont love you back. So I will make the most economic and performance driven descision I can come 6-12 months when I upgrade.
 
1.) A7N8X Delux/2100+(pal)/2x256mb(pc2100) crucial/Abit ti 4200/120gig hdd WD SE
2.) $300
3.) A64(754) perhaps 939
4.) $300-350 with mobo
5.) Great business I see nothing wrong.
6.) If it is x86-64 should be interesting to see benchmarks against each other but if it's not no point in even looking at it.
7.) Nope
8.) Won't happen.
9.) I see nothing wrong with this.
10.) If intel doesn't come out with a x86-64 chip then yes. If prescott isn't as fast or faster mhz for mhz than a northwood then yes. If prescott is faster mhz for mhz and they can ramp up the speeds then no!

As far as the 32bit world AMD is still bang for the buck for overclockers :).

2500+ $92 - newegg
Asus A7N8X - $119 - newegg
$211 !
 
Not really, the 64's still have major Ocing problems if you're not using the FXs. Tejas is starting to look like a very viable alternative.

Unlike AMD if Intel screws something up, they have the cash available to fix the problem. Odds are my next rig will be a multi-core Tejas

just my .02

Now for the questions:

1) Im using the favored 1800XP and an NF7 soon

2) Normally about $200-250 for a mobo and chip, But I am willing to go to $300-350 only IF its high quality stuff

3) Tejas, at the end of 2005 or mid 2006

4) Im willing to pay a max of $250 FX__ (53...54 whatever)

5) Not really, theyre tryin to make money, but their product isnt that good. Thats my problem with it. It isn't that much better than a current Pent4s to justify 2x the price tag.

6) It wouldn't I think the whole 64 thing is gonna be a flop. Most pplz wont crossover and buissnesses absolutly wont. Microsoft cant make things run right the first time so, OS64 is gonna be a disaster. Drivers 64 bit will be very difficult to run/write. All for what an extra 10% in performance!??!

7) Absolutly, most us OCers have the cooling required to OC a prescott, so why the hell not.

8) Absolutly, I wouldnt bat an eye at it. I tend to get well over the average OC anyway.

9) I think its suicude, joe-shmo wont buy it, and Prescott is cheaper. Most of us bought AMD cuz its 80% of the perfromance with 60% of the price.

10) Yes and No, If the FX53s kick *** enough to warrent the price tag then yes. If not the a resounding NO
 
Last edited:
1.What type of system do you have now?
A7N8X XP2500 at 210x11
2.How much do you normally spend on a CPU/Mobo upgrade?
$100 each
3.What do you believe will be your next platform and when?
Not sure, but it'll have to be about twice as fast as what I have now.
4.How much are you willing to pay for an x86-64 Amd Chip and what type?
$150 for something thats twice as fast as current.
5.Have the late business trends from AMD changed your views of the company?
There just trying to make money, but if there strategies put Intel at a better price/performance ratio, well then Intel gets the money.
6.If INTEL comes out with a 64bit desktop chip, how would that affect any descision you make?
Still would wait for twice as fast as todays
7.Does Prescott look tempting to you if it holds a lower pricetag than an AMD solution?
Yes, definitly
8.How would you feel about the previousquestion if they were consistently hitting 4.2-4.6ghz?
Even better
9.How do you feel about AMD making only one unlocked chip (FX51) and expecting overclockers to buy it?
I wonder what there smoking
10.Do you expect AMD's pricing stategy to suceed?
Nope, I think most people will wait for the price drops based on AMD's previous pricing, or just not buy.
 
1 - Check Sig. 6 months ago, I had 5 Athlon XP's and one T-Bird, now I have 4 P4's and 2 XP's. next month I plan on only having one XP and 5 P4's.

2 - It all depends on the bang for buck. "Bang" meaning how many SETI WU's the system can put out. Obviously my switch to Intel is due to the Hyperthreading technology. $250 would be my limit for a CPU and approx $200 for the mobo. As for the RAM, it would be hard to say. I like having 1GB in my main system and 512 in my crunchers since I want to take advantage of Dual Channel, and the smallest sticks are 256MB.

3 - My next platform will be the prescott's as soon as revised steppings come out and all the bugs are worked out. Kinda like Rev 1.1 and Rev 2.0 mobos.

4 - I won't be getting any 64-Bit CPU's until 64 bit software becomes mainstream. As for AMD or Intel? Whichever produces more SETI output. I'm not Biased. (I'm just a SETI addict.)

5 - In my opinion, AMD seems to be getting desperate, but I don't think they will last much longer. I'm not educated enough about this specific topic to make any relevant comments.

6 - Again, when Intel comes out with a 64-bit platform, I will eventually get one, but only after it becomes a proven technology and when 64-bit software becomes standard. (Providing Intel's 64-Bit platform has HT :) )

7 - Prescott looks very tempting. Smaller die, 1MB cache, revised steppings = higher overclocks, and also revised HT technology, which AMD doesn't have. I love HT.

8 - The more MHz the better. I can stick my Prommy on there and my watercooling system that is almost going to be completed. This game never ends.

9 - I feel that AMD believes that enthusiast like us tend to spend more $$ on computer peripherals and they also know that unlocked multipliers are an overclockers dream. I really think that all of their CPU's should be unlocked, but only having the lower multipliers available. That way people can not raise the multipliers and sell the CPU's for a higher price. AMD is desperate for bling bling right now and they're experimenting their marketing strategies. It seems that they've been doing this for quite some time.

10 - I think their pricing strategies would succeed better if they did what I mentioned above. If you can only use lower multiplers, and not higher ones, then what do they have to worry about? You wouldn't be able to sell someone an XP-3000 and raise the multiplier to make it look like an XP-3200 now would you? I'm no marketing expert, but I would take this approach if I were them.
 
Here's my take: I just RETURNED my Athlon 64 3000+ (although I probally would of kept it, some problems with ncix forced me to return it)

Okay take it from me, I've OWNED an athlon 64 3000+ for the past 3 weeks, although I've had some problems with it and ultimately had to return it, and get a full refund, btw I have a P4 2.8C and an Asus P4C800E mobo on the way instead.

64 bit means almost NOTHING. IT's NOT twice as fast, hell it's not even close to 50% faster. It's more like 10% faster in most applications (those that DO support 64-bit) I'm talking about stuff like encoding, and various other tests (BTW I was running a 64 bit version of FreeBSD. (this is in comparing the 32bit versions of some programs vs the 64bit versions)

for now "64-bit" is like hyperthreading, except hypertheading has more realworld application and benfit, although it ususally only improves performance by 5-6% and maybe 10% if the program is written to support it.

Did I like my Athlon 64 chip? Hell yes I loved it, it was BLAZING fast, but I do alot more encoding work than I expected to, and I also do alot of cpu intensive programs at once, which bogged down the A64, I did the same things on my friend's P4C and it didn't slow down nearly as much when I ran multiple programs at once :)

And some unexpected problems with NCIX caused me to return it. They're both VERY good chips, I can't recommend any over the other really. But the P4 2.8C will do a nice overclock to 3.5Ghz, whereas the Athlon 64 maybe overclocked to 2.15 ghz stable ;)

For now, I think I'll be happier with the P4 2.8C Hyperthreading works better in real life applications than 64 bit. 64 bit will only become useful when programs start to get optimized for it, but 64-bit won't give you as large as a performance boost as most may seem (2X as much data) hardly I saw at BEST a 10-15% increase (of course this is NOTHING to laugh at 10% is pretty good) But that's if the program supports it. Although current 32 bit programs DON'T support it.

same thing with Hyperthreading, however it will ALWAYS give a performance boost of roughly 5% but it also helps with running multiple system intensive programs. And if a program supports Hyperthreading you'll see an increase of about 10-15% as well.

I don't think you can really go wrong with any though...right now I'm with Intel. The prescott looks promising, but you gotta wait for reviews to see the real numbers. If I had more time I'd wait the extra month to get one, but I don't have any time.

PS audiman, you're on winnipegheights arn't you? It's me Daemos from the heights. Maybe you can help me o/c my 2.8C when I get it from mlh :) too bad it's on stock cooling, running out of money here :p
 
Shift_ said:

PS audiman, you're on winnipegheights arn't you? It's me Daemos from the heights. Maybe you can help me o/c my 2.8C when I get it from mlh :) too bad it's on stock cooling, running out of money here :p

Yes, I am. :) shoot me a PM and I'll give you a hand. I've been on these forums for two years.

Also, Hyperthreading gives more performance that you think! Take SETI for example, I've never ran one instance of it on my HT systems, but running two instances of it results in roughly 17-20 work units a day, depending on which system. If I were to run one instance of it I would probably only get 13 WU's MAX. Think about it :)

13/17 = 0.76
0.76 - 1 = 0.235 X 100 = 23.5% Improvement.
(Based on guesstimate but should be fairly accurate. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong and if you've tested this with an overclocked P4 @ ~3.2-3.8 GHz)

As it stands now, unless AMD offers something similar to HT, I'm sticking with intel. Intel/AMD mobos cost roughly the same, but the extra $80 - $100(CDN) for the CPU makes it sooo worth it, ESPECIALLY if you're into distributed computing.
 
You got quite an impressive list of PCs :)

I wish I got the money to keep upgrading my PCs. I was going to wait for the Prescott, but I'm currently 3 weeks w/o my Pc another month would KILL me, hopefully everything will be in next week :D

I've never really tested HT like you have, but I HAVE extensivily tested out Amd's x86-64 with the FreeBSD x86-64 and 64 bit video encoders vs the 32 bit on a 32 bit FreeBSD. Helps to have 500 GB of space :)

If I can't get what I want out of it, I'll be getting you to help :)

too bad convergys blocked winnipeg heights :(
 
Are you at work right now? I am :)

Anyway, I was researching the forums and found something.

Here's a quote from TC:
"For instance my 3.0 would do about 11-12 per day with HT off, 17-18 with HT on running 2 processes."

So let's say 11.5 without HT and 17.5 with HT

11.5/17.5 = 0.657
0.657 - 1 = 0.343 X 100 = 34% More processing power. :)


I'll PM you because I don't want to get off topic, and want to obey Fushyuguru's request.
 
I'll keep it short and sweet...

I've always prefered Intel, but at the time I put my AMD system together, AMD was the solution that fit in my price range. However, my next system will be Intel based. Intel may not be cheaper, but they have at least moved into my "affordable" price range now.
 
Evnas said:
Intel may not be cheaper, but they have at least moved into my "affordable" price range now.

Thanks to AMD. As long as Intel has the competition that forces them to keep the prices down, then I'll be happy.

I wonder what would happen to the CPU prices if for example VIA introduced some high end CPU's.
 
I had a dual XP system once. It wasn't much fun. My P4 HT systems are much better and single CPU systems OC much much higher.
 
AudiMan said:
I had a dual XP system once. It wasn't much fun. My P4 HT systems are much better and single CPU systems OC much much higher.


I miss my dual XP system very much. I could do anything with that machine. Intel is still to expensive for me. Perhaps someday I'll be able to step into that realm.
 
eli said:



I miss my dual XP system very much. I could do anything with that machine. Intel is still to expensive for me. Perhaps someday I'll be able to step into that realm.

An HT Intel system is much cheaper than a Dual CPU system.

With a dual system, not only do you have to buy two CPU's, you have to have a powerful PSU, and an expensive mobo.
 
AudiMan said:


An HT Intel system is much cheaper than a Dual CPU system.

With a dual system, not only do you have to buy two CPU's, you have to have a powerful PSU, and an expensive mobo.

Yes, but the fact is, that for programs *optimized* for SMP, such as photoshop, it will outperform the intel sysyem. But for stuff like games that don't utilize a 2nd cpu, having a dually is useless.
 
Back