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

why are amd cpu's more expenisive then P4's?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Status
Not open for further replies.
*note to other posters*
Just cause someone is wrong in thier facts, dont mean you should flame them. Explain, using examples, why they are wrong. You will come across as well informed and helpful.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree.
Oroka Sempai said:
Everyone that has even moderate computer hardware knowledge knows that a compairable AMD processor is always cheaper than its intel counterpart.
This is not true. Look at the dual core processor family.


Athlon 64 X2 4200+ $559 vs Pentium D 820 2.8GHz/800 LGA775 $249


Athlon 64 X2 4400+ $723 vs Pentium D 830 3.0GHz/800 LGA775 $339


Athlon 64 X2 4600+ $824 vs Pentium D 840 3.2GHz/800 LGA775 $552

Athlon 64 X2 4800+ $1042 Pentium D 850 3.4GHz/800 LGA775 $710

As usual, both processors have their differences and in different benchmarks still top each other.

Anandtech said:
Anandtech found that the fastest dual-core Athlon, the 4800+, and often other dual-core Athlons, typically outperformed the Intel chips on tests for single applications, such as running Adobe Photoshop or DivX.

In multitasking tests, however, the Intel chips often edged out the equivalent AMD processors. In these tests, AMD chips outscored Intel on multitasking trials that involved games, but Intel had an advantage in tests involving Web surfing or burning DVDs.

Still, the sites also cautioned against consumer euphoria. The dual-core Athlon chips range in price from $537 to $1,001, substantially more than most desktop chips on the market, while Intel's are mostly in the $241 to $730 range. Tight supplies also mean that few computers with the chips will be available until later in the year.

http://news.cnet.co.uk/desktops/0,39029662,39189666,00.htm

R
 
when did i ever say anything about costs whatsoever? i made a brief comment on chipset stability, not cost.

and my 2.4c was bought from zzf, i know how to shop thanks.

i've owned and sold some amd systems myself, why is it that everyone thinks that what is in your sig indicates your complete scope of experience with platforms.

i KNOW the merits of a64's. if i had the money right now i would for sure own one. p4's have their plusses too, seeing as when i bought mine and oc'd it to 3.5 some 2 years ago, there were not too many axp's that could come close.

finally, my current computer suits all of my needs just fine, and when its time to start all over again, i will carefully evaluate offerings from both sides, and base my buying decision on MY needs, noone else's.

now let this go, take your thread back plz
 
ropey said:
This is not true. Look at the dual core processor family.

Okay, I retract 'Always' with 'Almost Always' :p

Also, it should be noted that all the AMD CPUs you listed are X2s that are very very new to the market and still in short supply.
 
thlon 64 X2 4200+ $559 vs Pentium D 820 2.8GHz/800 LGA775 $249


Athlon 64 X2 4400+ $723 vs Pentium D 830 3.0GHz/800 LGA775 $339


Athlon 64 X2 4600+ $824 vs Pentium D 840 3.2GHz/800 LGA775 $552

Athlon 64 X2 4800+ $1042 Pentium D 850 3.4GHz/800 LGA775 $710

Thats apples to oranges. the 4400+ is 2x 2.2ghz
2.2ghz is a 3400+ I think (or is it a 3500?)

So actually, its the reverse Dual 3.2 intel costs $800, eqivilent perf by amd cots $530, and the amd runs WAY cooler.
 
The proverbial pound for pound.

For every MIP you get from the CPU. How much does it cost per IPs? ($/MIPs) in comparison?

Since the architecture is rather different and the strategies they go about getting from point A to point B is about the only logical way to actually compare prices of the chips in terms of value.

What is hung on a motherboard varies so much. It kind of don't equate into a CPU, just how it is translated to other parts of the board.
 
nealric said:
Thats apples to oranges. the 4400+ is 2x 2.2ghz
2.2ghz is a 3400+ I think (or is it a 3500?)

So actually, its the reverse Dual 3.2 intel costs $800, eqivilent perf by amd cots $530, and the amd runs WAY cooler.
The tests are showing that equivalent processors handle different tasks differently and thus these tasks are proven to be superior on different dual processors with AMD taking a lead and Intel taking a lead. There is no reverse here. We are not talking GHz anymore as AMD changed that measurement and thus we are now on the Performance Ratio method. So now you want to begin the measurement of price on PR with AMD and Performance with Intel on MHz. :rolleyes: OK, on that method Intel does edge over AMD in certain tests and AMD over Intel in certain tests. Thus at this point in time for those certain tests that Intel edges AMD the Intel IS Far less expensive than the AMD variants that are being benchmarked.

R
 
As everyone said before, AMDs are not more expensive when comparing them to an equivalent p4. They are actually cheaper and in most cases perform better. You may think that because of the Ghz, but do not cmpare them by that because the Ghz of the AMDs give off more performance then the Ghz of then pentium 4s.
 
LeEbZ0r said:
As everyone said before
This statement is useless. If "Everyone Said It Before" then there would be no disagreement because "Everone Said It"
LeEbZ0r said:
AMDs are not more expensive when comparing them to an equivalent p4. They are actually cheaper and in most cases perform better. You may think that because of the Ghz, but do not cmpare them by that because the Ghz of the AMDs give off more performance then the Ghz of then pentium 4s.
Your statement holds no water as there are duties that performed by Intel which win over AMD in benchmark testing. AMD tests via Instruction Cycle to create a PR rating. Thus, let us test both processors on AMD's equivalency and in doing so create a more valid and stable testing point of reference.

There are tests where Intel wins out over AMD and tests where AMD wins out over Intel. There are no 100% wins per processor on testing equivalency.

You speak concretely as if there are NO tests where Intel wins over AMD and that is simply not the case. It is dependent on the program being run. All I have to do is show benchmarks of multi-media encoding to show this error you make.

R
 
Last edited:
LeEbZ0r said:
As everyone said before, AMDs are not more expensive when comparing them to an equivalent p4. They are actually cheaper and in most cases perform better. You may think that because of the Ghz, but do not cmpare them by that because the Ghz of the AMDs give off more performance then the Ghz of then pentium 4s.


Broad statements like that aren't usually the best way to go about discussing this type of thing, it's usually better to go with "A64's are better than a comparable Intel at gaming" or something like that. Otherwise, it's too easy to label you as a fanboy who doesn't have any proof to back up your claims. Now this is in no way intended to insult you, I'm just trying to get you to go a little deeper in your posts.

Also, most of the people around here don't even look at clock speed anymore, so the AMD vs. Intel Ghz rating is pretty much moot. We tend to look at system performance rather than how high you can push your clockspeed.
 
I only see a couple of sane posts in this thread :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back