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

intel vs. amd prices ??

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

Shaded

Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Location
germany
in one of the stickies above i tryed to followe the discussion about intel versus amd processors well skipped the old pages and read from 2003 on but the main argument for amd was price and well i remembered something diffrent...

am i missing something?
just compared some prices...
CPU, AMD, 3000+ , Athlon XP, Sockel A, Barton
444.00 €
running at 2167 MHZ, btw, someone knows why they r called 3000+? when just running with 2167MHZ?

CPU, Intel, 2400 MHz, Pentium 4, Sockel 478,
512kB, 533MHz FSB
178.99 €
sorry but the 2400 is the smallest P4 offered so i picked it for comparison... but well for me it looks like intel is the cheaper one,

sorry but a newbie may be wrong so feel free to correct me...
 
running at 2167 MHZ, btw, someone knows why they r called 3000+? when just running with 2167MHZ?

well AMD seem to believe that extra Cache makes up for a few MHz...IMO these are different specs that are used for different things, and benchmarks will show this - the XP2800 Thoroughbred is clocked higher, and in tests that a less dependant on Cache size (which is a fair few) it will outperform the XP3000 - but then AMD also believe that putting 3 random numbers down on paper constitutes as a PR rating these days so what you gonna do? :rolleyes:

the older Athlon XPs are mega cheap for what they are...the bartons changed this, I havent looked at the prices for a while on the Barton, but on initial release the XP3000 was more expensive than the PIV 3.06GHz -

but if your looking to buy one I would always look at the price at the time, see what you can afford, from either camp - then compare by looking up a few benchmarks from sites, then buy the best for your money.
 
hmm well u made me look at some benchmarking sites... they mainly compared the amd2600+ with the 2800P4
where the intel takes a slight lead also because of the faster FSB...
but then comparing the Thoroughbred models the 2700+ still is cheaper than the 2800P4 about the half nearly... the barton price instead really sucks...
so what's the diffrence from the barton to the Thoroughbred?

well there is another question arising after visiting the amd cpu and intel cpu sections i got the image that the intel guys have more problems with over clocking is that correct so far?
someone able to tell me the diffrences or in general which overclocks better?
 
Last edited:
so what's the diffrence from the barton to the Thoroughbred?

the Barton employs an extra 256KB of L2 Cache bringing the total to 512KB - apart from that I should imagine its the Thoroughbred-B core.

well there is another question arising after visiting the amd cpu and intel cpu sections i got the image that the intel guys have more problems with over clocking is that correct so far?
someone able to tell me the diffrences or in general which overclocks better?

well...this can depend on a wide range of factors - you not only get your different cores with different clock speeds and heat outputs, but each core comes in many steppings, and the overclock can depend on the motherboard/chipset also, and other factors like memory quality, and if your not keeping the PCI/AGP bus in check then it can come down to the components that you have coming from the southbridge/ICH or the graphics card...

AMD would give you more "freedom" per se as it has the ability of multiplier unlocking (if there not already unlocked) - this could help you in determining if the processor itself is whats holding you back as you can use these to only overclock that - but FSB overclocking which would would use in an Intel based system is the way to go as it gives more performance with its greater bandwidth between memory as well as the larger clock rate.

So all I can say is make sure you get a CPU which isnt already clocked near the limits of the core - and get a good stepping, although this doesnt ensure the perfect ocer, it gives you a good chance - check around the AMD and Intel CPU forums (the stickies) for stepping information.

Dan
 
Shaded said:

well there is another question arising after visiting the amd cpu and intel cpu sections i got the image that the intel guys have more problems with over clocking is that correct so far?
someone able to tell me the diffrences or in general which overclocks better?

Both Intel and AMD chips can get excellent results overclocking. The trick is you should do your homework before you make your purchases, since either camp is going to have their roadblocks. Research the proper stepping of the chip and your motherboard and memory for sure.

I think that AMD offers alot of flexibility in being able to lower the multiplier and raise the FSB to extreme levels. This puts the bottleneck on the motherboard since that will be the main thing stopping you from raising fsb to very high (200+) levels.

I still firmly believe that AMD represents a solid value, maybe not at the very top level of chips though (AMD's current best vs Intels best). What you really need is to understand the AMD PR ratings and then understand the real performance of those chips compared to Intel chips. Also you need to understand how far those chips will oc compared to Intel chips.
 
AMD's PR Ratings are generally not QUITE correct, but are usually fairly close. A Barton 3000+ clocked at 2.167ghz is actually quite competitive with an HT 3.06 PIV. Since a 2.1ghz processor can do NEARLY the work of a 3.1ghz processor, what does that suggest about the 3.1ghz processor?

I'm not slamming Intel or it's products, it's just everyone who is not a newb at this (the good sort, the NEW Beginner type) knows that Intel packs less punch on a clock for clock basis. Exactly explained, Intel processors do less in any given amount of clock cycles compared to AMD processors. AMD chips do more.

There are great features and values offered by both camps - Go intel if you plan on using SSE2 enabled applications frequently, since current AMD chips don't have those extensions, and they do make a difference.

As far as gaming or real world home computing goes, it most often boils down to bang for the buck, and I think AMD has the crown here. For far less money, you can get almost the performance of twice the cost, in many circumstances.

Couple that with the ease of overclocking offered by AMD's processors, and I'll personally take AMD over Intel.

the older Athlon XPs are mega cheap for what they are...the bartons changed this, I havent looked at the prices for a while on the Barton, but on initial release the XP3000 was more expensive than the PIV 3.06GHz -

I have to address this. The Barton 3000+'s initial price was LESS than the 3.06HT's INITIAL price. This is kinda like saying Car A is priced wrong because it costs more than 4 year old car B.

And look at the CURRENT Barton 3000+ price compared to the 3.06HT CURRENT price, either from a good vendor, or the 1000 cpu lot price. Historically, AMD has been cheaper, and this is no exception.
 
alright so i read something about doing 9 steps per time compared to 6 (intel)
u guys would agree on that the barton 3000+ is absolute competitive to the 3ghz except of it's lower bus frequency?

well what i figured out throught the day today is that the intels have some limitations on OC by their core voltage health. er huh? well something like that...
so u must not raise it higher than 1.75 volts (for making sure the processor will stay alive) does amd also know such limitations?

and perhaps just because it is related to the same system.
when a cpu is cooled to sub zero temperature does this mean u don't need a much more higher core voltage for overclocking because of the resistance gets smaller, or did i get something wrong here.

sorry for a noob asking so many questions, but before i am able to pick something or choose the processor type i need - well do my homework...
 
I have to address this. The Barton 3000+'s initial price was LESS than the 3.06HT's INITIAL price. This is kinda like saying Car A is priced wrong because it costs more than 4 year old car B.

I think you have to compare prices in the now - if I were to consider buying something and I could afford it, I wouldnt say "oh no, it cost more when it first came out, and I cant afford that price"....look at it if you were to decide who had the better processor, you wouldnt say "AMD do cos the XP3000 is faster than the Willamette 1.4GHz" - you would look at the best they both have to offer.

u guys would agree on that the barton 3000+ is absolute competitive to the 3ghz except of it's lower bus frequency?

well...I believe anandtech summed it up as "the overall performance is close enough to warrent the XP3000 rating", it really depends what your benchmarking it with. Another words, somtimes it will perform more of lower PR rating, others pretty much on level, and others more than...

on the voltages, upping the voltage will shorten the life of the processor regardless of if its an AMD or Intel - the more you up less the life, but how long of a life that particular processor has is yet to be seen - but I always thought resistance increased with heat...leave this to another member :)
 
I think you have to compare prices in the now - if I were to consider buying something and I could afford it, I wouldnt say "oh no, it cost more when it first came out, and I cant afford that price"....look at it if you were to decide who had the better processor, you wouldnt say "AMD do cos the XP3000 is faster than the Willamette 1.4GHz" - you would look at the best they both have to offer.

I can agree with that, but you made it sound like they were hundreds of dollars higher, when in fact it was just a FEW dollars higher at the time of debut. And speaking of comparing prices in the now, the 3000+ is a fair bit cheaper than the 3.06, so true to form, AMD quickly repositioned their price points.

For Shaded

u guys would agree on that the barton 3000+ is absolute competitive to the 3ghz except of it's lower bus frequency?

I would agree if your comparison involved ALL of the following: Benchmarked performance, real world performance, and price.

No matter how you slice it, the Barton 3000+ will not be as fast or faster than the 3.06HT in ALL applications, but it does beat it in some. So yes, it's very competitive performance-wise. It doesn't ABSOLUTELY match the PIV 3.06's performance, and certainly doesn't CRUSH it. However, since it's cheaper, it should be a considered option if you're purchasing.

Actually, though, it should be a considered RECOMMENDATION if someone ELSE asks. If you're browsing THESE boards, you're probably more likely to buy the Barton 2500+ to overclock, or an AMD TbredB 1700+ to overclock.
 
The extra 256kb's L2 give the barton about 5-10% more performance than the T-bred. They are even benches where it loses against T-breds, because the clock speed is lower.
I would go for a T-bred, they much cheaper and perform almost as well and in some cases better.
 
Shaded said:
in one of the stickies above i tryed to followe the discussion about intel versus amd processors well skipped the old pages and read from 2003 on but the main argument for amd was price and well i remembered something diffrent...

am i missing something?
just compared some prices...
CPU, AMD, 3000+ , Athlon XP, Sockel A, Barton
444.00 €
running at 2167 MHZ, btw, someone knows why they r called 3000+? when just running with 2167MHZ?

CPU, Intel, 2400 MHz, Pentium 4, Sockel 478,
512kB, 533MHz FSB
178.99 €
sorry but the 2400 is the smallest P4 offered so i picked it for comparison... but well for me it looks like intel is the cheaper one,

sorry but a newbie may be wrong so feel free to correct me...

There is nothing wrong with being a newbie, I am at that stage quite often, it just depends on what you are asking me about if I am one or not. I personally work best with examples, so hopefully I can help you envision one from my experience as a swim coach. You may remember when learning to swim that you were told to take long strokes and to get as much water as you can. The reason why is that the more water you grab, the more efficient you are, and the farther you go, correct? Well, let's say you have two swimmers going the same speed, yet one is grabbing a lot of water and the other just a little. The one who grabs a little water is going to be swimming like crazy because he has to go a lot faster to match the other person's speed. The same is with frequency, Intel has to go a lot faster because they grab a lot less water (not literally of course) and AMD doesn't have to have quite as fast of a frequency because they are more efficient. I hope that helps.
 
thank u all very very much for the explanations...
to add my researches to the topic.
it looks like cpu's cooled extremly don't even need a higher core voltage to run. so ninthebin seems right with his conclusion...
well i just remembered in school we were told that cooper for example starts lowering resistance with increasing heat because of the atoms already in general are more on the move so electricity has less resistance. but well on non cooper based materials like cpu's this might b diffrent. because they completely work diffrent but just was not able to remember that correctly.

again tahnk u all very much.
 
I would only go with Pentium processors. AMD are known to overheat, plus Intel has been around long.
 
davidw11 said:
I would only go with Pentium processors. AMD are known to overheat, plus Intel has been around long.

I am not quite sure about this post. Yes, AMD processors create a lot of heat, maybe a bit more than Intel processors, but Intel processors still need fans just like the AMD's do. Also, if the fan is put on correctly, you will not have any problems with either processors, especially if you are not OCing. Yet, Intel processors are still far more expensive than comperable AMD processors, and with the little difference in performance and heat, the AMD processors are by far a better deal!
 
Back