a couple thoughts on AMD/Intel

[tbaerg]

Yo everyone,
I have been reading a LOT of writing on processors, mobos and what not over the last several weeks trying to decide if I should start the migration to Socket754/939, or wait. On one hand, you have a fairly well written article on the overclockers main page that has been telling us all to buy Intel when the Prescott rev2 hits. Anand tells us that AMD is the way to go. Now I know these guys try to be unbiased in their writing and give each guy a fair shake (or a fair beating in some cases , but I can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone. Here are the 'facts' i have and why I'm confused.
1. Socket754 Athlons can keep up and beat P4 3.2EE in damn near everything except media encoding which honestly not a lot of people do. - Anand
2. First revision prescott's will blow - Ed from OC
3. Overclocked Northwood's are the second coming of Christ- Ed (ok, that's maybe a little out of context, but sometimes I think he's just a little biased)
4. Socket754 Athlons can almost keep up with Opterons/FX-51 in nearly every benchmark - Anand.
5. None of the upcoming processors overclock very well at all short of using a compressor cooling system and exotic cooling agents. - Tomshardware, Ed & common sense.
6. Nextgen hardware will cost a lot more for very little performance gain.- Ed and common sense

This is just a sample of the stuff I've been looking at and it seems to me that a few conclusions can summarize all of this.
1. When the 'budget' line of AMD processors can keep up with a P4EE, we're all very damn spoiled.
2. if you want to build a computer RIGHT NOW, then you're an idiot if you don't use an overclocked Northwood by God.
3. My previous conclusion was unfair towards Ed and I am sorry.
4. Now I could be wrong, but using Socket754 will allow me to keep all of my equipment I have now and let me just cannibalize one of my rigs to upgrade to something for a minimal dent in the wallet.
5. I'm also open to Intel options, but I just don't see anything appealing right now because they don't have a 64bit offering. I know there's not a killer 64bit app out right now either, but I'd rather be future proof as much as I can for as little money as I can.

Now seriously, I am not trying to start a flame war for AMD vs. Intel. I really want to know if Socket754 will be as good as I think it is. If you take the time to look at my sig you'll notice the last rig is a dually Opteron rig, so I know how good the 940 big boys are. I already use that for game/file serving and I love it to death. I just want to upgrade my other guys to something with a little more kick. Honestly, the opteron cost me a lot more than I would have liked, so that's why I'm looking at going 754 instead. Let me know what you guys think.

Tom Baerg

ps. I am an AMD fan by nature so if I made too many positive AMD references in my above article, I am truly sorry and I hope I didn't come off as anti-Intel because I do respect them a great deal for what they've done for the computer industry.

 

[Quailane]

Socket 939 is a ways off and will be pretty pricy for a while after it comes out. I don't agree with all of the people who say socket 754 is a bad move. I think that it is a great chip because if you buy a 3400+, mix it with a high fsb, and you will have something untouchable by the intel crowd. Socket 940 is a waste of time if you want fx because clock for clock, 940 and 754 perform virtually equal to one another. If you're going to buy now, go 754 and you won't be disappointed. If you want to buy in 6 months, then go ahead and wait for 939, which will be more powerful clock for clock than 940 or 754, but cost a bit more. Also, how much more powerful is in question.

 

[billobob0]

First, I don't put much faith in "Ed". He thinks that AMD=Hitler for locking the higher multipliers on the AMD64 line, even if they can compete with OCed northwoods. Second, he thinks that Prescott will automatically = crap (whereas intel fanboys predict 4.6ghz OCs ), when in reality the processor will probably fall somewhere in between. Its really easy to build a comp right now based on these criteria:

Sub 50 Processor: Duron line, possibly a 1700 or 1800XP
Sub 100: 2500, 1800, or 1700XP depending on what stepping you can get and if you want to OC
Sub 200: P4 2.6C, 2.4C if you are really cheap
Sub 250: A64 3000, *unless* you do heavy encoding/ripping while doing a bunch of other stuff at the same time, in which case the northwoods are better
Sub 300: A64 3200, unless you fall into the exceptions above
400~: A64 3400
700 and lower: FX-51? But is it really worth it, considering socket 940 will be opteron only soon?

This pretty much narrows it down to the 17-1800XP, 2500XP, P4 2.6C, or A64 3000 depending on what you want. If you want to go over the top with cooling, then the P4 beats the A64's in that case also, since they obviously OC better. If you do *super heavy* multitasking involving encoding/ripping, P4's are better. If you only game/do normal computer stuff, the A64 is better. If you are on a budget, the choice is obvious.

 

[Shift_]

First, I don't put much faith in "Ed". He thinks that AMD=Hitler for locking the higher multipliers on the AMD64 line, even if they can compete with OCed northwoods. Second, he thinks that Prescott will automatically = crap (whereas intel fanboys predict 4.6ghz OCs ), when in reality the processor will probably fall somewhere in between. Its really easy to build a comp right now based on these criteria:

Sub 50 Processor: Duron line, possibly a 1700 or 1800XP
Sub 100: 2500, 1800, or 1700XP depending on what stepping you can get and if you want to OC
Sub 200: P4 2.6C, 2.4C if you are really cheap
Sub 250: A64 3000, *unless* you do heavy encoding/ripping while doing a bunch of other stuff at the same time, in which case the northwoods are better
Sub 300: A64 3200, unless you fall into the exceptions above
400~: A64 3400
700 and lower: FX-51? But is it really worth it, considering socket 940 will be opteron only soon?

This pretty much narrows it down to the 17-1800XP, 2500XP, P4 2.6C, or A64 3000 depending on what you want. If you want to go over the top with cooling, then the P4 beats the A64's in that case also, since they obviously OC better. If you do *super heavy* multitasking involving encoding/ripping, P4's are better. If you only game/do normal computer stuff, the A64 is better. If you are on a budget, the choice is obvious.

I'll agree with you on that. I was debating getting an A64 3000+ vs a 2.8 P4C...at first I went with the A64 3000+ 3 weeks later I had returned it for a full refund because it wasn't what I wanted, I'm on wait with for a P4 2.8C because I know that'll be better for me (encoding, doing heavy multitasking at once) and because it IS cheaper, and I'll be building a Dual optron system within a year to a year and a half Because a overclocked P4C 2.8 vs a A64 3000+ overclocked with even ram and cooling the P4C will be ahead for most things

If you're going to shell out the big bucks for an FX system I'd MUCH rather get a Dual optron system.

 

[xtrmeocr]

Socket 939 is a ways off and will be pretty pricy for a while after it comes out. I don't agree with all of the people who say socket 754 is a bad move. I think that it is a great chip because if you buy a 3400+, mix it with a high fsb, and you will have something untouchable by the intel crowd. Socket 940 is a waste of time if you want fx because clock for clock, 940 and 754 perform virtually equal to one another. If you're going to buy now, go 754 and you won't be disappointed. If you want to buy in 6 months, then go ahead and wait for 939, which will be more powerful clock for clock than 940 or 754, but cost a bit more. Also, how much more powerful is in question.

2 months is a ways off?

 

[Sentential]

#1. I find it very discouraging that a "new" product can only barly beat a current product. They dont plan on changing the archetecture until maybe 2005. I hardly find that encouraging.

(this is from an AMD fanboy and owner BTW) I dont think that a 64 is worth 2x the price of an Intel chip for 5% of the performance. Still the fact I find most disturbing is that an Overclocked Intel chip will utterly destroy any AMD chip. Its a proven fact.

#2 I dont think Prescott will blow @ all. The stock FSB on the Prescott is rumered to be 250mgz x 4 = 1ghz. That will give the marginal lead of the 64 to almost negligable or put it behind.

Now, the only problems I have with Prescott are its thermal issues. But Intel has the cash (AMD dosnt) to fix just about any problem. Worst comes to worse, theyll stick those Prescotts in a Gateway or even a Dell

#3 Northwood will be very strong naturally. But what Ed dosnt metion is the strength of Socket A. Socket A is far stronger than the Northwood, in the enthusiast market.

#4 That very true, simply because of the registered/buffered RAM. But with good RAM it should be all that much faster. But the FX53 will be a hellova alot faster since it will support a much faster bus.

#5 Of course all first revisions dont OC at all. Im sure some pplz remember the Paliminos. Some ppl dont see beyond their own noses

#6 Yes and no. Once again it depends on what you get. It also depends on what you consider next-gen. I consider FX53 and Tejas next-gen, not Prescott
_______________________

#1 No the EE may or may not be better it depends on the level of the OCer.

#2 No again. I just built my AMD for college and am continuing to do so. I dont feel very stupid

#3 Opinions are like @$$***** everyone's got one.

#4 Absolutly not. 754 is the worst choice for now. Nothing will work with 745 one year from now. You would be better off with Pent4 or Socket A

#5 Finally I think 64 is a joke. There is little benefit of goin 64. But the hassles of driver conflicts and what not, will surely prevent 80% of the pplz out there from crossing over for atleast another few years.

 

[xtrmeocr]

#1. I find it very discouraging that a "new" product can only barly beat a current product. They dont plan on changing the archetecture until maybe 2005. I hardly find that encouraging.

i wonder how you will feel when you see that a new product(prescott) is SLOWER then current products.

(this is from an AMD fanboy and owner BTW) I dont think that a 64 is worth 2x the price of an Intel chip for 5% of the performance. Still the fact I find most disturbing is that an Overclocked Intel chip will utterly destroy any AMD chip. Its a proven fact.

gee thats why the a64 holds all the benchmark records?

a64 3000+ = $230 3.0C p4 = $275

looks like the p4 is more expensive to me?

#2 I dont think Prescott will blow @ all. The stock FSB on the Prescott is rumered to be 250mgz x 4 = 1ghz. That will give the marginal lead of the 64 to almost negligable or put it behind.

where are you getting all this false info? the FSB's on the prescott have already been published a long time ago, 533 and 800.

 

[IceTheNet]

I find it funny that people rush out to buy the fastest computer like when apple announced it had the fastest computer on earth and apples stock sky rocketed because so many people bought them. Now the AMD 64 is simply faster in comparison to the $3000 dollar apple at only $700 for the CPU you can build the fastest computer on earth for @ $2000 and you say they are to expensive when they beat in every department the P-4 except encoding. Even there they were close. Only a marginal difference that will be ironed out when they have the 64 bit windows mid 2004 even DIVX was impressed with chip. Ok if you really need a get by system till the war is over and software is released in about 6 months go with a Celeron they should last just long enough. Just keep a fire extinguisher close. Oh ya! They OC to 3.0 gigs too and only cost a fraction just no hyper heading. Plus boards are cheep.

 

[MetalStorm]

I would just like to add a few things to this little debate:

My opinon on socket 754 is overall, quite good, obviously it is intended towards lower end computers - no dual channel being the biggest drawback I can think of.
The reason I don't think its all doom and gloom for the 754 is because there really are NO good upgrade options at the moment, if you get a 754 mobo now, then its no different from getting a socket 478 or Socket A, because its hardly as if you are going to be able to upgrade them in the future either???

On that point, socket 940 does infact have some advantages, as new processors will be out for 940 in the future, its on the road maps, you don't have to get DDR2, or PCI-E when it comes out, a 9800 XT or 5950 (next gen cards will be AGP and PCI-E too, so room for upgrading there) and maybe a CPU upgrade in a year and you will still have quite a nice rig in my opinion (the key being in CPU upgrading) I know it can only support registered memory, but thats not too bigger deal.

64bits... at the moment, pretty useless, however, after seeing some 64bit benchmarks on linux, at times it really can shine, obviously that will depend on how well its implemented, but if the benchmarks I have seen are valid, then some significant time reductions will be seen - I also noticed more precise rendering (to 64bit depth) in the pov-ray benchmark, of course that could just be down to the differently coded 32 and 64 bit engines running, but the conclusion I came to was that it was being rendered more accurately

In a toss up between the P4 and A64, as always, the answer is "it depends" its vague, I know, but its also 100% true, it does depend on what you are doing.

A quick note on overclocking, whichever idiot said that the A64 is a "poor overclocker" should shut up for a minute, the reason its a "poor overclocker" by their terms is because they are counting "good overclocking" percentage wise, so, by their reckoning a 2.4C is a better overclocker than the 2.6C simply because the percentage increase is higher, although they will both reach the same speed (yeah I know that they have different multis and fsb but that aside its a good analogy)
So of course a 2.2GHz A64 ONLY reaching 2.4GHz is a poor overclocker, however, its running as fast as your standard overclocked 1700+ or 1800+ does, which are regarded as good overclockers.

Another overclocking option would be to get a socket 940 140 or 144 opteron, and then overclocking it to 2.2+ GHz and there you go - a cheap FX, sweet. (as already said, socket 940 is the most upgradeable platform at the moment regarding CPUs)

I hope that was of use and not too long.

 

[tbaerg]

Thanks metalstorm. A good answer that actually helps me make up my mind. I'm going to get a socket754. I know I won't get near the overclock I got out of the axp2500s in my sig, but I'm not expecting to. I use my computers for gaming more than anything else so the multitasking and encoding strengths of the P4 really don't do anything for me. I am very fortunate to be a single guy out of college with disposable income [and I run my own computer repair shop ], so once socket 939 gets a little more friendly, I'll probably just sell off my socketA and 754 machines and upgrade. Like I said before, I love the hell out of my dually opteron rig, but it just cost too much to build 5 more. A big thanks to everyone that responded, you guys helped me make my decision.That's why I love the forums.

Tom

 

[IceTheNet]

Thanks metalstorm. A good answer that actually helps me make up my mind. I'm going to get a socket754. I know I won't get near the overclock I got out of the axp2500s in my sig, but I'm not expecting to. I use my computers for gaming more than anything else so the multitasking and encoding strengths of the P4 really don't do anything for me. I am very fortunate to be a single guy out of college with disposable income [and I run my own computer repair shop ], so once socket 939 gets a little more friendly, I'll probably just sell off my socketA and 754 machines and upgrade. Like I said before, I love the hell out of my dually opteron rig, but it just cost too much to build 5 more. A big thanks to everyone that responded, you guys helped me make my decision.That's why I love the forums.

Tom

I here alot of people say they get the 3000xp up to 3400xp speed that is a very good overclock

 

[Sentential]

Yes, but for the price tag it is a poor OCer choice. I hardly consider maybe 200mgz a good OC for a $250+ processer. The A64s are now starting to move from the trailblazer phase.

Still AMD is gonna go 90nm. If you can recall from the Palimino days, the old boards wont work with the new process.

Plus the old chips wont nearly be as good as the new ones. So likely your A64 upgrades will come to a grinding hault once PCI-X, 90nm, BTX arrives. In addition you will pay top dollar for a product that wont work with anything (except maybe the chip) one year from now.

I cannot see how someone can justify a $1500 computer only to be completly outdated in less than a year?

Finally Prescott has its problems (alot actually), but I hardly consider it next-gen and neither does Intel. Tejas is the only thing that I would consider next-gen from Intel. Prescott may suck, but Intel (unfortunatly) will be laughing all the way to the bank as they stick em in OEM boxes.

Also keep in mind that AMD isnt almighty with its SOI. They too are having considerable fabrication problems. It is unlikely that they will resolve them until the 90nm FX53s are out.

Finally, AMD has yet to fix its memory problems. It is true that it has a far superior core clock, but its memory speed still lacks. That (unfortuantly) is where Intel will make up lost ground.

One more thing, The reason why I called it a poor OCer is not percentage, but price/performance. I have seen on numerous occasions where T-breds and NF7s rip the heart outta a 64 system and for about $200 cheaper too. If you have the cash fine, enjoy. But most of us dont have the cash. Personally I would rather spend my money on better RAM, a 9800XT, or hell a P4. Lets see A64 go toe-to-toe with a 2.6/2.4; oced to 3.7-8@ the same price.

I sincererly doubt that any AMD system short of an FX could beat an OCed Intel. Not because of "giga-hertz" like most pplz think but because of memory rates.

I cant wait for the FX53s to come out, but my decison depends upon the issues with 90mn and which one has the best price/performance ratio. My company loyalty died with my 5200FXu, 64 or no 64 Im not paying top dollar for something I cant use in less than a year.