why intel>amd in like evry benchmark

[stopdrpnro]

ok i've been an amd guy for the longest.i know some of amd's latest pr ratings haev been off but i was pretty sure that their eariler ratings b4 the barton were pretty close. but lookin at benchmarks i see intel's slowest schip outdoing the 3200+ wasssup with thaT? did i miss something?

 

[autoMATTic]

got a link?

 

[jazztrumpet216]

I wouldn't be surprised if you saw the 3.2EE kicking butt... but the slowest chip? Linky?

 

[stopdrpnro]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834&p=4
well not their slowest chip but the top 10 in most of thos ttest ar like 8 intels and the 2 fastest amd chips.
tom's hardware test show the cpus to be a bit more even but still leaning alot towards intel

 

[Maxvla]

its just that Intel chips are faster right now than the 32bit AMD chips. has been for quite a while. it has alot to do with the bus speed being typically double AMD's. the bus speed isn't everything but it is an important part of the equation.

 

[funnyperson1]

I think the bottom line is that the technology of the K7 core is starting to reach the end of its reign. If you think about it the core was designed first as a 600mhz part and they couldn't possibly have planned ahead for it to fully take advantage of new performance enhancements like dual channel PC3200 based motherboards.

The Pentium 4 was designed with these things in mind and with the quad pumped 200mhz bus it just overpowers AMD with bandwith.

Of Course, this review is kind of old and irrelevant if you are looking for top performance because now the Athlon FX51 is the fastest desktop consumer level chip with the Pentium 4 3.2 Extreme Edition and the Athlon 64 3200+ not that far behind.

 

[DaMouse]

ok.. holy **** did Intel do well on those content creation benchmarks was gonna use them to do an example but.. nah lets use DivX encoding instead. In that example the AthlonXP 1600+ kicks Pentium4 1.6GHz *** but as they climb up (this continue's till the AthlonXP 1900+ iirc) Intel's clock speeds just ramp up and they make a large gap. This could also be because of the new B and C cores that give them dualddr also but I think its mainly due to the fact that the AthlonXP isn't doing to well on high clockspeeds. The Athlon64 is a new breath of fresh air through and if you find some benchmarks for the Athlon64 3000+ vs Pentium4 3.2GHz I'm sure it would actually beat it.

My 3 cents, I'm giving more than I'm gonna get

 

[snvpa]

The benchmarks given there are certainly not representitive of the current cpu market. Right now the fx/opteron has the crown in most unbiased pc benchmarks the 3,2ee is not very far behind at all. like 3% at most and beating the fx 51 in encoding and dvd ripping tasks with the a 64 a little behind the p4ee. Frankly its an uninteresting time for overclockers. The northwood core maxes at 4 ghz with sub ambient cooling, and the xp core maxes at 2800-3ghz with sub ambient cooling. I guess the only thing that can be said is wait and see. If you dive right in to either prescott or p4ee you face an outdated processor in 6 months, with intels adoption of socket t ddr2 and pci express, (which by the way is coming faster than most expect it)
If you go amd you have a socket 754 that is destined to become a value line in the next 6 mos with low cache single channel mem and lower clock speeds. Then there is socket 940/fx/opteron the socket will stick around for a while but you will need ecc or registered ram, along with a buggy chipset for now and no multi adj. except on the 700$ fx-51. Then there is socket 939 which may or may not have dual channel mem and which also may or may not support 90nm processors.

Frankly the purpose of this post is to rehash old information but to put it context for us. I support amd because withyout them intel would be free to charge whatever prices they want. I buy chips and systems based on the value that they provide. Frankly i don't know will provide the best value in the next 6-12 months because both companies are having major problems going to 90 nm production. They are having to resort to weird science much earlier than was previously thought. Ideas like strained silicon, lowk process and SOI or silicon on insulater technology were initially though to appear in the 65 nm processes, My advice to anyone seeking a new purchase is either a 2.4c 2.6c or 2.8c preffereably m0 stepping or a unlocked 1700 1800 or 2500 amd processor along with a board to give maximum value, such as an nf7s v2.0 for amd or an asus pc4800? please intel folks correct me if I'm wrong on the model # here but it seems to be the best board with the fewest problems.

Sorry for the long post but I think all readers should understand the changes in the computer industry right now, and how it effects the value concious consumer

 

[packratbob]

and u got to remember the amd<intel price comparison. i still believe amd is better value for money. i dont think i'll ever leave them as long as they keep makeing cpus.

 

[DaMouse]

the Athlon64 3000+ is much better for the money but since the motherboards cost alot because of the same thing as the CPU (not sure wether the demand will be enough to cover production just yet)

But I think Intel is gonna need a 64bit linkup in 2004 to even start to take on the newer Athlon64's (4000+ is one of the promised iirc)

AMD will come back in a big way with the Athlon64 and probably dump some cheaper 32bit stuff onto SocketA for awhile.

 

[stopdrpnro]

ok so basiacally it's not the chips that are faster just the mobo chipSETS? yea i didn't think intel had changed anything on their chips to make them all of a sudden whip the crap out of amd chips. ok thanks guys

 

[DaMouse]

Its a comination to create speed
CPU+Mobo+RAM are the main bits but speed can also be bottlenecked on hard disks, etc.

 

[Surfeit00]

right now amd is slightly faster with the fx51

 

[DaMouse]

AMD64 is chipping ahead slightly but may trip up if AMD's wonderful magic of crappy marketing come into play.

 

[sandman001]

The reason Intel Wins is not necessarily because of the chip, it's all in the bandwidth.

 

[stopdrpnro]

i dont' see how the fx can make it unless amd has a beter version of it up it's sleeve. if 64-bit flops intel saves moeny on not going that way , if it's a sucess intel won't release their 64-bit chip until it dominates all benches.

 

[Bailey]

The reason Intel Wins is not necessarily because of the chip, it's all in the bandwidth.

A better phrase might be that it wins IN SPITE of the chip. At current speeds (both chip & bus) the P4 is able to make up for it's deep pipeline core. As mentioned above it got it's butt kicked for quite some time until the clock speeds finally overcame the defeciancies of the core.

if 64-bit flops

Doubtful, one way or another 64 bit WILL arrive. It's the only logical progression. The same Q's were asked not too long ago "will 32bit ever arrive".

if it's a sucess intel won't release their 64-bit chip until it dominates all benches

Nope, dead wrong. Intel will release ANYTHING that makes them money. Evidence the P4 - a piece of junk when released, lousy performance until clock speeds outweighed the design defeciancies. Intel has (& probably will) rely on marketing to overcome the percieved negatives of any product brought to market.

On the other hand I can't believe AMD, given basically free reign for a year has already started on a "socket confusion" - DUH!