Computer Build
- Thread starter lacidar
- Start date
- Status
E
entity512
Guest
hah, dont get an athlon xp mind, only 64 
.
.
Lord Kalthorn
Guru
- Messages
- 13,293
- Location
- Britain
Somebody has been out there fragrently misinforming people about AMDs! When I get GRTech up I'll have to do a nice Intel vs AMD thing.
Lord Kalthorn
Guru
- Messages
- 13,293
- Location
- Britain
I've seen as much evidence for your idea as mine?
E
entity512
Guest
Xcept he's correct LK
Lord Kalthorn
Guru
- Messages
- 13,293
- Location
- Britain
I'll find some benchmarks then...
ExtremeTech shows conclusively the Prescott, an early build with low Clockspeed; beating the AMDs on Power, not so much in Games but with lots of applications in the background it would beat it conclusively too. Lots ot people have this
Primarily about the hardly mainstream AMD 64 3700+ - this benchmarking easily shows the Power of the Intel Offerings (All 3.4 Models) against the vastly more expensive in all but two cases, and vastly higher ratings 3700 against 3.4. Some of these tests even involve Intel beating the more expensive and faster AMD Chips! All involve a speed boost from the 3.4 to the 3700 and 3800 vastly less than anyone would expect
Even Linux Agrees with this theory, as Intels get constantly higher ratings in performance. It is twice as much - but we're discussing performance here so that doesn't really matter
This is probably the most thorough - and all out is a whipe of AMD in practically all the performance benchmarks, and a few of the gaming benchmarks!
ExtremeTech shows conclusively the Prescott, an early build with low Clockspeed; beating the AMDs on Power, not so much in Games but with lots of applications in the background it would beat it conclusively too. Lots ot people have this
Primarily about the hardly mainstream AMD 64 3700+ - this benchmarking easily shows the Power of the Intel Offerings (All 3.4 Models) against the vastly more expensive in all but two cases, and vastly higher ratings 3700 against 3.4. Some of these tests even involve Intel beating the more expensive and faster AMD Chips! All involve a speed boost from the 3.4 to the 3700 and 3800 vastly less than anyone would expect
Even Linux Agrees with this theory, as Intels get constantly higher ratings in performance. It is twice as much - but we're discussing performance here so that doesn't really matter
This is probably the most thorough - and all out is a whipe of AMD in practically all the performance benchmarks, and a few of the gaming benchmarks!
Those links are crap.. I'm sorry.. but they are all pro-Intel garbage. WRONG WRONG WRONG. We all know the AMD 64 wipes the P4 off the map into hell.
The prescott sucks:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/prescott-30.html
First, Prescott definitely does not represent monkey business, as it performs at the same level as the Northwood. In addition there is the unknown thing called SSE3, the use of which remains to be seen. That is a summary of Intel's Prescott processor in two sentences. However, is the Prescott a trendsetter?
In our opinion, the debut of a processor based on a cutting-edge process technology and architecture that only offers the same performance level as the predecessor is unanticipated. Despite 1 MB L2 cache and some optimizations, Prescott is slower than Northwood in roughly a third of our benchmarks. Software, like many 3D shooters and more serious applications like Lame, MS Movie Maker 2, Mathematica, Cinema 4D or even 3DStudio perform worse than before.
------------
Not only that, Intel actually cancelled a major chip project because of falling revenues. And additionally, those scores are just plain depressing. The Northwood is actually faster then the Prescott in so many respects.. that's just depressing.
The prescott sucks:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/prescott-30.html
First, Prescott definitely does not represent monkey business, as it performs at the same level as the Northwood. In addition there is the unknown thing called SSE3, the use of which remains to be seen. That is a summary of Intel's Prescott processor in two sentences. However, is the Prescott a trendsetter?
In our opinion, the debut of a processor based on a cutting-edge process technology and architecture that only offers the same performance level as the predecessor is unanticipated. Despite 1 MB L2 cache and some optimizations, Prescott is slower than Northwood in roughly a third of our benchmarks. Software, like many 3D shooters and more serious applications like Lame, MS Movie Maker 2, Mathematica, Cinema 4D or even 3DStudio perform worse than before.
------------
Not only that, Intel actually cancelled a major chip project because of falling revenues. And additionally, those scores are just plain depressing. The Northwood is actually faster then the Prescott in so many respects.. that's just depressing.
How about you take this to the proper thread.
Both companies make good processors. AMD is king in Games. Intel is king in mobile. AMD and Intel both are about the same when it comes to servers.
Intel is now the cheaper company. AMD is now the faster company. Your opinion has to change with the times. Intel was king before 64 but now is just looking in from the sidelines.
Both companies make good processors. AMD is king in Games. Intel is king in mobile. AMD and Intel both are about the same when it comes to servers.
Intel is now the cheaper company. AMD is now the faster company. Your opinion has to change with the times. Intel was king before 64 but now is just looking in from the sidelines.
- Status
