Rumor about AMD vs Intel

Messages
7,841
Location
U.S.
I was talking to a friend today, he's pretty knowledgeable with computers. So he was making fun of my P4 so I asked him what he was running. I knew he had an AMD 3400+ @ 2.2GHz. But then he said that this is equivalent to a P4 @ 3.4GHz. Then I asked him if the same applied to dual-cores (because I recently got a 4200+ @ 2.2GHz) and he said yes. Has anyone heard about this? Sounds strange to me.
 
Yes, it was just a convenient way in the old days of comparing similar speeds. I'm not even sure how accurate it is though. Nowadays it's no contest, and there's no way that a dual core AMD's numbers carry over like that with Core 2 speeds.
 
idk, the whole 3400 = 3.4ghz intel i have never seen actually proved. its all kind of a myth. once i see some proof from amd or some benchmarks that are point for point the same ill believe it.
 
idk, the whole 3400 = 3.4ghz intel i have never seen actually proved. its all kind of a myth. once i see some proof from amd or some benchmarks that are point for point the same ill believe it.

I was talking to a friend today, he's pretty knowledgeable with computers. So he was making fun of my P4 so I asked him what he was running. I knew he had an AMD 3400+ @ 2.2GHz. But then he said that this is equivalent to a P4 @ 3.4GHz. Then I asked him if the same applied to dual-cores (because I recently got a 4200+ @ 2.2GHz) and he said yes. Has anyone heard about this? Sounds strange to me.

Yeah it's true, the old rating system was fairly accurate for single cores. An AMD 3400+ would be equivalent in peformance to a 3.4ghz Pentium 4, and bullzi this was demonstrated MANY times by both AMD and third party testers. They were not exactly the same, Intel usually had a lead in multimedia, and AMD almost always had the lead in games.

D3.png

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1469&page=15
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/roundupmobo/athlon-64-3400.html
 
well cool. :p i had never seen many definitive benchmarks, but that one there is certainly proof. i wasnt into custom pc's back when single cores was the standard. cool stuff. although, my first rig (if you guys even remember) was that amd 3200 and 7800 gs, and damn that 3200 was a quick processor i must admit.
 
so pretty much AMD lost its touch when dual cores came out?
or did Intel just did a better job in making dual cores?
 
There can be a lot of controversy over that last comment, but i have to say no and yes. AMD was the leader for a bit back in 05-mid 06 with the dual cores and then Intel decided to use its R&D Department for some good and suddenly took on subsidies with many other companies such as Apple. They made alot more money so they invested more into their technology and therefore making more money making higher performance chips.
 
Yeah AMD's X2 series smoked those Pentium Ds big time. Core 2 changed everything though.
 
i see...
sorry for stealing the thread.... but...

So my friend is thinking of building a new computer after he buys a car and pay for school. Right now he is using a Pentium D. He used to use the 64 X2 4400+, to him he said he got about the same performance out of them... I guess he never did some things that made his computer to go under load.
So he doesnt know if he should go with AMD or Intel, If he goes with Intel, it seems like he has to pay about $300 for board, and processor. I know theres cheaper things, but thats the price he wants to pay. But if he goes with AMD, and i get a new mobo, he can have my 4800+ and only pay about $150 for the mobo.
now, would you guys suggest he go with AMD? or go with Intel?
which quad core is better? Phenom? or the C2Q?
 
Back
Top Bottom