Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-26-2004, 08:39 AM   #11
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default Re: Amd Faster Than Intel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrett
That is a very good article on Toms Hardware Airox, I had read that article a while back. I said what I said Lord because PCMark is a cpu intensive benchmark, and Intel almost always wins benchmarks that have to do with application performance. Also what did you mean when you said "is the prescott an EE?" Can a prescott be an Extreme Edition?
See; thats what I'm talking about - we're looking for a CPU; why are the gaming tests, which I'd imagine are based more on the graphics card, held in a higher regard than the CPU Intensive Tests; which is what we're trying to test for in the first place! I personally think, for a processor, games should be a second or left to Graphics Card testing? If you get what I mean?

I don't know whether it can; its a name so I think it can but my question was - is the processor on Intel's side in this test an Extreme Edition like it should be in a test of the two companies highest processors at a particular level? Cause if it isn't, which from you saying Intel lost them all I imagine it isn't, then it isn't a fair test is it? :P
__________________

__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2004, 08:57 AM   #12
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,004
Default Re: Amd Faster Than Intel

but surely the main point in keeping upto date with the best processor/graphics card is so you can play the best games? most people look to bench mark test when considering what processors to buy.
The average home user won't do that much processor intensive stuff (besides video editing). and so a games related perfomance mark is important.
How pissed off would you be if you wanted the best gaming system you could buy, you look at a bench mark and Intel comes out best (because the test are only processor based).
you buy intel then find out you could have gotten something better at what you want to do for a lesser price.
Graphics tests are reliant on the CPU as well. both test machines (I imagine would comtain the as close as possible hardware, with the only difference being the mainboard since the socket types are different.
__________________

root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2004, 09:07 AM   #13
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default

Is a very good point; gaming is probably the only thing making most people want to get a new processor.

But the other does stand; in most tests I have seen, which is not many, the Intel 3.2Ghz HT EE will be an equal match to a FX-53 3200.
__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2004, 01:33 PM   #14
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,004
Default Re: Amd Faster Than Intel

which is why it's called the FX 3200, it's clock speed wont be anywhere near 3200MHz it's called an FX3200 because it's expected performance should match that of a regular 3.2Ghz chip.
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2004, 02:45 PM   #15
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default

Lol; I know that. But that is the competition: Intel 3.2Ghz HT EE - AMD 64 FX-53 3200+. I was merely saying the two should be compared, not the later and a lower Intel Chip; cause that is the Intel Gaming Chip.
__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2004, 04:41 PM   #16
In Runtime
 
gibant1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 477
Default

After 5 Years of AMD'S I moved to Intel and throw you AMD boy's one challenge.

Find someone who has had a Fast Hyperthreading Intel and prefers an AMD.

Once you see the difference of how your machine performs at everday tasks, there is NO GOING BACK.
__________________
Intel Core2Duo 6400 @ 3.4Ghz
4GB Geil 6400 Ultra
3 x 500 Gb Samsung HD
EVGA 8800 Ultra OC
Xifi Fatal1ty
Dell 3007WFP-HC
gibant1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2004, 06:50 PM   #17
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,004
Default Re: Amd Faster Than Intel

LK, if you loko at Barrats post he actually post results of AMD FX3200 vs interl 3.2Ghz,
and the 3.4GHz comparissons say the same as well.
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2004, 07:41 PM   #18
In Runtime
 
Barrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 223
Send a message via AIM to Barrett
Default

Lord is very right, the FX-53 and the P4 3.2 EE benchmarks are EXTREMELY close. BTW, why do you guys call it the FX-53 3200, i thought it runs at 2.4 ghz? To gibant, I'm sure there is a big difference in multi-tasking capability compared to AMD, but the hyperthreading slows down gaming performance, and I don't want to have to go into my BIOS and turn it off every time I wanna play a game. It's a feature I'm willing to sacrifice.
__________________
Compaq:
Windows XP Home
P4 1.6 GHZ
80gb Hardrive
nVIDIA GeForce 2 MX 200
CD-RW, DVD
Viewsonic 19" a90F CRT
I have had this rig since December 2001. I'm working on a new gaming machine that will dominate ALL!
Barrett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2004, 07:58 PM   #19
In Runtime
 
gibant1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 477
Default

I play most games at 1920 x 1440 with everything on, while other tasks run in the backround and on most games still attain 90fps or more.

Looking at benchmarks only gives a rough idea to how machines perform.

Dont get caught up in the 'few frames extra here and there' discussions.

Both AMD and P4 CPU's will easilly run all the games (GPU dependant of course). But you will find that when XP decides to run a couple of tasks, maintaining the system, like it does. The AMD will drop frames and pause a little. You wont know anything about it with a P4.
__________________
Intel Core2Duo 6400 @ 3.4Ghz
4GB Geil 6400 Ultra
3 x 500 Gb Samsung HD
EVGA 8800 Ultra OC
Xifi Fatal1ty
Dell 3007WFP-HC
gibant1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2004, 08:03 PM   #20
In Runtime
 
Barrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 223
Send a message via AIM to Barrett
Default

I guess your right, but you also run your P4 at 3.85! What is your CPU's stock speed? What cooling do you use, and case? I'm just curious because I plan on doing some serious overclocking.
__________________

__________________
Compaq:
Windows XP Home
P4 1.6 GHZ
80gb Hardrive
nVIDIA GeForce 2 MX 200
CD-RW, DVD
Viewsonic 19" a90F CRT
I have had this rig since December 2001. I'm working on a new gaming machine that will dominate ALL!
Barrett is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0