The 3.0 GHz question: AMD or Intel?

[Gladguy]

Here's a hardware question for the hardware board:

Given everything else being equal, and cost not being an object, would you pick an AMD or an Intel based system?

I'm leaning towards the Intel box, if only 'cuz the term "HyperThreading" sounds like it's real kewl.

[Xaroc]

Hyperthreading is cool (essentially it similuates having two CPUs) and in pretty much every benchmark the P4 wins. I am sure Case will be by shortly to break down Hyperthreading in it's entirety so watch this space for more information.

-- Xaroc

[Ben Sones]

AMD ATHLON XP 3000 "Barton" 400MHz FSB PROCESSOR CPU- OEM: $269
A7N8X Deluxe (new Barton 400 version): $94.99

Intel Pentium 4 / 3.0CGHz 512k socket 478 Hyper Threading Technology 800 MHz FSB - OEM: $383
D875PBZLK OEM: $149

Total cost AMD: $363.99
Total cost Pentium: $532.00

It wouldn't even be much of a contest for me. YMMV.

[Jason McCullough]

Compare based on equivalent price, not equivalent clock speed; Intel has a much bigger markup for their newest stuff.

[Ben Sones]

I was comparing based on the two options listed in the poll. Given those options, I'd go with AMD.

[Case]

Here's a hardware question for the hardware board:

Given everything else being equal, and cost not being an object, would you pick an AMD or an Intel based system?

I'm leaning towards the Intel box, if only 'cuz the term "HyperThreading" sounds like it's real kewl.

You didn't have the "Wait until after September 23rd" choice.

:wink:

[Jakub]

I'd go with AMD for now, simply because I believe in supporting the alternative. I remember the days of $600 Intel processors all-too-clearly.

[Ben Sones]

You didn't have the "Wait until after September 23rd" choice.

Is that when AMD launches the Clawhammer?

[TheWombat]

Case wrote:
You didn't have the "Wait until after September 23rd" choice.


Is that when AMD launches the Clawhammer?

Nah, that's when the hitherto unnoticed asteroid slams into Earth and we all get bonked back to the Commodore 64 age.

[asspennies]

I think AMD makes fantastic products and I am very glad they are in the business, as the fact that there is high-end processor competition certainly makes them affordable to us, the masses.

That being said, I've not once had a clean AMD install. There's always something wrong, whether it needs cards reseated or playing with the cables or what have you - I've never been able to get an Athlon working first try. It takes several hours for me to get the damn things running, and then they sometimes require similar gerrymandering if i do so much as change a video card.

The P4s, however, always seem to work. Always.

That's why I'd have to go with the P4.

[Gladguy]

Guys... I see most of you missed the "cost not being an object" part.

I basically have my pick of two Alienware machines coming into the office. I want to be sure I take the better gaming rig of the two.

My last three machines were AMD, because of the price:performance ratio. But now, money is now object.

So, still leaning to AMD?

[Rywill]

Yeah, AMDs are notorious for knocking your cables loose.

Is that when AMD launches the Clawhammer?
You know he's not going to tell you!

[Anders Hallin]

Well, my brain says P4, but my heart screams Athlon :)

[Jakub]

Guys... I see most of you missed the "cost not being an object" part.

I basically have my pick of two Alienware machines coming into the office. I want to be sure I take the better gaming rig of the two.

My last three machines were AMD, because of the price:performance ratio. But now, money is now object.

So, still leaning to AMD?
Still AMD. It performs better in most tests.

FS Athlon XP 3000 review, with P4 3.0 comparisons. (http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/amd_athlon_xp_3000_review/default.asp)

[Jason McCullough]

Guys... I see most of you missed the "cost not being an object" part.

I basically have my pick of two Alienware machines coming into the office. I want to be sure I take the better gaming rig of the two.

My last three machines were AMD, because of the price:performance ratio. But now, money is now object.

So, still leaning to AMD?

Oh. :D

AMD looks better on benchmarks, but the "feel" of HT when you're running a bunch of things is just wonderful.

[Case]

You didn't have the "Wait until after September 23rd" choice.

Is that when AMD launches the Clawhammer?

Yes, that's what AMD has said.

[DennyA]

I have an Athlon XP rig and a P4 3.06 rig.

Last year I would have said "Athlon." This year, I'd spend the extra on a P4. (Wait, I did!) The Athlon was more or less equivalent last year. But Hyperthreading makes an amazing difference in how your machine "feels." It's much more responsive.

If you're a "one task at a time person," then by all means go Athlon XP. If you're like me -- running two monitors, generally have a pile of web browsers, a word processor, my email app, and perhaps a background video render going all at once -- the Hyperthreading P4 is well worth the extra cash.

I'm using an Athlon XP for my "digital video recorder/file server" rig. But for my day to day computing, the P4 wins hands down.

[Gladguy]

Guys... I see most of you missed the "cost not being an object" part.

I basically have my pick of two Alienware machines coming into the office. I want to be sure I take the better gaming rig of the two.

My last three machines were AMD, because of the price:performance ratio. But now, money is now object.

So, still leaning to AMD?
Still AMD. It performs better in most tests.

FS Athlon XP 3000 review, with P4 3.0 comparisons. (http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/amd_athlon_xp_3000_review/default.asp)
Awesome linkage, Jakub. Thanks! Looks like I might stick with AMD then...

[Brad Grenz]

Plus you can remove one of the 5.25" drive bay covers and use the AMD system like an Easy-Bake Oven!

[Machfive]

I'd have you pay me what you'd pay Alienware, and I'd build a computer that would do everything but make coffee for you. If you wanna throw in $500 extra, perhaps that can be arranged.

Seriously though, ask what this system is being used for. Unless you're running Maya on it, an AMD proc is going to give you similar performance in most apps, slightly worse in others, slightly better in some, and it'll save you several hundred dollars, which can be put towards more features.

I personally use Photoshop and Illustrator, which happen to run slightly faster on Pentiums. On top of that, I save an assload going through AMD. So that's my personal preference. If you're a hard-core gamer, with some change in your pocket to swing around, go the P4 route, because I'm quite sure those tend to bench better in gaming/media-encoding.

[Machfive]

I have an Athlon XP rig and a P4 3.06 rig.

Last year I would have said "Athlon." This year, I'd spend the extra on a P4. (Wait, I did!) The Athlon was more or less equivalent last year. But Hyperthreading makes an amazing difference in how your machine "feels." It's much more responsive.

If you're a "one task at a time person," then by all means go Athlon XP. If you're like me -- running two monitors, generally have a pile of web browsers, a word processor, my email app, and perhaps a background video render going all at once -- the Hyperthreading P4 is well worth the extra cash.

I'm using an Athlon XP for my "digital video recorder/file server" rig. But for my day to day computing, the P4 wins hands down.

You sure it's not how much RAM you had?

I'm running a gig of PC2700, and everything's instantaneous, or so it feels. Is there a difference in the RAM amount/speed in the two machines?

[DennyA]

Nope, it's the Hyperthreading. You can see the difference just by going to the BIOS and turning hyperthreading off -- same exact system, just with HT disabled. There's a subtle but noticeable difference in system responsiveness when multitasking -- and it's not that subtle when you're doing something in the background that puts a full load on the CPU, such as encoding media or letting FS2004 fly on autopilot while using Word. :)

[Ben Sones]

So, what kind of framerates do you get in Word? You know, with all the fancy lighting effects enabled?

[Midnight Son]

What I find most impressive is that the actual speed of the Athlon XP 3000 is 2.167 Ghz and is being compared straight up to Intel's 3 Ghz piece. If they were both the same speed AMD would totally blow Intel away. As it is, the price difference is enough to make AMD the clear choice. (Unless you're Dell with a sweetheart exclusive deal.)

[Kalle]

What I find most impressive is that the actual speed of the Athlon XP 3000 is 2.167 Ghz and is being compared straight up to Intel's 3 Ghz piece. If they were both the same speed AMD would totally blow Intel away. As it is, the price difference is enough to make AMD the clear choice. (Unless you're Dell with a sweetheart exclusive deal.)

Of course, I suspect that an AMD processor running at 3.0 GHz would be akin to having your very own nuclear meltdown in a box. :)

[Midnight Son]

Hot hot hot!! But you got my point.

[DennyA]

Again, though, guys, look at his dilemma.

There are two already paid-for, boxed systems sitting in front of him. He gets to pick one of them up and take it back to his desk. In that situation, why would you go for the AMD?

[triggercut]

Thanks to Qt3 help with cooling issues, I'm running my Barton 3000+ at 2.47, and it (/kenny banya voice on) FLIES, Jerry! Flies!

[Machfive]

What I find most impressive is that the actual speed of the Athlon XP 3000 is 2.167 Ghz and is being compared straight up to Intel's 3 Ghz piece. If they were both the same speed AMD would totally blow Intel away. As it is, the price difference is enough to make AMD the clear choice. (Unless you're Dell with a sweetheart exclusive deal.)

Don't say that. You might give the Apple camp some blank ammunition to annoy us with.

[Machfive]

Again, though, guys, look at his dilemma.

There are two already paid-for, boxed systems sitting in front of him. He gets to pick one of them up and take it back to his desk. In that situation, why would you go for the AMD?

If the AMD system costs the same as much as the Intel system, and has a Barton 3000+ compared to the Intel's 3 GHz proc, then they must have installed more value-adding components to bring up the sale price of the AMD box, therefore, I would choose the AMD box.

In theory.

[DennyA]

If the AMD system costs the same as much as the Intel system, and has a Barton 3000+ compared to the Intel's 3 GHz proc, then they must have installed more value-adding components to bring up the sale price of the AMD box, therefore, I would choose the AMD box.
Okay, I'll be starting a new topic, "Reading Comprehension 101." http://www.smilies.nl/splat.gif

Nobody said anything about the systems costing the same. HIS COMPANY bought the systems. He has his choice of them.

I basically have my pick of two Alienware machines coming into the office. I want to be sure I take the better gaming rig of the two.

My last three machines were AMD, because of the price:performance ratio. But now, money is now object.

I'd wager that they're more or less identical in quality as gaming rigs -- the Athlon wins some gaming benchmarks, the Intel wins others. But hyperthreading gives the P4 an edge. Even in gaming situations, it can keep background processes (which are always doing stuff in XP) from causing CPU stutters.

[Jason Cross]

Ever since the Northwood P4s, and especially with the 875 motherboards, the AMD "rating" scheme has been way off. They painted themselves into a corner... a 3000+ is faster than a 2800, sure, but it's quite a bit slower than a 3.0 P4. It's slower than a 2.8 P4 Northwood P4 (which is comparably priced).

As Loyd said, there's always that "wait until September 23rd" option. :P

Since these are already paid-for systems, go with the Intel for sure. Big time. It's quite a bit faster.

What I find most impressive is that the actual speed of the Athlon XP 3000 is 2.167 Ghz and is being compared straight up to Intel's 3 Ghz piece. If they were both the same speed AMD would totally blow Intel away.

Yeah it's impressive in a way, but moot. I mean, when that 3 GHz P4 is outpacing my 2.167 GHz Athlon, the fact that "if I were at 3 GHz it would blow that one away" definitely doesn't make my computer any faster. I mean while I'm dreaming, I might as well imagine it's 20 GHz and therefore capable of playing Ultima 9 at 20 fps. ;)

[Machfive]

I guess I was under the impression the systems hadn't been ordered yet.

Oh, did I mention I'm illiterate? ;)

[Gladguy]

Wow... didn't think this would be so difficult. Let me see if I can make it clearer:

I have two Alienware boxes in the warehouse. Both have identical components (GeForceFX 5900 Ultras, 120GB Hard drives, 1GB RAM, SBAudigy 2, etc.). The only differences between the two are the CPU/mobo configs. And the color, but that's irrelevant. :wink:

I can take my pick of the two. Seeings how I spend a great deal of my day play testing game code, I want the system that will run games best.

The benchmarks Jakub provided seem to suggest the AMD is the better overall performer. However, the HyperThreading feature of the Intel CPU is really enticing. But is it just marketing, or does it actually make enough of a distance to tip the scale in Intel's favor?

Again, cost is not an issue here. I simply want the smokingest box to be the one sitting on my desk.

[Machfive]

Hyper-threading makes a difference in multitasking, but I haven't seen any evidence to indicate it would improve gaming performance.

However, "haven't seen" doesn't mean it isn't true, it means I don't know anything, and someone who's looked at far more websites on the matter is sure to happen by with a link that'll clear that up. ;)

I think your best bet would be to choose the one that looks best on your desktop. I mean, that's all the criteria a Mac user needs, right?

*snicker*

[Xaroc]

Guys... I see most of you missed the "cost not being an object" part.

I basically have my pick of two Alienware machines coming into the office. I want to be sure I take the better gaming rig of the two.

My last three machines were AMD, because of the price:performance ratio. But now, money is now object.

So, still leaning to AMD?
Still AMD. It performs better in most tests.

FS Athlon XP 3000 review, with P4 3.0 comparisons. (http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/amd_athlon_xp_3000_review/default.asp)

Look here and the P4 smacks the crap out of the Athlon:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-07.html

It wins pretty much every benchmark.

-- Xaroc

Edited: Denny is right given that you could get one or the other with cost not being an option you would be high to not choose the P4.

[Guido Jones]

With cost not taken into the picture take the P4. Performance on par if not the same, little to no stability issues (YMMV on the AMD's, I've had far more problems with my XP1800+ then I ever did with my Pentium rigs).