AMD demolishes Intel in the value sector

This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Postby localdistortion » Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:45 pm

The only thing i cant stand about AMD consumers is that they will consistently think that they are getting a high end Intel grade processor for cheaper. I will constantly hear people gloat about how their 3000xp can match a 3.0ghz p4. No chance with a 512 chache, but still they try to make you feel bad. Dont get me wrong, I love that AMD is pricing its chips fair, but they cant match intel interms of overall speed
P4 3.0 Ghz
Abit IC7-Max3
40 GB Western Digital
256MB Radeon 9800 Pro
SB Audigy 24 bit
1 Gig Corsair XMS LL Pc3200 DDR
Antec SOHO File Server case 1080 AMD /430 PS
*SELLING* *SEE SALE FORUM*
localdistortion
Green Belt
Green Belt
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:06 am
Location: Novato, Ca

Postby Aussie » Fri Jan 09, 2004 8:57 pm

they cant match intel interms of overall speed


Up until just recently that statement may have been correct but the AMD64 processors are matching anything from the Intel camp. Intel acknowledged that themselves when they were forced to bring out the P4 Extreme Edition in order to have some sort of product to compete with AMD.

If there's one thing I can't stand about Intel consumers it the fact that they won't acknowledge that AMD processors are built to a standard equal to Intel processors.

I love that AMD is pricing its chips fair


And Intel isn't?



Aussie
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter - Martin Luther King
Aussie
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 10244
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 1999 1:01 am
Location: Mackay, Queensland, Australia

Postby Dano » Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:07 am

Im writing on a cellie machine, a gateway 300 series. I belive this machine is not at all being hampered by the procesor speed. The kind of machines that gateway and dell builds on the celeron chips already have so many bottle necks in them, upgrading to a P4 EE wouldent make much differnce. My machine has intel extreme generation 1 graphics, no agp slot, and a weird case so pci graphics dont fit. putting a celeron or duron into a system with a gig of ram, a radeon 9800 and top of the line everything else, its going to make a differnce, but not on a system like mine.
.38 posts a day, Beat That!
Dano
Brown Belt
Brown Belt
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2002 5:41 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby Dano » Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:10 am

Another factor in this is that intel manufactures 99% of computer builders mobos, something amd cant do. And 90% of these mobos are custom manufactured for the resseller. This cuts costs by huge amounts, and makes it a huge hassle for builders to move to amd and another mobo company, instead of just intel.
.38 posts a day, Beat That!
Dano
Brown Belt
Brown Belt
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2002 5:41 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby Aussie » Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:27 am

Another factor in this is that intel manufactures 99% of computer builders mobos


Sorry but that is not correct. While Intel does sell a lot of OEM motherboards it does not supply anywhere near 99% of that market, many other motherboard manufacturers also supply the OEM market and they can just as easily supply an AMD board as they can can an Intel board.

It could be argued that an AMD based OEM board would be cheaper to produce because of the generally lower cost of VIA or nVidia chipsets in comparison to the cost of Intel chipsets.

Some OEM's (Dell comes to mind) no doubt benefit from much lower prices from Intel as long as they continue to remain an "Intel only" reseller and this factor makes it all the more difficult for AMD resellers to compete.



Aussie
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter - Martin Luther King
Aussie
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 10244
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 1999 1:01 am
Location: Mackay, Queensland, Australia

Postby mikevalla » Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:41 pm

I currently have in my possession, a 1A gHz Celeron processor. Now, the weird thing is, according to benchmark software(s), that this particular processor does far more work than any 1 gHz processor should do. When I installed SiSoft, a funny thing happened- not only did it tell me that this was a 1.7 gHz Celeron processor, but as a sidenote, that it was also a Slot 1 processor as well as a Socket 1 processor. For this reason (and another totally unrelated reason not connected to the computer in question), I have thrown out these results and bashed SiSoft as a result.

But it seems that I may have been a bit hasty in doing so. You see, after having read this thread through a little, I came to the conclusion that this Celeron may, in fact, be a crippled P4, pinned out to the 370 pin specifications, and limited by added hardware. The only thing that keeps me from researching this (other than laziness; I WILL look this up in a few minutes on Intel's site) is the fact that a heat spreader has been very much glued on to the die itself. The die is about 20x20mm, if I remember correctly. It's running right now, and I'm not gonna F@@K with it.

Oh, yeah, before I forget- I've never had a problem with OCing this baby- as a matter of a fact, sometimes the BIOS likes to boost the FSB from the standard 100 to 133- all on its' own, I'm not doing that. But I have OC'd it to 1.32, and it stays stable.

So, any thoughts?

(the A indicates a .13 Micron process; the "normal" Celeron used a .18 Micron process)
Compaq Presario 710US laptop, EVO N115 Heatsink
1.1 GHz Thunderbird Duron, 512 MB RAM, 64 MB video, 10 inch AC fan

I suck A$$
mikevalla
Initiate
Initiate
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:37 pm
Location: Sharon, PA

Postby mikevalla » Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:10 pm

Check out this site below:

http://intel.com/products/desktop/proce ... ed_detail&

As you can see, the 1.7 and 1.8 gHz Celeron, which used the 478 pin specs, use the .18 micron process. Also, ALL processors, with the exception of the 1A, 1.1A, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 gHz, have ONLY 128kb L2 Cache- yet the aforementioned have 265kb L2 cache.

Okay, according to this site below:

http://processorfinder.intel.com/script ... rocFam=483

the first P4 to use the .13 micron process was the 1.8 gHz. Additionally, it had 512kb L2 cache. I didn't feel like reading much more, but I'm sure it just went up from there. This does, however, support the "bad blocks" of L2 cache earlier in this thread. Anybody?
Compaq Presario 710US laptop, EVO N115 Heatsink
1.1 GHz Thunderbird Duron, 512 MB RAM, 64 MB video, 10 inch AC fan

I suck A$$
mikevalla
Initiate
Initiate
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:37 pm
Location: Sharon, PA

Postby trexntx » Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:26 pm

AMD or Intel. Both have their advocates and their detractors. Just when I think I have decided on one, I hear something that steers me the other direction. All in all, I think if you just buy the biggest and fastest one you can afford you will be doing fine because the differences appear to be fairly minor and a matter of preference. But then, I am no authority on this subject by any stretch of the imagination. That's why I am here.

I know the following is kind of dated, but...

lshawelu wrote: like racing a Dodge Neon and a Ford Focus. .


That's a great comparison. I would have used it too until I found out there actually is a Performance Neon. No that is not an oxymoron, they really exist and they are fast little boogers. My daughter and son-in-law own two and they actually belong to a racing club.

Remember the Yugo? Know why they made sure there were rear-window defrosters on all of them?

It was to keep your hands warm when pushing them.

Tim
Antec NeoHE 550
AMD 64 X2 4600+
ASUS A8N-SLI DELUXE
Corsair XMS (2X512)
Maxtor SATA (2x300GB) RAID 0
trexntx
Black Belt 5th Degree
Black Belt 5th Degree
 
Posts: 8012
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:22 am
Location: Fort Worth

Previous

Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron