Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
This is my previous post:
http://computing.net/cpus/wwwboard/forum/7814.htmlThe purpose was to gather highest attainable and stable overclocked CPUs' from the "regulars" in this forum. I don't need to show off my systems, merely reporting/sharing what I have experienced and not what I've read.
As I said before I like both companies and their products. The questions here are overclocking ability, ease of use/installation, features (like heat spreader), board configuration etc.
1) AMD does have pricing advantage over Intel.
2) Intel processors have more overclocking head room in terms of clock speed and SSE2 feature.
3) Both giving out enough heat to brew your coffee in the morning.
4) Intel boards are much easier to deal with, jumpers are history in all P4 boards.
5) Multiplier change is time of the past as FSB increase has more benefit in performance.
6) Intel stock HSF is capable to handle over 30% overclocking, and it is free.When you compare the 2.4C with HT at around $170, you may say the Barton is a better deal. But, after you get the 2.4C running at 3.2 ghz with memory at over 5000mb/s without spending extra for another cooler, you may be telling yourself you'd made a good decision.
MOBO? Some may say the P4 boards cost more than AMD. Boards with similar features are within $10 in pricing if you do look around.
Nevertheless, I would go with XP series CPU over P4 Celeron.
At the end, I like to share experience over what I have heard and read. There are only two kinds of story tellers; a teacher who learns from reading, or a coach who learns from experience. They are both good story tellers, the choice is yours.
Your right real_cool. But the fact is that, anywhere i see price of both AMD and Intel CPU, Intel is always near the double, for both their mid-range CPU. For the mobo, the difference in price is less, but worth to mention.
For an exemple (all the price are in canadian), an Athlon XP2500+ is aprox 125$, put also 125$ for a good nforce2 mobo, and 25$ for a good cpu cooler, and you pay 275$. For Intel, take a P4 2,4C for 225$ and 175$ for the mobo (P4P800 Deluxe)and you arrive at 400$ The Athlon can o/c at least to 3000+ speed and the Intel at least to 3ghz. I agree that the Intel at 3ghz beat the Athlon, but not by a big step, surely not for 125$ that you can put on a better graphic card or simply put in your pocket.
I know that the two compagny have great products, but AMD have definitly a better price/peformance ratio.
0 
I totally agree on the low to mid level system AMD has the edge on both pricing and performance. However, adding overclocking capability, resale value, used processor availability, memory performance to name a few the price difference could be made up easily.
I never purchased new processors since my first assembled 386. Two years ago I replaced the AMD K6 with the P4 Celeron 1.7 which I replaced after seven months. I lost $15 and got the P4 2A for $120. I sold one of the 2A for $110 and replaced it with a 2.4B which I paid $130.
I have a lot of confidence in buying used P4 than AMD XP.
But, when it comes to the 2.4C which can easily overclock to over 3.2 not 3.0 the memory performance is better than the 3000+.
I know I wouldn't spend US$170 for the 2.4C yet. That's why I am still using the 2A clocked to 3.24ghz with a refurbished IS7 from newegg for $59. However, when the Prescott is released, I know I could get my hands on 2.4C for less than $130 and sell the 2A for $90.
For now, I am running a system at 3.24 ghz with a $120 processor and a $59 board.
0
In your case it's true that your system give a good performance/price ratio. Waiting for the new technology to buy mid-range product is always the trick to save money. When you can buy an Intel system near the price of an AMD one, i agree that the Intel can give better overclock and performance. But in the majority of time, AMD system is by far less expensive. And you agree with me that both cpu are good.
0
In my experiences building and working with different systems, AMD almost always offers a similar or slightly ahead/behind performance ratio at different speeds compared to their pentium counterparts. The price difference between intel and AMD processors at midrange however makes it very hard to argue against AMD, as the performance differences are rarely large enough to make or break either performer.
The exception to this rule is the newer P4 chips that run on the 800MHz bus. These chips offer much greater performance and stability over the AMD chips in the same range, the clock speeds of the indiviudal cpus are not as large of a factor as the bus speeds are. So for performance and overclocking purposes, I would say get an AMD instead of the P4 at all sub 2.4 GHz levels because of the tremendous price advantage, however, for 2.4GHz and up, the P4 at 800MHz on a good MB offers much more power, potential, and overclockability than any other XP+ chip, even after taking the price differential into account. This is not just based on benchmarks but on real world application, you can actually see the difference the moment you boot up.
0
Your right JonPhoenix. But with a tight budget, the price difference between the two cpu maker can make the difference when choosing your product. I choose an AMD system cause with the cpu and the mobo it cost me 225$, when an equivalent Intel one will have cost me at least 400$. For the 2,4ghz and above, your right that the P4 is the best, except for the 2500+, cause that chip cost like 125$ and can overclock to 3000+ or maybe 3200+ in some case.
0
When I buy CPU, I look for the cheapest possible solution and at the sametime having best performance. BTW, the celeron are very overclockable. I o/c 2 4 years ago. First one was Celeron 266 slot 1 w/o L2 cache and I o/c to 400Mhz. Second one was Celeron 366 PPGA and I can overclock to 550Mhz. Thats 50% of the orginal clock speed. Man if today, I get a Celeron 2.5Ghz and o/c to 3.75Ghz with regular fan cooling and stock voltage. That'll be sweet. BTW, AMD always have better low-end and mid range price than Intel. That is a fact.
0
Despite of all the pricing and performance written about AMD over Intel in this forum, (obviously there are more AMD owners here), Intel processor has 85% of SOM (Share of Market). Explain this.
Also explain why AMD has been losing market share in the OEM area. They were doing quite well with K6.
Imagine if AMD pricing matches with Intel, what'd happen to the sales ratio.
0
Intel have better market share because of misinformation. I always see people talking about AMD and saying that it's made cheap, run slow and too hot. And it's completly false, as you know. A lot of persons imagine that paying a high price mean high quality, and for that, AMD pass for poor quality cause their price are low.
0
The reason Intel has the highest market share is due to 3 factors.
1) Name recognition. For over a decade Intel was the only name anyone ever heard in processor technology. During that time, AMD was known for cheaper lower class processors found in budget systems. A lot of people still hear Pentium and think best because of this.
2) Business partnerships. Intel has close relationships with Dell, Microsoft, and several other oems, software developers, and retailers that are financial giants in themselves, giving Intel a tremendous marketing and production advantage over AMD that translates into a higher market share. For every 1 enthusiast that buys an AMD system, there are 100 small business networks put online by Intel processors.
3) Profitability. In order to compete with Intel, AMD has been operating at a loss for several years. AMD processors arent cheaper than Intel because of cheaper parts, they are cheaper than Intel because AMD cuts their own throats when selling them in an attempt to cut out a piece of the market. While this has been somewhat sucessful, AMD is still not turning a profit. Until AMD starts becoming competitive with Intel in terms of profitability and investor relations, they arent likely to take away much more market share until they release something that blows away Intel, not just competes with it.
0
Exactly, I own both AMD and Intel Stock. Thank God, AMD goes up nicely in the last few months
However, AMD has been losing SOM even more recently after the K6.
As I said "what would happen if AMD raises or matches Intel pricing". Do we see the same support as we have seen in this forum?
AMD does not own chipset manufacturing. It depends on Nvidia, VIA, SIS for support while Intel makes both processor and chipset. This alone will not allow AMD to come close to Intel, unless AMD fans truly support price increase so that AMD could reinvest in R/D and acquisitions.
I was in the automotive manufacturing before the customers love you because you pay them $1 for every purchase. They hate you when you try to make a buck.
How many 3200+ unit sold in comparison with 3.2 P4 with such a close pricing? Or how many 3200+ owners in this forum, none?
Another point, AMD has cut it's pricing so low, OEMs' would only ask for even lower pricing until they could not match. Hence, they lost the accounts.
I also have over 7 years selling to Walmart, Sam's club, Kmart etc, called the Mass Market. Do I enjoy doing business with them? Hell no. You'd be damn lucky to make low teen's gross margin.
When I return my Intel processor within the 3 years warranty, I receive no hassle. Try returning Athlon, best of luck!
In short, you have summarized the whole deal with two words "Name recognition" which does not come cheap and without performance except in this forum.
0
excellent post JonP. Reason #1 is also a big reason why intel is able to charge the prices they do. It makes no sense to me that people pay $3 for Crest when they can pay $0.88 for Walmart flouridated toothpaste. I mean thats $2.12 you could put toward an IDE cable or chipset heatsink.
"what would happen if AMD raises or matches Intel pricing".
I don't know about others, but 99% of my amd loyalty is just loyalty to their prices. Well okay the unlocked multiplier is good too, so maybe price is only 90%.
0
"however, for 2.4GHz and up, the P4 at 800MHz on a good MB offers much more power, potential, and overclockability than any other XP+ chip, even after taking the price differential into account" JonPheonix.
Agree 100%. Even though being the minority in the situation.
Not too good when I heard losing sales to the generic brand when one of my kids heads the U.S. Crest advertising campaign.
0
"however, for 2.4GHz and up, the P4 at 800MHz on a good MB offers much more power, potential, and overclockability than any other XP+ chip, even after taking the price differential into account"
Help me out here. $60 for a 1700+ that does 2.4g or if I'm lucky 2.5g which produces benchmark results equal to a 3.2g/3.3g p4, or I can pay $170 for the 2.4g p4 and oc it to 3.4g, 3.6g if I'm lucky. And I'll need a mobo that can run at 1200mhz in that case. It ends up double or triple the cost for a 10%-15% improvement. I must be missing something there.
0
I only want to say that my loyalty to AMD is also because of their low price. My 100$ investment in a 1800+ that i can o/c to 1900ghz is the best buy that i could made. And for now, the BEST bang for the buck is without doubt the 2500+ at 125$ CAN that can run at least at 3000+ speed.
0
"Help me out here. $60 for a 1700+ that does 2.4g or if I'm lucky 2.5g which produces benchmark results equal to a 3.2g/3.3g p4, or I can pay $170 for the 2.4g p4 and oc it to 3.4g, 3.6g if I'm lucky. And I'll need a mobo that can run at 1200mhz in that case. It ends up double or triple the cost for a 10%-15% improvement. I must be missing something there."
Sure.
1) I believe we were talking about new system therefore the board cost should be included in both system. Only the difference in processor cost.
2) There is no way the memory bandwidth can be the same. XP1700 versus P4 2.4C both overclocked to max.The XP1700+ overclocking ability is limited by certain production, and not in general term.
Finally, nobody said you are wrong. There is nothing wrong in buying low price products. Then, there is nothing wrong for those who do not buy the lowest cost product.
0
The intel board will be more expensive than the amd board. On the amd board all you need is decent fsb - no need to pay extra to get the absolute highest fsb board since you have the multilpier to bail you out if needed. But you must get the highest fsb board for intel since you have no multiplier.
The memory bandwidth is not the same in the numbers I quoted. Intel has better memory bandwidth by a wide margin, as without it, their pipeline penalty would give a big advantage to amd. Any comparison of overall throughput of amd vs intel has to assume far better bandwidth on the intel machine.
The odds of a p4 2.4c hitting 3.5g are worse, not better, than a $60 1700+ hitting 2.4g. The $60 price I mentioned was for a guaranteed stepping which will get you to 2.4g-2.6g. The p4 price I quoted just gets you a random 2.4c which may top out at 3.0g or 3.2g.
0
"I know I wouldn't spend US$170 for the 2.4C yet. That's why I am still using the 2A clocked to 3.24ghz with a refurbished IS7 from newegg for $59. However, when the Prescott is released, I know I could get my hands on 2.4C for less than $130 and sell the 2A for $90." real_cool
Two of my 2A are running at 3.1 and 3.25. One could go 3.4ghz, but I don't want to run memory at 1:1 (@3.24 I am running 5:4). Stock air cooling.
Like to know if you truly own and run XP1700 at the speed you mention with air cooling.
0
"Like to know if you truly own and run XP1700 at the speed you mention with air cooling"
I have three responses to this:
1) Imo its meaningless what any one person is running since overclocking is all about the luck of the chip once you have learned how to do it. When I get lucky in life I may celebrate for a day but I won't brag about it later because I haven't earned anything by being lucky. There is no more skill to overclocking than there is cutting your lawn. There are those who know how and those who don't. I have a friend who last week got a barton 2500+ that hits 2.75g on air. That's pure luck for him just as it was bad luck for me that my first 1700+ would only hit 2.1g.
2) My own rigs (5) are currently all based on cpus that are at least 9 months old. None of the amd rigs can hit beyond 2.2g since they are based on pre-dlt3c cpus.
3) There are hundreds (not dozens, hundreds) of 1700+ and 2500+ users who have made posts and/or screenshots of their amd cpus running at over 2.4g on air. They are on overclockers.com, amdmb.com, hardforum.com, xtremsystems.org, etc.
If you want to compare your own econo intel setup of a $59 board and a 2A, a month ago you could have gotten a $42 1700+ from newegg (new) and a $29 l7s7a2 (refurb) which together hit 12x200 or better.
I am surprised that people even claim that intel is the value amd is. Amd is losing money and Intel charges for name recognition. Of course amd is going to be the better deal. Hertz is never the lowest priced.
0
"AMD does not own chipset manufacturing. It depends on Nvidia, VIA, SIS for support while Intel makes both processor and chipset. This alone will not allow AMD to come close to Intel, unless AMD fans truly support price increase so that AMD could reinvest in R/D and acquisitions."
NOT BAD!...... for a guy that organizes a 'round up of locals scores, on the PRETENSE of being NEUTRAL when comparing AMD & INTEL!!!
and still being proven WRONG when it comes to blowing his INTEL bugel!
All that's left to say is.......'your the man JOHNOH' (or are you a demigod?)
0
What can I say?
Well, a dollar lotto ticket could win you million if you are lucky. Best value in town and million people would go for it.
It is indeed the best value to get rich, yet with millions of losers for every winner. I was hoping he is one of those lucky ones owning one of those 2.5ghz XP1700. And, I do mean it.
As for me, I guess I am one of those lucky people owning an expensive 2A running at 3.24 ghz.
Bottom line....AMD and Intel are good companies. AMD has helped in making me a few grands extra recently in the stock market and I thank it's supporters.
So, win/win situation.
0
"AMD does not own chipset manufacturing. It depends on Nvidia, VIA, SIS for support while Intel makes both processor and chipset. This alone will not allow AMD to come close to Intel"
I think this is a good point. Intel makes the best mobo chipsets by a mile. If intel made chipsets like via and via made chipsets like intel, amd would be ahead of intel.
"will not allow to come close" is a little extreme way of putting it though. In 3dmark2001 scores, amd is already ahead of intel anyway for both air cooling and extreme cooling. Futuremark.com shows many chilled 2.6g-2.8g amd cpus ahead of 4.0g-4.2 p4s for 3dmark2001. I grant that across a variety of benchmarks, intel wins overall though.
But the point I wanted to make here is that amd saw the problem they have with chipset inferiority and solved it with the A64, which takes the memory controller out of the chipset on onto the cpu die. Amd has gone from having last-place bandwidth to first-place bandwidth because of an on-die memory controller that uses hypertransport. And maybe in 2006 or so they'll price the A64 in such a way that we even buy it. (lol). But in the meantime the A64 is the fastest thing on the block and as ghz grows for both intel and amd, intel will continue to have fsb constraints while the a64 scales according to ghz. THG had a report on this yesterday, a rare pro-amd article.
0
You mean this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031021/index.html
and not this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-53.html
An overclock processor using half of a refrigerator, and costing over.... well.
See you in December when Prescott is released. Just because one company releases it's earning a month earlier than the other, does not mean another company will not be exceeding earning expectation.
0
your second link was the internet's big joke of 9/23/2003. Out of dozens of reviewers only Thg found a way to show the p4 3.2g as beating the A64. lol. thg is the 21st century corollary to CCCP's Pravda in the 1980s.
When prescott is released the A64 will be farther along than it is now.
0
Why do you find links listed other than yours are jokes? While you could post THG to your liking is not.
You are Demigod.
0
The THG 9/23/03 a64 review was mocked within the THG forums - check it out for yourself.
Because while the rest of the reviewing world was noting how the 2.2g a64 fx was generally faster than the p4 3.2g....
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000267
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_a64fx51/28.shtml
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1276898,00.asp
... thg saw fit to summarize their review with the statement that "intel wins 32 times, amd wins 15 times", as though their 47 tests were a reasonable blending of what user's want in a system. As though gamers make up maybe only 10-20% of the high performance windows market, which is hilarious.
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
