Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 67

Thread: Intel PR berating AMD PR rating

  1. #16
    can we really blame AMD for doing a better job of conveying the true value of their processors?

    That's like asking if we can blame companies from using deception to exploit the ignorant so they can push their product. Of course we can't blame them. It's the American way. Of course, there are zealots out there that will try and sugarcoat the process.

    I see people blither and blather about AMD being a cheaper, superior alternative. After replacing an Athlon board this recent week (I have replaced three in three seperate incidents in the past month), I calculated that the price difference of a new motherboard plus the cost of the old one would have bought the young women a P4 system. Of course, she was sold on her "techie" friends' garbage about AMD being the best no matter what.

    Price/peformance means little when even one motherboard from the same product lot gives varying and unpredictable stability results with identical components, or the CPU core is Chinese Porcelin, willing to break on a dime.

    One of my friends built himself an Athlon 1200 system right around the same time I was building my P4 1300. He alleged that he got a superior product in all ends for the same price, as I had to cut corners (he got a nice upper-tier GeForce2, whereas I had to settle for a Radeon LE).

    Of course, he didn't bother optimizing his system, and in a recent sequence benchmarks conducted over the weekend, my system outperformed his in all tests. Maybe he should have spent less time talking about how great his product was and more time carefully evaluating possible bottlenecks. Of course, the average consumer would never do that, turning my P4 1.3Ghz system into a Best Buy 1.4Ghz Athlon.

    If you want guarenteed reliability and product support/documentation that's top notch, go with Intel.

    If you want to play Russian Roulette each time you buy a motherboard, CPU, or do a major system upgrade/installation, choose AMD.

  2. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Highland, MD, USA
    Posts
    12
    Two comments:

    Just look at VIA C3 benchmarks. 1/2 to 1/3 of Intel/AMD at the same clock! Celery and Duron *blow* it away! OK, its a great chip for fanless (and I'm going to buy one for my silent desktop - office apps, no games). But to buy a 1G C3 and think you got a bargin cause it was sooo cheap, your a fool. Kinda puts things in perspective.

    Ranma, what are you talking about? OK, you had some bad mobos. Guess what AMD DOESN'T MAKE MOBOS! Stay on the topic. This is clock vs performance. I do agree Intel makes a very reliable product, but don't slam AMD cause some cheapass 3rd rate mobo manufacturer sucks! There are *plenty* of **** boards which take Intel cpus, too. Lots of things make PCs ****-out. Its a system, OK? Bad power supplys kill lots of stuff, and so on. end rant...

  3. #18
    Member rlbogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    54
    Originally posted by Ranma
    I see people blither and blather about AMD being a cheaper, superior alternative. After replacing an Athlon board this recent week (I have replaced three in three seperate incidents in the past month), I calculated that the price difference of a new motherboard plus the cost of the old one would have bought the young women a P4 system. Of course, she was sold on her "techie" friends' garbage about AMD being the best no matter what.
    You're not even talking apples and oranges here, you're talking apples and oxen.

    Reliability of a motherboard is based on the motherboard manufacturer and not the CPU manufacturer. Buy a high quality motherboard and you won't have to replace it. Unless someone has the statistics that say differently, I'd say that AMD processors are at least as reliable as Intel's processors.

    It sounds like you're just frustrated because you think that the technical community gives AMD too much credit. Perhaps this is true. Of course, the public at large are sheep following Intel's slick ads that say nothing about the true quality, performance, or reliability of their processors.

    I can honestly say that you WILL get more bang for your buck with AMD than Intel. The fact that Intel has historically charged double AMD's prices for comparable processors is good evidence of this.

    As for your system beating your buddy's system... Who cares? Properly optimized your buddy's system SHOULD run circles around yours. So is it worth the extra 20 hours of tweaking an Intel based system to get it to run as well as an AMD based system that cost less?

    Rob

  4. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    396
    Who cares that much whether AMD or Intel is better? At the speeds we have now, the human eye can't really detect that much difference in 2 fps, or that extra .5 ms in boot time or load time. Stop whining and just use what you have and be happy. Either way you go you'll get a good system. I'm sick of the big AMD vs. Intel debate and everyone trying to definitively say that one is better than the other

  5. #20
    Member Harshu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    India
    Posts
    282
    Well this war will never end. From the day AMD launches Athlon Intel was having problem in dealing with it. At that time the Atlon classic and Intel P3 were at the war. Intel lost it with a great margin. Launches P4 with RDRAM (only). Huge price tag and some bottleneckness. AMD contunied with AMD Thunderbird. Then Intel launches it i845 chipset for lowering the price but at a performance loss. Here AMD launches Athlon XP. Intel was totally shatered with the performance of the Athlon XP at the clock speed it was running. But the big guy knows that 65% of the market thinks Clock speed is performance. So it launches P4 Northwood (every one knows why). But here the things change a bit. To summarise it: -
    Two person with a limited buget (good buget) goes to a computer shop. Now they have two options 1st Intel 2nd AMD. Now here the game begins. 1st person purchase a Athlon XP 2000+ processor. Second one goes for a P4 2.0(Northwood). Now 2nd one purchases 256MB of RDRAM. And a not so bad motherboard. Then purchases a GF 3 card the max his buget allowed him and a 7200RPM HDD of 60GB. Other acc like moniter of 17" mouse keyboard, sound card and speakers. A beautiful cabinet with a 400watt SMPS.
    Now the 1st one purchase the same specification on a Athlon XP 2000+. He saved around $200 on processor, some on DDR333 RAM. So he purchased more RAM i.e 512MB of DDR333 and a very good mobo from ASUS. Some more money difference is still left so he purchased a better graphic card say GF 4. OKay now u people say. Who get the better deal in same amount. Now coming on the performance part of it. No doubt the Quake 3 will genrated better FPS due to higher clock frequency of P4. But here the difference of GF3 and GF4 will lower this. But every thing is not quake3 or games for that matter. The real world performance is what really matters.
    Rendering 3D images, Ripping DVDs and other aplication.
    For an example My friend have Athlon XP 2000+ and P4 1.7 both having SDRAM and same configuration purchased on same day and same price. On Premire 6.0 converting a full 3 hrs movie with effects and filters in avi using DViX 5.0 and simantanously converting it in MPEG4. The the difference in the performance(time taken) was a high of 15%. This shows that even having a lower clock speed the Atlons r more productive and performance/clock speed is very high as compared to P4s. And the truth is that come on Intel compare P4 1.6Ghz and Athlon XP 2000+ running at 1.66Ghz. The difference is clearly visible. To get simlar performance u have to purchase a high speed and a higher cost CPU from Intel. So u will always have a better deal with AMD.
    Some time back my friend purchase a PC based on Athlon Thunderbird 1.13 CPU with 256MB of SDRAM at the same price of P3 1.0 Ghz with 128MB SDRAM.
    The performance don't lies in the clock speed and example is iMACs G4 CPU. Running at 700MHz out performs P4 at double or more clock speed.
    I m not saying that Intel is bad and AMD is good. If intel has not started this revolution then we were not have such powerful CPU(weather AMD or Intel). They r the kings and will come out with better processors and other options and take computing to the next level. But the hard fact at this momment is that at this moment AMD is making somewhat better processor than Intel when compared to a same clock speed of P4.
    And i think that Intel must look on this matter. AMD rated there processor to 2000+ but still its runing at 1.66Ghz. If every one start thinking with this point of view then Intel will get a Big Bang on its....
    What do u people say about this!!!

  6. #21
    Gone
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    5,713
    Harshu-the point is you are putting a P4 on sdram.That it is not made to run for performance.Its a budget idea like the celeron.Now put that baby on DDR and the Athlon on sdram if you wanna cripple them both.You see you are knocking the P4 down 3 steps on ram performance(RDRAM/DDR333/DDR266/you-SDRAM )
    While you are only takeing that Athlon down 1(ddr/sdram)

    You are killing the quad pumped fsb this way!That is part of the whole P4 tech and you are basically disableing it.Mem balance is all out of wack.

    Talking about a unfair advantage.But your not alone alot of sites do that too when benching and it really errks me!

    But back to the point-this is about rateing systems guys not whos better.I think both co's are underhanded and that will never end.Rateing sys will always try to tip the scales in that co.'s favour.Its part of selling the cpu.Its just unfair that people(end-users)unexp. in this stuff get the raw end of the deal.Big companies care about other big co.'s not the end users like us and that will never change as we dont order 5000 PC's or anything like they do.

  7. #22
    Ranma, what are you talking about? OK, you had some bad mobos. Guess what AMD DOESN'T MAKE MOBOS! Stay on the topic. This is clock vs performance. I do agree Intel makes a very reliable product, but don't slam AMD cause some cheapass 3rd rate mobo manufacturer sucks! There are *plenty* of **** boards which take Intel cpus, too. Lots of things make PCs ****-out. Its a system, OK? Bad power supplys kill lots of stuff, and so on. end rant...

    Power Supply: Antec 300W (****, eh?)
    Motherboard: ECS K7S5A (****, eh?)

    I've never had an Intel system die in the same manner. Intel makes the chipset, and in my case, the motherboard.

    It sounds like you're just frustrated because you think that the technical community gives AMD too much credit. Perhaps this is true. Of course, the public at large are sheep following Intel's slick ads that say nothing about the true quality, performance, or reliability of their processors.

    It's not frustration, just disgust at hearing brainwashed zealots speak like prophets, when most don't have the requisite knowledge to give anything besides what they've heard from someone else who heard from someone else who... . Ignorance seems to embody a cyclical nature in PC industry, and right now there's a massive snowball that's been building for some time labeled "AMD."

    Sure, the public is a bunch of sheep following "slick ads." Intel said it, so it must be true. Unfortunately, the hardware community has become a bunch of sheep following sites like Tommy's Hardware and not really knowing/understanding anything about it. The ignorance is there, but noone wants to admit to it in this area. Then again, Thomas Pabst said it, so it must be true.

  8. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    46
    Originally posted by $1500-P4 gamer
    Now dont get too cocky.My p4 is better for g-max.And that is what I do.Games run better on the P4 as well due to the superior mem bandwidth of rdram.There are things the P4 does exceed quite well in.I dont see how your AMD does EVERYTHING better,That is a totally unsuported and unjustifiable statement.They both have strong points.I know you are gonna say but ddr333.Yeah so what the P4 is planning on runing that too.Dual channel 333ddr,mmm!

    And what do you think Intel will do as the XP gets to 2gig.If it even does,as they are moveing on past the XP core.Intel has the 3gig on the way out and working on the 4gig(runing now on LN).You gonna tell me that a 2gig AMD will dust a 4gig Intel.I'll have to see it to believe it.So Intel will be scaleing just as AMD.P4's get stronger the higher mhz they go so the advantage of P4 will show as the MHZ scales upward.the P4 was desiegned ground up around MHZ.It is a weak point now but at 4gig and up it will prove to be a good idea.I think alot of people are gonna be eating their words.Or they will just act like the never said what they did.Remember the whole"autothrottleing thing".Everyone was saying yeah who cares if it is 2gig if it runs at 1gig all the time.What fools.To this day my pc has never throttled down.It is a saftey factor and a good one at that.One bad opinion gets spread around and all asudden the P4 2gig is only 1gig.How easily the masses are led astray,by rumors and propaganda!

    AMD is now doing a socket change and I don't see anyone slamming them for it like they did Intel.Little less boasting and a lot more reality are needed here.

    Both good cpu's.My point was that the two are totally dif.Not that the Intel chip is weaker-just a dif. chip all together.The article is wrong that is all.

    I don't know of any progs. that will only run on one brand and not the other so how is it that a AMD will do everything and a Intel not?At the speed they are both at it is just argueing for the sake of argueing.Brand name prejudice is just sickening and I am getting tired of it.

    The P4 1.6A is a **** good chip that o'clocks beyond 2gig with standard cooling.If you want to get into the most bang for the buck there it is.The whole AMD is cheaper than intel arguement is getting old and weak.This isnt the case anymore give it a rest.If you wanna get the flagship chips that is the only dif.And there you are just hunting for bragging rights anyhow.I cant think of anything that I would notice a huge dif. running a 2.2a over my P4 1.5.Once I get 100+fps in my fav. games I'm happy.Anything more is a waist of dough.Some guys act like they need NASA'a mainframe to play quake.Get off it.
    two words

    " hammer time"

  9. #24
    Member wallie_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Central Calif. USA
    Posts
    444
    In the early days, Mhz = performance was a good standard, because at that time the current technology showed a positive co-relation between increased CPU mhz speed to performance. But does anyone remember the K6-2 by AMD. For some reason Intel seemed adamant that the 66mhz FSB remain a standard. In the mean time AMD pumped up its FSB to accommodate the new increase in memory speed to 100mhz FSB. I don't know if it was the multiplier issue that made Intel so adamantly stick to a its 66mhz FSB architecture (back in those days Intel was the only supplier of chipsets that supported their Pentium CPUís, and remember that FSB was a times 2 multiplier of the PCI bus which still runs at 33mhz multiplied times two = 66mhz) AMD was on the ropes and Intelís specialized MMX instructions and superior FPU could of hit them with a knockout. But instead Intel stuck with the 66mhz FSB while AMD went for speed in adapting their CPUís to the new increased 100mhz FSB memory bandwidth. Suddenly, a so-called inferior architecture (the K6-2) was able to compete with the Pentium, Not by means of superior architecture, but by means of a superior increased memory bandwidth. Intel learned their lesson quite well, as RDRAM is an extension of paranoia about being caught with oneís memory bandwidthís pantís down.
    I donít think AMD will make the same mistake. With 0.13 micron architecture in its coming Thoroughbred CPUís they would be fools not to increase the FSB to accommodate new DDR speed memory trends.

  10. #25
    Gone
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    5,713
    Originally posted by KissmyDonkey


    two words

    " hammer time"
    I too await the AMD Hammer.If it is impresive enough it might be my next AMD machine. Form what I hear on the forum it is on a new socket though. So much for pulling the duron and putting it on that board . From what I've read though it is gonna be a screeming chip!

  11. #26
    Gone
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    5,713

    wallie_x

    "I donít think AMD will make the same mistake. With 0.13 micron architecture in its coming Thoroughbred CPUís they would be fools not to increase the FSB to accommodate new DDR speed memory trends."

    I'm sure it will. I mean ddr333(could be used as 166fsb) That would allow it to have no bottleknecks from fsb to ram. Maybe even ddrII. DDRII would have like 6.2 gb/sec. bandwidth and lower latency times than even the ddr333 sdram. Thats from what I've seen on the .net It's the next AMD gen. chip I would assume it would only be faster than the curent XP. But then we will have to see. Personally I have high hopes for it. If it does rock and its a good price- the duron 1gig is going!
    Last edited by $1500-P4 gamer; 03-29-2002 at 05:53 AM.

  12. #27
    Member Harshu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    India
    Posts
    282
    Does any one have detailed information bout AMD Hammer. I mean when its going to release and other specifications.

    $1500-P4 gamer: - I have bring P4 to SDRAM just to match the cost of AMD. I just wanna say that in the same price bracket of a P4 with SDRAM u can purchase a Athlon with DDR-RAM. That to in the difference of the price of the processor only. So u get a better value with AMD.

  13. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Alexandria,VA
    Posts
    59
    In this article the intel person suggests CPU speed as the best benchmark. People responding to this have suggested CPU speed/price, FPS (on various games)/price, Reliability/price, etc. etc.

    The problem with all this is the benchmarks that are important depends on your application. So the AMD vs Intel (this sites favorite) debate will go on and on. Not that I want it to stop, you get some very interesting discussion out of it. I do disagree with the articles view that CPU is the only way to compare value.

  14. #29
    Ultimate Member Beeblequix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Ruins: Deus Ex Incarnate
    Posts
    1,402

    BEGIN RANT

    Ok, 1stly the clueless 'english major' from Intel is clearly spouting bu11sh*t. He has no idea what to even say except "inTell's faster...."
    Yeah, if you analyze his quoffs, he's just making sh1+ up as he goes along. intel's claims that Mhz&Ghz is the 'key'.... Well, how about pitting their own Celery XXX againt the same XXX rated PIII? See the flaws. Okay, their older 2Ghz P4 & the newer 2aP4? Their words are clearly aimed at deferring true 'keys'.
    It's like saying "my car's engine run's with standard cooling at 8000rpm". Okay, fine. But I didn't tell you that I'm using a 4 cyllendar engine. My brother's engine was 1)less expensive to produce because it's not as big 2)runs stably at 5500rpm but 3)it's an 8 cyllendar engine that packs much more whallop than mine. Sure mine has dual overhead cams as opposed to single overhead cams and mine uses efi or tbi instead of a Carter 650cc 4bbl, but the end result is that his does more work. I know, his engine requires more energy than mine to run as I can easily get better mileage. Cooling beasts like his are only really an issue when people try to run out of spec, replacing the thermostat with one rated @ 240 instead of 190...
    Don't get in this analogy to attack the holes, as I haven't accurately measured every detail. You should understand the point and it's a valid one.

    Second, I think Gearhead's Amtel idea iz c001

    Third, who the he11 says th@ people with leanings toward AMD are 'ZEALOTS'? Same thing can be said 'bout intell fanz too. 4yorInf0, I'm pretty **** educated, especially wit cmputrz. People with a lot of education & intelligence ask me for advice constantly & have been for years. Not just some mindless crackhoz off the street either. Shame on you 4 empty and clueless attacks on us 'techies'. I'll take this 9672 sitting in my room against your pos_whatever anyday--for certain tasks. For anything else I'll take my Athlon XP because it does two things for me.
    1)it's a better VALUE than intell 4 me
    2)i don't find it as morally objectionable to purchase as I agree with a US judge's comments that Rambus Ink was fraudulent in its claims about its ownership of sdram technology. You folqs might not have the same value system that I do, and I don't care. Support them if u want 2. And if you do, just remember that YOU OWE ME ROYALTIES FOR MY CLAIMS TO OWNERSHIP OF THE WORD "IS". As long as rdram is the 'best' p4 solution, i'll be on the other side.

    Fourth, Dr. Pabst is much more l337 than u. What hav u ever done beside criticize him in forums?

    Fifth, yeah, why isn't intell comparing their 1.6p4 against a closer speed rated competitor (xp2000+)? U n0 y--it's because they'll get sand blasted every time when those 2 architectures go head to head. Their proceeding tactic is to redirect your eyes 2 teh future to their 10exoHz cpus. Well, we're here, right now. And right now the AMD line is a better value.

    Sixth, Quake III is not teh only benchmark in teh universe. Actually, if you want to find raw gaming performance from a game, try benching with Serious Sam. That engine doesn't have special optimizations for either platform, thus it's unbiassed.

    Seventh, the megahertz arguement was preceeded by the MIPS arguement way back in the day. Remember that one? You had company X saying their cpu could do 2MIPS and company Y could only do 1.7MIPS. Soon it was discovered that company X was doing integer addition where company Y was doing more complex floating point multiplication. Argghhhhh!!! That's exactly the case btw33n P4 & traditional x86 cpus. I must say th@ AMD did a wonderful job thus far to get their x86 up to the speeds it did. Yes indeed, Apples and OXEN.

    Eighth, i 4get wh@ 8 was 4.

    Ninth, yes, the ECS k7s5a is a pos. I can't believe you don't already know th@. Tonz o p33pl3 r having probs keeping their fsb up to 133, mostly having 2 go back to 100. I hope u ecs owners hav better luck. I don't care th@ ECS has taken over 'lead spot' in how many bordz they sell. Th@'s just cuz they can sell em twice as cheap as Asus, owing mostly 2 cheap chipsets. You're just wrong.

    Tenth, ok, new socket 4 AMD. 1st 1 in 2 years. Intels: every ~6 months. I think you're undervaluing keeping the same socket 4 so long, and not seeing the probs associated with changing so often 4 the end user. I wish the newer p3s w00d work in my old p3v4x. Same socket, but incompatible.

    Eleventh, stop it with the k6 line. They were **** and WE KNOW IT. They really weren't even anything more than a baby step parody of intel. Once the Athlon came out AMD could finally say they had something of their 'own'.

    Twelfth, I'm so glad 4 U who understand more than 'my cpu iz faster'. Value speaks volumes. I've worked with computers 4 17 years, so I think I've leaned a lot more than th@ someone who thinks Im 'brainwashed'. Same back 2 ya.

    ive owned both & was happy with both. just 4 u p33pl3 with mindless criticism: stop it. U'll lose Bcuz we see rit threw the propaganda. Rant over.

    Beeble Quix
    Last edited by Beeblequix; 03-29-2002 at 01:13 PM.
    "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
    George Orwell

  15. #30
    Ultimate Member Rugor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, Earth
    Posts
    2,694
    Ok, My turn

    What happens if you benchmark an Athlon XP, P4 Northwood, and P4 Willamette all at 1.6 GHz? You don't end up with three processors with identical performance. On the whole the Athlon will perform best, followed by the Northwood with the Willamette bringing up the rear. Since the best way to compare things is to minimize differences we should put all three chips on motherboards from the same manufacturer. The P4's should be on the VIA P4X266A chipset and the Athlon on the KT266A. Before the RDRAM loyalists complain, please remember this is to compare the CPUs entirely by Megahertz and using the VIA chipsets lets us use the same AGP and Memory controller for both platforms. Unfortunately this will hurt the P4 significantly, because Megahertz is not all that matters. So we can put the P4 on a Rambus platform and it will still lose in the majority of benchmarks, and badly.

    The only benefit Megahertz has is that it is a quality all systems have, a clock speed, and it can be independently measured and verified. As Beeblequix said, it is analogous to RPM in car engines.

    Put simply the P4 is a very inefficient processor. Even with a massive bandwidth advantage in both FSB and Memory it cannot keep up with an equally clocked Athlon XP in most applications and benchmarks. The upcoming FSB jump to 533MHz won't help either, all that will do is put the 2.0GHz on a par with the 1.5GHz at introduction. Intel went too far in the quest for clock speed with the P4, it's not otherwise a very good processor. If the Athlon XP can reach 85% of the P4's clock speed on the same process P4 is going to die in the long run.

    I'm not doing this because I like AMD and dislike Intel, but because I like the Athlon and dislike the P4. Intel has made a lot of very good processors that I have owned and recommended in the past. But P4 isn't one of them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •