AMD vs. Intel - diff in speeds? - Page 3 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > System Upgrades
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-30-2006, 10:03 PM   #21 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,306
Send a message via AIM to Brtnboarder495
Default

Quote:
I don't know. Maybe they don't know how. Maybe they just like them that way. Maybe they just want to say that theirs are faster by citing clock speed.
Because Intel has Dell (and now Apple), competition free. Dell has a pretty significant marketshare. Sure Intel has to compete against other pre-built companies, such as Alienware, HP and a few others, but they aren't as popular as Dell. Intel has also been around longer than AMD.

Also, many people make the stupid assumption that a Pentium 4 3.0ghz kills a 3200+ since the Pentium 4 nearly has 1ghz faster in it's "speed". Many people are uneducated and automatically assume they are faster. So you see, Intel's CPU make-up has to do with marketing too.

AMD is very popular among PC junkies, builders and gamers, but that's because we know enough about computers to understand AMD rapes Intel in most benchies.

However more people seem to becoming educated with computers and discovering Intel's CPU's honestly just suck compared to AMD, this is partly why AMD's marketshare has been, and will continue to go through the roof.
__________________

Brtnboarder495 is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 10:10 PM   #22 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,453
Send a message via AIM to FghtinIrshNvrDi Send a message via Yahoo to FghtinIrshNvrDi
Default

why did you dig up this old thread?

Quote:
Originally posted by Brtnboarder495
Because Intel has Dell (and now Apple), competition free. Dell has a pretty significant marketshare. Sure Intel has to compete against other pre-built companies, such as Alienware, HP and a few others, but they aren't as popular as Dell. Intel has also been around longer than AMD.
And AMD has been around 1 year short of Intel. They both originated in the late 1960's. 1968 and 1969 if I'm not mistaken.

Ryan
__________________

__________________

<b>I'm an unhyphenated American.</b>
System Specs:
Intel Q6600 @ 3200 1.4v
Abit IP35 Pro "The Snake"
2x2gb A-Data @ 800
Diamond HD 3870 512mb


Great FORD TRUCK resource: http://www.fordtruckfanatics.com
FghtinIrshNvrDi is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 10:14 PM   #23 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,306
Send a message via AIM to Brtnboarder495
Default

Heh, one year makes all the difference

Seriously, I thought that AMD came into the picture far after that. They didn't do a good job marketing then, because as a child, I always remember Intel adds, never AMD.
Brtnboarder495 is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 11:15 PM   #24 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790
Default

Quote:
Why doesn't Intel make their chips more effecient?
Once again there is much more to Intel than simply the Pentium 4 that you are oh so familiar with...Dothans operate no higher than 2.2GHz I believe and are based on the same principles as AMD architecture, less pipeline stages

Clock frequency isn't an accurate measurement of power as one clock cycle simply refers to the completetion of one operation...however the number of instructions within that operation may vary based specifically on pipeline stages, and as you may have guessed, AMD performs more instructions per operation which is the true way of calculating a processors performance
__________________
Intel C2D E6320 / AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Gigabyte 965P DS3 / DFI nF4 Ultra-D
2GB OCZ Gold PC2-6400 / 2GB OCZ Gold PC4000
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB / eVGA 6800GS 256MB
150GB Raptor / 74GB Raptor
2x500GB / 320GB
OCZ GameXStreme 850w / OCZ StealthXStream 600w
gaara is offline  
Old 03-18-2006, 09:24 PM   #25 (permalink)
css
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 18
Default

I have an intel p4 2.8Ghz and an amd athlon 64 3500+ and everything else is the same in both pcs, but the amd athlon 64 3500+ seems alot faster for gaming.
css is offline  
Old 03-18-2006, 10:03 PM   #26 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 134
Default

originally posted by : Brtnboarder495
------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Seriously, I thought that AMD came into the picture far after that. They didn't do a good job marketing then, because as a child, I always remember Intel adds, never AMD.
100 % so true

I dont know much on this subject, but as far as I see, when I go to my mates house ( he has a P4 3Ghz 512MB ram ) programs in windows eg : LIMEWIRE load a lot faster than on my machine ( AMD Sempron 2800+ @1.6Ghz 1GB ram ) ....

However, while playing a game his comp appears to stuggle more than mine.
dreaming<>demon is offline  
Old 03-18-2006, 11:15 PM   #27 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
P-ratings? What're you talking about? Semprons are the exact same marketing stratagy as the Celeron. They kill half of the L2 cache. They're both crippled versions of the full processor.

Ryan
the cache doesn't make much of a difference on K8 processors. Intel CPU's rely a lot more on cache.

the Sempron 2800+ wont perform aswell as an Athlon 64 2800+
but there isn't much difference. not nearly the difference there is between a Pentium 4 and Celeron.

@ dreaming<>demon
the Pentium 4 would probabbly be performing better in apps like Limewire because of: the Hyperthreading, and a cache advantage.
turn HT off, and the Pentium 4 won't do nearly aswell.

however gaming is where the AMD's excel. the Sempron is great for gaming. but it just doesn't do well in multitasking.
__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 03-18-2006, 11:36 PM   #28 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by apokalipse
the cache doesn't make much of a difference on K8 processors. Intel CPU's rely a lot more on cache.
ok, I just purchased a AMD athlon 3700+ 1MB L2 (754) ,

and I have a gigabyte K8VT800 mobo are you telling me that the 1MB cache is not making any/much difference ??
dreaming<>demon is offline  
Old 03-18-2006, 11:37 PM   #29 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

it does make a difference. but the difference isn't as much as it is on Intel processors

the amount of cache missing on the Sempron isn't enough to warrant a changed P-rating is what I'm saying. otherwise it would be 2760+ or something and it would get a bit messy

*edit*
also, i will point out that going from 512kb to 1MB L2 cache makes a bigger performance change than dropping to 256kb L2 cache
__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 03-19-2006, 12:05 AM   #30 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 134
Default

Yeah I understand that the larger the cache size the better right?

I just wanted to make sure if the mobo I am using is good for this CPU or not.
__________________

dreaming<>demon is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
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




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.