Real World Comparisons: AMD 3200 -vs- Intel 3.2. Your thoughts, experiences....

I'm posting this for two reasons: One, I want to know what people have
seen in comparing the AMD 3200 to an Intel 3.2GHz. Also, what are the
benefits of selecting the Intel system over AMD, or AMD over Intel
system.

I am tired of reading magazine reviews of the 2 systems side by side.
I'm curious what the real world has seen of these two systems. To me,
depending on who owns the magazine, it can be biased reporting.

My goal is to purchase a replacement to my current Intel system in the
next 30 days, and outside of what's read in the magazines, I don't
know anyone with either the AMD or Intel systems running at the new,
higher speeds.

Presently, I'm biased towards the Intel system, only because I have
never owned an AMD based system. Are there software incompatibilities
to be worried about, or a unique set of patches that an operating
system may need based on the processor itself?

The main focus of this system will be for Photoshop, as well as
Illustrator, and some Video encoding and editing work. If it were for
surfing the web, and email, I'd stick with the current system I have.

As a level set, the system that I eventually do get will have 1GB of
RAM, as well as 800MHz FSB.

Please... your thoughts and comments are appreciated.

-Ted

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', theo_jr@ix.netcom.com (Ted Grevers)
scribbled:

>My goal is to purchase a replacement to my current Intel system in the
>next 30 days, and outside of what's read in the magazines, I don't
>know anyone with either the AMD or Intel systems running at the new,
>higher speeds.

I have an AMD XP2500+ system, and XP2800+ system.
and a P4C 2.6g system. Each system has 1 gig of DDR400 SDRam,
and recent 7200rpm IDE HDs.

The AMD systems respond better in most things.

The P4 is substantially faster for Seti@home,
and somewhat faster for audio and video encoding.

>Presently, I'm biased towards the Intel system, only because I have
>never owned an AMD based system. Are there software incompatibilities
>to be worried about, or a unique set of patches that an operating
>system may need based on the processor itself?

There are NO compatibility issues with any AMD CPU.







To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....

Ted Grevers wrote:

> I'm posting this for two reasons: One, I want to know what people have
> seen in comparing the AMD 3200 to an Intel 3.2GHz. Also, what are the
> benefits of selecting the Intel system over AMD, or AMD over Intel
> system.

Are you talking about the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ or the AMD Athlon64 3200+?
The AMD64 is faster, and not significantly more expensive.

I can't think of any benefit of buying an Intel CPU over an AMD64.

> I am tired of reading magazine reviews of the 2 systems side by side.
> I'm curious what the real world has seen of these two systems. To me,
> depending on who owns the magazine, it can be biased reporting.
>
> My goal is to purchase a replacement to my current Intel system in the
> next 30 days, and outside of what's read in the magazines, I don't
> know anyone with either the AMD or Intel systems running at the new,
> higher speeds.

may as well wait the full 30 days, as prices should drop

> Presently, I'm biased towards the Intel system, only because I have
> never owned an AMD based system. Are there software incompatibilities
> to be worried about, or a unique set of patches that an operating
> system may need based on the processor itself?

Not really. The joke is that AMD processors are more compatible with Intel
processors than Intel ones

> The main focus of this system will be for Photoshop, as well as
> Illustrator, and some Video encoding and editing work. If it were for
> surfing the web, and email, I'd stick with the current system I have.
>
> As a level set, the system that I eventually do get will have 1GB of
> RAM, as well as 800MHz FSB.
>
> Please... your thoughts and comments are appreciated.

> -Ted

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:55:14 +1300, Species wrote:

> Ted Grevers wrote:
>
>> I'm posting this for two reasons: One, I want to know what people have
>> seen in comparing the AMD 3200 to an Intel 3.2GHz. Also, what are the
>> benefits of selecting the Intel system over AMD, or AMD over Intel
>> system.
>
> Are you talking about the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ or the AMD Athlon64 3200+?
> The AMD64 is faster, and not significantly more expensive.

Right

> I can't think of any benefit of buying an Intel CPU over an AMD64.

Video encoding

>> I am tired of reading magazine reviews of the 2 systems side by side.
>> I'm curious what the real world has seen of these two systems. To me,
>> depending on who owns the magazine, it can be biased reporting.
>>
>> My goal is to purchase a replacement to my current Intel system in the
>> next 30 days, and outside of what's read in the magazines, I don't
>> know anyone with either the AMD or Intel systems running at the new,
>> higher speeds.
>
> may as well wait the full 30 days, as prices should drop

One buys a peecee whenever necessary, otherwise it's best to wait another
6 months since CPUs will be even cheaper then.

>> Presently, I'm biased towards the Intel system, only because I have
>> never owned an AMD based system. Are there software incompatibilities
>> to be worried about, or a unique set of patches that an operating
>> system may need based on the processor itself?
>
> Not really. The joke is that AMD processors are more compatible with
> Intel processors than Intel ones

Do you mind to explain?

>
>> The main focus of this system will be for Photoshop, as well as
>> Illustrator, and some Video encoding and editing work. If it were for
>> surfing the web, and email, I'd stick with the current system I have.
>>
>> As a level set, the system that I eventually do get will have 1GB of
>> RAM, as well as 800MHz FSB.
>>
>> Please... your thoughts and comments are appreciated.
>
>> -Ted

Ted, since you do video encoding, a P4 system may be beneficial for you
(although a bit worse for your wallet). If you'd decide to go for an AMD
system however, please also check the thread "Why ppl dont like VIA?",
you'll find useful information there to help decide what mainboard to get.

Best regards,
Chris

Ted Grevers wrote:


>
> The main focus of this system will be for Photoshop, as well as
> Illustrator, and some Video encoding and editing work.

It depends on which way the software /leans/. Many video editing apps are
optimized for P4 systems, considering there are more P4's out there than
anything else right now.

I've found from personal testing about a year ago (between a P4 2.4 and a
t-bred XP2400) that while AMD's can pull OK benchmark numbers on straight
encoding a finished file to Mpeg as seen on web tests, when I've done
special effects render testing (fades, title generation etc) between the 2
platforms using vega video and premier, the P4 is better by a wide margin.

I realise the new AMD's could easily be better at this now but my point is,
just because a platform can render a fininshed file to Mpeg fairly fast,
doesn't mean it can render the trasitions/effects as quickly. I'd think
about maybe e-mailing/researching the software makers and see what they
recomend?

--

Stacey

On a sunny day (Sun, 01 Feb 2004 15:11:28 +0100) it happened chris
<cleurs@wish.net> wrote in <pan.2004.02.01.14.11.27.428088@wish.net>:

>On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:55:14 +1300, Species wrote:
>
>> Ted Grevers wrote:
>>
>>> I'm posting this for two reasons: One, I want to know what people have
>>> seen in comparing the AMD 3200 to an Intel 3.2GHz. Also, what are the
>>> benefits of selecting the Intel system over AMD, or AMD over Intel
>>> system.
>>
>> Are you talking about the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ or the AMD Athlon64 3200+?
>> The AMD64 is faster, and not significantly more expensive.
>
>Right
>
>> I can't think of any benefit of buying an Intel CPU over an AMD64.
>
>Video encoding
Well since my AMD system spend many nights encoding 2 pass DivX and mpeg2,
I have some doubts Intel is more speed for the money.
Given the same money you get a so much faster AMD (Athlon for example), that
AMD is faster.
Someone will likely disagree though.
Then there is SSE on playback (of the same video) and AMD will for sure win by
30% or so.
But all this is my subjective experience of cause.
Also the extreme stability of AMD processors (a requirement for an all night long
encoding session) always makes me happy.
As you see I am biased hehe

Ted Grevers wrote:



> I have
> never owned an AMD based system.



I've owned two...........and another "Winchip-C4"......made by Centaur,
a smaller company than AMD, since boughtout by VIA.



> Are there software incompatibilities
> to be worried about,



NO!........all three of my non-intel chips were 100-percent compatible!



> or a unique set of patches that an operating
> system may need based on the processor itself?



not for me, though i've heard of the CXT? k-6 core patch for the older
k-6's under windoze was needed to work.......though this is RARE thing.
Most chips regardless of brand work!






> The main focus of this system will be for Photoshop, as well as
> Illustrator, and some Video encoding and editing work.





they say the p-4 is better for video, though I persoanlly prefer the
better x87 FPU of the Athlon since non-video stuff seems to run better
on the Athlon's x87 unit.




If it were for
> surfing the web, and email, I'd stick with the current system I have.
>
> As a level set, the system that I eventually do get will have 1GB of
> RAM, as well as 800MHz FSB.
>
> Please... your thoughts and comments are appreciated.
>
> -Ted


--



"I think in this case international law
stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)."
- Richard Perle


"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbours."
- Colin Powell February 24 2001


"We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping
him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful."

"He threatens not the United States."

"But I also thought that we had pretty
much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."

'But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place
for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of
keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying
"look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.'
- Colin Powell February 26 2001

chris wrote:


>>
>>Not really. The joke is that AMD processors are more compatible with
>>Intel processors than Intel ones
>
>
> Do you mind to explain?





Athlons are built alot like the p-3, and so the software which runs well
of a p-3 runs better on the Athlon than the p-4.

Athlon's are more backward friendly with older and common software than
the p-4.



--



"I think in this case international law
stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)."
- Richard Perle


"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbours."
- Colin Powell February 24 2001


"We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping
him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful."

"He threatens not the United States."

"But I also thought that we had pretty
much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."

'But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place
for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of
keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying
"look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.'
- Colin Powell February 26 2001

Jan Panteltje wrote:


> Also the extreme stability of AMD processors (a requirement for an all night long
> encoding session) always makes me happy.
> As you see I am biased hehe



you must not have the VIA based garbage chipset I have...............


--



"I think in this case international law
stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)."
- Richard Perle


"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbours."
- Colin Powell February 24 2001


"We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping
him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful."

"He threatens not the United States."

"But I also thought that we had pretty
much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."

'But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place
for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of
keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying
"look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.'
- Colin Powell February 26 2001

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 17:47:30 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

>>> I can't think of any benefit of buying an Intel CPU over an AMD64.
>>
>>Video encoding
> Well since my AMD system spend many nights encoding 2 pass DivX and mpeg2,
> I have some doubts Intel is more speed for the money.
> Given the same money you get a so much faster AMD (Athlon for example), that
> AMD is faster.
> Someone will likely disagree though.
> Then there is SSE on playback (of the same video) and AMD will for sure win by
> 30% or so.
> But all this is my subjective experience of cause.
> Also the extreme stability of AMD processors (a requirement for an all night long
> encoding session) always makes me happy.
> As you see I am biased hehe

No problem ;-) I'm happy to have AMD in the CPU market besides Intel. It
keeps them sharp, while the consumer takes advantage.

There was a nice / interesting discussion about this topic in this group
half a year ago:
http://groups.google.nl/groups?hl=n....net%26rnum%3D2
Apparently it took a dual Athlon to keep up with a P4 as it concerned
video editing. Since a dual Athlon system isn't less expensive anymore
than a single P4 system, for this particular application a P4 may be worth
the money. Otherwise an AMD system may be the best bang for the buck.

Best regards,
Chris (who can hardly wait until his overclocked Cu-mine cellery dies,
which would justify the "investment" in an AMD64 ;-))