Approx price difference between Intel & AMD systems

[JK]

OK, according to pricewatch, same price range at the moment would be:

P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or

$220 vs $185. not exactly the same.

P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+

$282 vs $255. A bit closer.

Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an
Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anyobody gives a damn about those chips, as
hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest
of their system combined.

Many gamers buy more expensive processors. If someone spends
$600 on a video card, they can easily spend $300-$600 on a cpu.
Those doing scientific calculations also often tend to buy high
performing processors.

So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who
has the best bang for buck, at the moment.

Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
Wrong!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=10


Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
TENTHS of a percentage point faster.
So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
one tie.

Wrong. Two wins for AMD and one tie.

GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Not quite.

Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away

What have you been smoking? Even An Athlon XP3000+ beats a
Pentium 4 3.2 ghz running business applications.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away

Not quite. In Content Creation Winstone 2004, an Athlon 64 3000+
beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Intel has the lead here with 32 bit software, however with the Athlon 64
one can switch to 64 bit software. Here is an article comparing an Opteron
to a 64 bit Xeon(expensive!) when runnning 64 bit software.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Care to provide some benchmarks?

Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
*CPU* and memory benchmarks

Who buys a computer to run synthetic benchmarks.

Actually, I'm glad you called me out on this issue. I was previously under
the impression that AMD and Intel were pretty well matched. But on
reviewing the benchmarks again, I'd have to conclude that AMD is only a good
idea if you plan to do nothing but DX8 gaming with your computer.

LOL! Most PCs are used to run business software. A Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
can't even keep up with an Athlon XP3000+ in Business Winstone 2004.
The Athlon XP is less than half the price of the P4.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

Otherwise, you are wasting your money buying an AMD chip.

Again, even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
better bargains to be found.

Considering that an Intel system will likely
be cheaper to build

Not quite.

and WILL perform better

Perhaps for video editing and a few other obscure applications,
but not for what most people are running most of the time.

on all benchmarks except DX8,
it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment.
LOL!

The only way AMD could change that
would be to drop their prices by 30% or better

LOL!. If Intel drops the P4 3.2 ghz to below the price of an Athlon XP3000+
(around $95) , then it would be competitive for running
business software.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

If Intel drops the Pentium 4 3.4 ghz EE to below $255,
then it would be competitive with the Athlon 64 3400+ for those who
like playing Doom 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

 

[kony]

That is really funny, considering THIS is what you responded to:

(I wrote earlier)

"I am a HUGE AMD fan. So it's
incredibly ironic that I should feel compelled to defend Intel against
repetitive, undeserved LIES posted on this ng and others about how AMD chips
are both faster AND cheaper than Intel chips. At any particular point in
time, that might be true, but it hasn't been true for quite a while, and it
isn't true NOW. For anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass, or an
axe to grind . . ."

Do you feel that you're clever by adding a preface to your
one-sided argument?

You were not compelled to do anything, you CHOSE to place
all weight of the decision making process on modern apps
without any consideration of what the user, uses.

If we are considering "ultimate performance" at any price,
they by all means, let's all get SMP boxes... whatever our
hearts desire, but realistically, most purchases have some
kind of budget, and quoted prices for a P4 must include all
elements necessary to attain the performance advantage used
to contrast it to an AMD chip.

Get thee your head out of your ass and learn to read. Benchmarks don't lie.

No, but you omit the truth if claiming anyone should
consider benchmarks of apps/versions they don't use.

Pricewatch doesn't lie. I'm not biased in favor of Intel. I'm INCLINED to
be biased in favor of AMD. I can't read the unbiased numbers that ALL the
hardware-oriented web sites agree with and then conclude that AMD is a good
buy, at the moment. That is, unless I just wanted to bash Intel and truth
be damned. Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. That's from the mouth
of a huge AMD fan. I hope AMD does something to change this soon, and I'm
optimistic that they will, but at the moment, Intel chips are clearly a
better deal. -Dave

The vast majority of people do not buy new applications when
their current apps work fine, you have no clue which CPU is
better for any use beyond those benchmarked. As I mentioned
previously, if productivity is tied to income, it may be
justifed to buy apps shown to benefit from a P4. As for
everyone else, the total price of a P4's performance is
often NOT the price of the CPU alone.

Claiming a P4 is "better" while not knowing what it'll be
used for (ignoring your nonsense about DX8), is pointless.

The REALLY funny part is that you cling to new software
benchmarks, but ignore that 64 bit software is around the
next corner.

 

[kony]

Many gamers buy more expensive processors. If someone spends
$600 on a video card, they can easily spend $300-$600 on a cpu.
Those doing scientific calculations also often tend to buy high
performing processors.

Here I would have to disagree.

The CPU _IS_ the central processing unit, but that
distinction does not necessarily distinguish it as being
most expensive, or parity with the video card when it comes
to price. Video cards are much more complex than a CPU.

Taking nVidia's 6800 as an example, since it is industry
leading at the moment, the GPU can be quite a bit more
sophisticated, both larger and more powerful, and entire
card includes VRM funtions delegated to a motherboard for
the CPU, and memory that is, based on today's market, worth
in excess of $50 alone. For a gamer, the logical conclusion
is to spend more on the video card than CPU, always. In
retrospect, this has always been the case that a gamer
should never buy the top speed/price CPU unless they already
have the best video card available (unless their monitor is
horrible and can only allow low resolutions).