Intel vs. AMD: Best bang for buck, at the moment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave C.
  • Start date Start date
Howdy!

JK said:
Good post! The Intel supporters seem to be cluless. Will they be
advising those with a 32 bit processor to upgrade to Intel's 64
bit processors early next year when 64 bit Windows is released?
Click to expand...

a) Intel's been shipping a 64 bit processor. Sales stink. Because
it stinks for 32bit software (the place AMD outdid Intel)

b) 64bit Windows has been available since 2001 - for the Itanium
(Intel's 64 bit processor). Doesn't work with the AMD 64 extensions.

c) Intel has shot itself in the foot, true enough. No need to lie
or tell falsehoods about it ... better to just tell the truth.

RwP
 
c) Intel has shot itself in the foot, true enough. No need to lie
or tell falsehoods about it ... better to just tell the truth.
Click to expand...


why? because they are waiting for a sensible amount of useable
software to actually spark the sales of 64 bit tech....instead of the
1 in 100,000 hobbyists using betas of OS's or running 32bit stuff.
Bout time AMD took 'point' take a few shots to the head, instead
of Intel. This whole thing reminds me of HDTV....
 
JAD said:
c) Intel has shot itself in the foot, true enough. No need to lie

why? because they are waiting for a sensible amount of useable
software to actually spark the sales of 64 bit tech...
Click to expand...

The beauty of AMD's X86-64 is that the Athlon 64 and Opteron
are great performers running 32 bit software. The idea of this is
to get a large installed base of 64 bit processors, so that software
makers will have an incentive to write 64 bit software for it.
 
Well you may be able to buy a new CPU everytime a new flavour comes
out, but
I would be looking for at least 3 years out of a new purchase - and even
then I just move the older one onto the home network. It's called future
proofing - if you are buying a new chip NOW and don't want to pay silly
money for a 64-bit only Intel which would be pretty useless anyway with
todays software.
Click to expand...



well DUH that's why I'm saying 'use what you have' and wait for the
real 64bit software to be out. Then if you want to do this with an AMD
go for it, but do you think by then that Intel will have leaked and
dropped unto the market their next scheme, then somewhere down the
line AMD drops a bomb, then Intel then AMD then Intel then amd....with
the stock market teetering on the brink, do you think this stuff is
decided by a bunch of high schoolers on a class project? Hype hype
hype, and god knows that without that 1 in 100,000(completely
fictitious) doing their testing for them (FOR FREE, or should I say
for a profit, reminds me of buying a tee-shirt with a company's logo
on it), we would be paying more and waiting even longer for
tech/software to catch up to one another.
 
JAD said:
Well you may be able to buy a new CPU everytime a new flavour comes
out, but

well DUH that's why I'm saying 'use what you have' and wait for the
real 64bit software to be out.
Click to expand...

Why do that when an Athlon 64 3000+ is so inexpensive(only around
$150 for a socket 754 one) and such a great performer running 32
bit software. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 makes sense for many people
even if they don't plan on ever upgrading to 64 bit software.
 
Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never happen!


yeah LOL reminds me of HDTV...........get it? just now and its been
drummed for 10 years


! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....?
Most people buy computers to last 2 to 5 years.
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with that statement?

Do you think that 64bit will still be thought of as NEW in 3 years?
You guys are saying that the price of the 64 bit chips will remain the
same for three years? So buy NOW with limited stuff to do, except test
for filthy rich companies, limited amounts of everything else, at a
higher price, OR wait until the prices fall and there is mainstream
everything to go with it?
 
JAD said:
Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never happen!
Click to expand...

Very funny. Large amounts of 64 bit X86-64 software is in development
now.

yeah LOL reminds me of HDTV...........get it? just now and its been
drummed for 10 years
Click to expand...

HDTV sets are finally about to become affordable for the average person.
Some are predicting 32" lcd tv prices dropping to as low as $1,200 within
2005. While $1,200 would still be considered a high price for a television

by many people, it is still affordable for large numbers of people, while
around $4,000 is totally out of the question for most people.
! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....?
Click to expand...

That will probably change within 6-9 months with the release of the
64 bit version of Windows XP. My opinion on this is that Microsoft
probably
delayed 64 bit Windows XP to give them enough time to port many
applications to 64 bit. The Windows 64 bit introduction will imo be much
more successful if there is plenty of 64 bit software available to go
along with it.
what does that have to do with that statement?

Do you think that 64bit will still be thought of as NEW in 3 years?
You guys are saying that the price of the 64 bit chips will remain the
same for three years? So buy NOW with limited stuff to do
Click to expand...

There is plenty of 32 bit bit software that runs great on an Athlon 64 or
Opteron.
The Athlon 64 is already inexpensive. An Athlon 64(socket 754) at around
$150
is around the same price as a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz which is only 32 bits.
 
OK so what if the price is so low you can't resist now......LOL it
will only go down, and the headaches decreased. MB variety INCREASED -
SOFTWARE availability INCREASED
Huge players in the worlds economy don't make huge mistakes. You may
think you have the whole story >ha ha jokes on Intel/AMD which ever
the flavor of the moment> but we only hear what is released. Things
are done for a reason.......64bit.......why not a completely NEW
platform,,,,,dare I say 128bit? or something completely unlike
anything before? Do you think Usenet people have all the inside, hell
no. Its our opinions and speculations. Even Intel/AMD employees don't
have all the info on any given project.

Obviously there are reasons to build NEW and paying high for the
bragging rights of 64bit. Without quoting prices its fair to say that
an athalon32 would be cheaper still and scream out 32bit processing,
so bang for the buck = using 64bit to run 32bit at a high price.
instead of a reasonable Intel or Athalon to do the same thing. Then 2
years from now you update your MB and CPU. In the box you have. MAYBE
even find a board that has dual processor support (64or32bit)...... I
can get outrageous too...........
 
LOL your very selective on what you chose to comment on...


That will probably change within 6-9 months with the release of the
64 bit version of Windows XP. My opinion on this is that Microsoft
probably
delayed 64 bit Windows XP to give them enough time to port many
applications to 64 bit. The Windows 64 bit introduction will imo be much
more successful if there is plenty of 64 bit software available to go
along with it.
Click to expand...


Hey YO!!!! anybody in there....that is merely AN OS,, whoopee so
what? play 64 bit solitaire? type a 64 bit letter?
 
JAD said:
OK so what if the price is so low you can't resist now......LOL it
will only go down, and the headaches decreased. MB variety INCREASED -
SOFTWARE availability INCREASED
Huge players in the worlds economy don't make huge mistakes. You may
think you have the whole story >ha ha jokes on Intel/AMD which ever
the flavor of the moment> but we only hear what is released. Things
are done for a reason.......64bit.......why not a completely NEW
platform,,,,,dare I say 128bit? or something completely unlike
anything before? Do you think Usenet people have all the inside, hell
no. Its our opinions and speculations. Even Intel/AMD employees don't
have all the info on any given project.

Obviously there are reasons to build NEW and paying high for the
bragging rights of 64bit. Without quoting prices its fair to say that
an athalon32 would be cheaper still and scream out 32bit processing,
Click to expand...

Not for demanding applications such as games, Photoshop, CAD, etc.
The Athlon 64 chips are faster than the 32 bit Athlon XP chips
at running 32 bit software not because of the 64 bit ability, but because

of the integrated memory controller(s), SSE2, and other refinements.
Look at these Doom 3 benchmarks for example.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
so bang for the buck = using 64bit to run 32bit at a high price.
Click to expand...

The price on the Athlon 64 3000+(socket 754) is quite low. Only around
$55 more than an Athlon XP3000+(okay, the socket 754 motherboard
is around $20-25 more than one for an Athlon XP).

The Athlon 64 3000+ outperforms an Athlon XP3000+ even at Business
Winstone 2004.

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

and by a much larger margin in more processor intensive software.



An Athlon 64 3000+(socket 754) is very close in price to a 32 bit Pentium
4 2.8 ghz,
so this nonsense about paying a high premium for a 64 bit processor
doesn't make much sense.
 
Freaking benchmarks......get over that old shit
I really really care about microseconds yeah right
 
Panorama Factory brand spanking new....so now RUN out and by all new
software..
,,, yes there is a main stream, piece of software. What did they do go
through a list of editors till they found one that fit there scheme or
maybe contacted the programmer and had it tweaked. And is it the
software making the microsecond differences or the CPU64bit? PERCENTS
ARE A FUNNY THING...used many times to cloud the issues.
what was the resolution of the output?
/cut and paste/

Conclusions and things that go bork

The benchmarks were executed on the bare operating systems. 64-bit
drivers are still in beta and not without problems. The clean install
of build 1069 of the Windows XP 64-bit evaluation OS produced the
predictably better results. The introduction of the nVIDIA NForce3
4.34a 64-bit chipset drivers threw the benchmark into a tailspin
producing consistently poor results. The 64-bit road will be good to
walk down but it's still under construction; nVIDIA left a few
potholes.

Panorama Factory demonstrates the advantages in speed and ability of
an application requiring large memory chunks in a 64-bit environment
versus a 32-bit environment.

64-bit computing will bring about speed increases to a number of
applications. It's just how much and with what application is yet to
be fully realized. The other exciting promise is the ability to
address more memory. Bigger chunks of data could mean better games or
increasingly sophisticated multimedia tools.

The lesson has been taught and class is dismissed. 64-bit means big
bites of big data. It's do more and do more right now. Because of the
increase in addressable memory a program that requires larger chunks
of memory to complete a task is faster in the 64-bit world; AMD's
world.

<<<<<<<<<<<<< forever? complete delusional thinking...very naive
either intentionally or they were dropped on their head at birth.
 
JAD said:
Panorama Factory brand spanking new....so now RUN out and by all new
software..
Click to expand...

Can you show me benchmarks for the Pentium 4 running video editing
software
that is a few years old compared to how an Athlon 64 runs it? Why is it
okay
to test the Pentium 4 using using new software, but not to test an Athlon
64
running new software?
,,, yes there is a main stream, piece of software. What did they do go
through a list of editors till they found one that fit there scheme or
maybe contacted the programmer and had it tweaked. And is it the
software making the microsecond differences or the CPU64bit? PERCENTS
ARE A FUNNY THING...used many times to cloud the issues.
what was the resolution of the output?
/cut and paste/

Conclusions and things that go bork

The benchmarks were executed on the bare operating systems. 64-bit
drivers are still in beta and not without problems. The clean install
of build 1069 of the Windows XP 64-bit evaluation OS produced the
predictably better results. The introduction of the nVIDIA NForce3
4.34a 64-bit chipset drivers threw the benchmark into a tailspin
producing consistently poor results. The 64-bit road will be good to
walk down but it's still under construction; nVIDIA left a few
potholes.
Click to expand...

In other words expect the 64 bit performance to be even better once better

drivers are available.
Panorama Factory demonstrates the advantages in speed and ability of
an application requiring large memory chunks in a 64-bit environment
versus a 32-bit environment.

64-bit computing will bring about speed increases to a number of
applications. It's just how much and with what application is yet to
be fully realized. The other exciting promise is the ability to
address more memory. Bigger chunks of data could mean better games or
increasingly sophisticated multimedia tools.

The lesson has been taught and class is dismissed. 64-bit means big
bites of big data. It's do more and do more right now. Because of the
increase in addressable memory a program that requires larger chunks
of memory to complete a task is faster in the 64-bit world; AMD's
world.

<<<<<<<<<<<<< forever? complete delusional thinking...very naive
either intentionally or they were dropped on their head at birth.
Click to expand...

That review is just a taste of things to come. Even when Intel drops
the price on its 64 bit Pentium 4, a version of the P4 with integrated
memory controllers might not be available for a very long time.

Take a look at this article.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1
 
man forget it.......you fail to see my point and at this point its
more like a phishing expedition.
Of course things get better of course things get cheaper when the
newness wears off
of course you can buy now deal with the headaches. Talk about 'bang'
and your willing to pay more NOW to FUTURE PROOF for later, for
something that has no variety NOW, but will GET BETTER next
year???????????????????????/
 
JAD said:
man forget it.......you fail to see my point
Click to expand...

What is your point? let's make specific comparisons, not just blanket
statements such as 64 bits is expensive, especially when that really
isn't the case.
and at this point its
more like a phishing expedition.
Of course things get better of course things get cheaper when the
newness wears off
of course you can buy now deal with the headaches. Talk about 'bang'
and your willing to pay more NOW
Click to expand...

An Athlon 64 3000+(socket 754) isn't more expensive than a
Pentium 4 2.8 ghz though.
 
is it more expensive that current 32 bit processors?

AMD sells cheaper CPUs I am not saying that they don't. so why
compare to a Intel chip? compare it to a state o the art 32bit AMD
cpu. My point is why are you drumming a 64 bit more expensive, proven
to have its BORKS, solution to run 32bit applications? You could get
BORKED at the git go, as your 400$ video card won't run under beta64.
But don't worry, shelve it till next year when YOU guarantee there
will be better drivers.
 
Ralph said:
Howdy!




a) Intel's been shipping a 64 bit processor. Sales stink. Because
it stinks for 32bit software (the place AMD outdid Intel)

b) 64bit Windows has been available since 2001 - for the Itanium
(Intel's 64 bit processor). Doesn't work with the AMD 64 extensions.

c) Intel has shot itself in the foot, true enough. No need to lie
or tell falsehoods about it ... better to just tell the truth.

RwP
Click to expand...

There's always more than one side to a story and I can hardly wait for the
arguments between those who think supporting 32 bit technology is great and
those wondering why the hell things are 'burdened' with supporting 'old'
archaic instruction sets instead of doing a 'proper', wholly new, 64 bit
processor.

Just as the debate raged over 'compatibility' through the i386 line.
 
JK said:
JAD wrote:




Very funny. Large amounts of 64 bit X86-64 software is in development
now.





HDTV sets are finally about to become affordable for the average person.
Some are predicting 32" lcd tv prices dropping to as low as $1,200 within
2005.
Click to expand...

I can see right off that your definition of "affordable for the average
person" and mine don't match up.
While $1,200 would still be considered a high price for a television

by many people, it is still affordable for large numbers of people, while
around $4,000 is totally out of the question for most people.




That will probably change within 6-9 months with the release of the
64 bit version of Windows XP. My opinion on this is that Microsoft
probably
delayed 64 bit Windows XP to give them enough time to port many
applications to 64 bit. The Windows 64 bit introduction will imo be much
more successful if there is plenty of 64 bit software available to go
along with it.
Click to expand...

Optimism is a wonderful thing to see.
 
JAD said:
is it more expensive that current 32 bit processors?

AMD sells cheaper CPUs I am not saying that they don't. so why
compare to a Intel chip?
Click to expand...

Okay. I could compare the Athlon 64 to the state of the art 32 bit cpu,
the Sempron 3100+, which is basically an Athlon 64 with half the L2
cache of the Athlon 64 and the 64 bit functions disabled. Since the
Sempron 3100+ is so close in price to an Athlon 64 2800+ or 3000+,
one may as well get the Athlon 64.
compare it to a state o the art 32bit AMD
cpu. My point is why are you drumming a 64 bit more expensive, proven
to have its BORKS
What?

, solution to run 32bit applications?
Click to expand...

It is a great processor for running 32 bit software.
You could get
BORKED at the git go, as your 400$ video card won't run under beta64.
What?


But don't worry, shelve it till next year
Click to expand...

What? One can run it now in 32 bit mode if they have a problem
running it under the beta Windows X64.
 
Back
Top