Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 31

Thread: Cacarulo: AMD or Pentium?

  1. #14
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: We agree, really :)

    > My assumption, being that Cacarulo is a
    > mathematician, is that time would be
    > important to him, thus, having the chip that
    > completes math calculations the fastest,
    > would be of more value.

    > As to other computing needs, there are many
    > cases for both AMD and Intel, e.g., for
    > someone who is to use a system for word
    > processing, some spreadsheets, an accounting
    > app, plus the internet and it's
    > applications, the AMD is economical and the
    > performance choice.

    > Also, the multimedia capabilities of the AMD
    > chips are on a par (and less expensive) than
    > the higher end Intel chips.

    > But back to math requirements, e.g.,
    > engineering, audio and video editing, again,
    > it's now Intel.

    > A year ago, they were the same. Now, Intel's
    > back on top.

    And how about AMD64? I have today the opportunity to buy an AMD64 3000 at the same price of an Pentium IV 3.0Ghz. I think this is a no branier but maybe I'm wrong.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  2. #15
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Sims

    > The P4 is disappointing for sims. AMD beats
    > it by a wider margin than published
    > benchmarks would indicate. I think it's
    > because of the triple integer units. But it
    > could be better branch prediction or bigger
    > L1 cache too. I'll try the prescott next
    > week to see if the larger caches and
    > pipeline make a difference.

    I've read somewhere that P4 with HT "disabled" is faster than when it is "enabled". Even in that case AMD beats P4 according to the benchmarks.
    What do you think of the AMD64?

    Cac

  3. #16
    bfbagain
    Guest

    bfbagain: Reference

    The best, and the oldest hardware site on the net is Tom's Hardware Guide.

    Here's a link to the conclusion of their Prescott review....

    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...escott-25.html

    And the conclusion of their Athlon64 3400 review..

    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...4_3400-35.html

    cheers
    bfb

  4. #17
    paranoid android
    Guest

    paranoid android: Re: My last AMD

    > If I ever decided for AMD I would pay
    > especial attention to the cooler

    For what it's worth, I've heard (it may or may not be fact) that AMD CPUs run cooler than Pentium 4's. So you should probably pay the same special attention to cooling if you get an Intel as well.

    I've also been thinking about upgrading my CPU/motherboard for about 6 months as well. The consensus I've heard is that you get more for the money with AMD over Intel.

    There's probably no right or wrong decision though. Both are good and the slight differences in speed probably won't be humanly noticable. I also doubt that either will melt on you.

  5. #18
    paranoid android
    Guest

    paranoid android: Re: We agree, really :)

    > And how about AMD64? I have today the
    > opportunity to buy an AMD64 3000 at the same
    > price of an Pentium IV 3.0Ghz. I think this
    > is a no branier but maybe I'm wrong.

    I think I'd go with the AMD64, especially if you run Linux since you can run your kernel optimized for the 64-bit architecture.

  6. #19
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: We agree, really :)

    > I think I'd go with the AMD64, especially if
    > you run Linux since you can run your kernel
    > optimized for the 64-bit architecture.

    Finally, I've decided for INTEL (PIV 3.0 Ghz Prescott). I've got a 3-year guarantee in my local store for this product but not for the other.

    I was not worried about linux but since I have to use windows for some other applications I didn't want to have any trouble.

    Cac

  7. #20
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: My last AMD

    > For what it's worth, I've heard (it may or
    > may not be fact) that AMD CPUs run cooler
    > than Pentium 4's. So you should probably pay
    > the same special attention to cooling if you
    > get an Intel as well.

    Will do.

    > I've also been thinking about upgrading my
    > CPU/motherboard for about 6 months as well.
    > The consensus I've heard is that you get
    > more for the money with AMD over Intel.

    > There's probably no right or wrong decision
    > though. Both are good and the slight
    > differences in speed probably won't be
    > humanly noticable. I also doubt that either
    > will melt on you.

    Totally agree.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  8. #21
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Reference

    > The best, and the oldest hardware site on
    > the net is Tom's Hardware Guide.

    > Here's a link to the conclusion of their
    > Prescott review....

    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...escott-25.html

    > And the conclusion of their Athlon64 3400
    > review..

    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...4_3400-35.html

    Thanks for the links! They really helped in my final decision.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

    PS: I know now who I'm going to blame :-)

  9. #22
    paranoid android
    Guest

    paranoid android: Re: We agree, really :)

    > Finally, I've decided for INTEL (PIV 3.0 Ghz
    > Prescott). I've got a 3-year guarantee in my
    > local store for this product but not for the
    > other.

    > I was not worried about linux but since I
    > have to use windows for some other
    > applications I didn't want to have any
    > trouble.

    There are no compatibility problems with AMD64 and Windows (that I've ever heard of). I was just pointing out that there are already 64-bit versions of the Linux kernel available. So if you're primarily running Linux, you should see better performance than the benchmarks run on Windows (which is 32-bit) indicate. When Windows comes out with their 64-bit version, you should see additional speed-up if you have a 64-bit CPU.

    Hopefully, I didn't confuse your decision further. After reading Tom's Hardware reviews, I think you're probably making the right decision going with Intel.

  10. #23
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Sims

    > I've read somewhere that P4 with HT
    > "disabled" is faster than when it
    > is "enabled".

    Interesting. I think I'll not try it and remain ignorant. I really like HT.

    > Even in that case
    > AMD beats P4 according to the benchmarks.
    > What do you think of the AMD64?

    No idea. I would guess that CVData wouldn't run that well given the low cycle time.

  11. #24
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Sims

    > Interesting. I think I'll not try it and
    > remain ignorant. I really like HT.

    It would be interesting to see how much better is and then go back to HT.

    > No idea. I would guess that CVData wouldn't
    > run that well given the low cycle time.

    That was one of my worries Glad I bought INTEL.

    Cac

  12. #25
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Tom's Hardware


    > There are no compatibility problems with
    > AMD64 and Windows (that I've ever heard of).
    > I was just pointing out that there are
    > already 64-bit versions of the Linux kernel
    > available. So if you're primarily running
    > Linux, you should see better performance
    > than the benchmarks run on Windows (which is
    > 32-bit) indicate. When Windows comes out
    > with their 64-bit version, you should see
    > additional speed-up if you have a 64-bit
    > CPU.

    You are probably right but I will feel more comfortable if I wait for a couple of years before going to AMD64. Besides, the recommended AMD64 processor was out of my budget.

    > Hopefully, I didn't confuse your decision
    > further. After reading Tom's Hardware
    > reviews, I think you're probably making the
    > right decision going with Intel.

    I'm not so sure about the reputation of Tom's Hardware. Check out this link:
    If what they say is true then it's too late

    Cac



  13. #26
    Karl D
    Guest

    Karl D: Would choose Athlon over P4

    Since AMD's processors require a significantly lower CPU clock frequency to achieve
    the same performance as Intel's processor I would expect the heating to be worse for Pentium 4.
    Also, the size of the on-chip caches matters a lot in the need for cooling.
    For simulation, I have noticed that a very cheap AMD Duron at 1.3 GHz outperforms an
    1.8 GHz Pentium 4.
    /
    Karl

    > For what it's worth, I've heard (it may or
    > may not be fact) that AMD CPUs run cooler
    > than Pentium 4's. So you should probably pay
    > the same special attention to cooling if you
    > get an Intel as well.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.