-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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 :-)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks