Ridiculous column at CoolTechZone

[chainbolt]

Originally Posted by JimX

I just played Doom 3 on my friend's P4 3.4GHz system (not overclockable, crap mobo), with a Geforce 6600, and it was very noticably slower than my Athlon system even with the resolution set to 640 and AA turned off (compared to 800x600 and 4xAA on the Athlon which runs like a movie).

Sounds not right. There is no question that in gaming you have an advantage with an A64 - on paper. Doom 3 is almost entirely driven by your video card. If you use indeed similar priced products you will NEVER feel in Doom 3 any relevant difference. For "noticeable slower" you need a difference of at least 30%. Such as 50 fps to 70fps. And something like this I have never experienced when comparing AMD and Intel system in gaming. And who plays Doom3 in 800 x 600 anyway?


Here is what I got with several AMD and Intel test systems and that is very much in line with what you can find in any other test report:

http://www.overclockers.com.au/artic...?id=357950&P=4

[bphelan]

Any CPU more than $500 for home use is nuts, and Intel holds the Most Nuts Crown so far A nice 2.8 Dual P4 will make me happy as long as (a) They arrive this year and (b) The MB is $200 or less Now for those wondering why I say this, the AMD A64 X2 will be available very soon rather than soon now and the MBs are available and under $200. The CPU may cost $650+ but at least I can buy one by the end of June, heck, it looks as if I may be able to get one at the end of this month Not happy Intel

[Toasty]

Originally Posted by chainbolt

If that were true as a general statement, I would never buy a processor from such a company

He said efficiency, as in power/heat compared to grunt. Prescott is certainly less efficient than the current A64s in this respect. Dothan however is more efficient. I think it's pretty safe to say you have bought such a processor from such a company.

[stmok]

Originally Posted by chainbolt

If that were true as a general statement, I would never buy a processor from such a company The point here is relevance. If you get in Doom (for example), 102 fps with a A64 instead of 102 fps with a P4, it's irrelevant for me and almost any other user.

The point is NOT about relevance (that was more related to Point 5).
The point (Point 7) is about the most suitable product for the job.

In real life (outside the small enthusiasts market), the choice of CPU being used for projects is evaluated and determined if it meets the requirements set by the customer's needs.

Example : if both processors offer the same performance and the project requires that power consumption and heat production should be limited because of a confined space in application, do you still go for a P4? What about the cost to reach that performance compared to a competiting solution? How would you justify it to the managment folks upstairs? Do you write "Because I'm an Intel or AMD fanboi" and show them Doom III benchmarks?

BTW, the Doom III benchmark you threw in my face.
Sure, a 3.73Ghz equals a 3800+ in performance, but look at the price.

P4 EE 3.73GHz => $1515.00
A64 3800+ => $560.00
A64 FX-55 => $1260.00
(Prices from secret.com.au)

The P4EE 3.73Ghz and A64 3800+ perform the same,
and one costs 170% more than the other.

*sarcasm*
Wow, what an amazingly efficient use of money.
I think I will buy a P4 EE
*sarcasm*

I really would like to hear how one would justify spending money on a product to management and bean counters, if another product does the same job and costs FAR less. Better yet, show this to the average Jane/Joe PC user and see which they will go for.

To top it off, benchmarks tell people nothing about general system "feel". Very feel reviewers say which "feels snappier" for general use. In fact, I have yet to see two products been compared directly in a "close as possible" apples to apples comparison. (ie : both products are marketed on the same speed grade and class).

I chose my comments carefully in my first post, trying to be vendor neutral and not insight a flame war. You chose to toot your Intel horn. Sooner or later, people will get tired of it and not bother reading future posts. At this point, I'm not gonna bother posting in the Intel section of the forums anymore. I'm just gonna sit back and watch.

[chainbolt]

Originally Posted by stmok

BTW, the Doom III benchmark you threw in my face.
Sure, a 3.73Ghz equals a 3800+ in performance, but look at the price.

P4 EE 3.73GHz => $1515.00
A64 3800+ => $560.00
A64 FX-55 => $1260.00
(Prices from secret.com.au)

First of all, Australian pricing is intersting, but not the point when we discuss AMD and Intel in general. Here is a more relevant price chart from my last review:



In major markets like US and Japan a FX55 and 3.73 are just 10% apart. And given that a 3.73 beats a FX55 system in a majority of productivity benchmarks and has in the eyes of a majority of consumers a better brand and quality recognition, Intel can charge this obviously.

Secondly as I mentioned before: Performance under Doom 3 and any other newer 3D game I have tested is decided by the vidcad, not by your processor. Whether you use a P4 560, that gives you 87 fps or a A64 3800+ that gives you 97 fps in 1024 x 762 does not make any noticeable difference -And most ppl game anyway in higher resolutions, and then the difference is even smaller. Unless you are a hardcore gamer, you can slap in any P4 above 3 GHz, there isn't a noticeable difference.

Originally Posted by stmok

In real life (outside the small enthusiasts market), the choice of CPU being used for projects is evaluated and determined if it meets the requirements set by the customer's needs.

That is what I am preaching in this forum since 5 years. However, a system is not only selected by the processor, which is actually quite irrelevant for most users you mention. Its decided by the functionality if offers, such as PCI vs. PCI-E, native RAID and integrated RAID functions, 8-channel sound, wireless LAN, Firewire 800, number of ports/sockets, and such things, and of course pricing.

The decision for the normal user is anyway done by an OEM. They decide what the market "buys". And for them reliability and stability are vital considerations, because service and warranty cost can easily turn a razor-thin calculated profit margin into a loss. And we all know who these companies are favoring in this regard.

[JimX]

Originally Posted by chainbolt

Sounds not right. There is no question that in gaming you have an advantage with an A64 - on paper. Doom 3 is almost entirely driven by your video card. If you use indeed similar priced products you will NEVER feel in Doom 3 any relevant difference. For "noticeable slower" you need a difference of at least 30%. Such as 50 fps to 70fps. And something like this I have never experienced when comparing AMD and Intel system in gaming. And who plays Doom3 in 800 x 600 anyway?

I don't understand. I posted a real life example of something I did, and you say that Athlons only have a paper advantage in games? And you then go on to quote some paper benchmarks?

Meh, it doesn't bother me that you are insulting my chosen resolution of choice. I play Doom in 800x600 because I only have a Geforce 6600, not because my Athlon 64 is slower than a Pentium 4. Let's just ignore the price of a P4 3.73 EE for now. Like I said, I was sure I could get something from Intel that would beat my Athlon in game frame rates, and you backed me up there

[Whisper]

Well I will always take a slower in benchmarks but more stable computer over a faster in benchmarks but unstable computer any day.

If you want to be a cheap arsed AMD fan boy fine, go into your forum and look at all the people asking this and that questions about how to solve stability problems.

Then visit every other Hardware site on the Internet that caters for both Intel and AMD and go check their forums for which CPU attracts the most posts with people requesting solutions to their problems.

Quality costs, especially when you are discussing the complete package, but nobody ever whats to talk about THAT!

[BloodDonor]

Originally Posted by Whisper

Well I will always take a slower in benchmarks but more stable computer over a faster in benchmarks but unstable computer any day.

If you want to be a cheap arsed AMD fan boy fine, go into your forum and look at all the people asking this and that questions about how to solve stability problems.

Then visit every other Hardware site on the Internet that caters for both Intel and AMD and go check their forums for which CPU attracts the most posts with people requesting solutions to their problems.

Quality costs, especially when you are discussing the complete package, but nobody ever whats to talk about THAT!

both AMD and intel make nice cpus

what makes me smile, is AMD make a less expensive, better performing CPU MHz to MHz

imagine whatd happen if AMD actually produced a 3.8GHz A64 right now (assuming the design was capable of such a speed)

Intel would die

[chainbolt]

Originally Posted by BloodDonor

what makes me smile, is AMD make a less expensive, better performing CPU MHz to MHz

Don't forget to look into the mirror when you smile Nobody compares AMD and Intel processors by MHz, not even AMD.

[-=N0N@ME420=-]

Originally Posted by chainbolt

Don't forget to look into the mirror when you smile Nobody compares AMD and Intel processors by MHz, not even AMD.

I'm fairly sure that is why cyrix invented teh pentium rating system, that way when peeps are like "I'd like a fast computer" we can say "there is level 1, that is for newbs, and then theres level 2, that is also for newbs, then there is uber lvl 3, that is for the uber l33t" so then amd went and said, hold up, we has teh fast0r pr0cess0r and y3t teh inte1 scum are still selling teh pr0cess0rs, we n33d a b1gger numb3r.

And so the AMD 1400+ was invented.

[Aetherone]

Originally Posted by Whisper

Then visit every other Hardware site on the Internet that caters for both Intel and AMD and go check their forums for which CPU attracts the most posts with people requesting solutions to their problems.

might that perspective be a little skewed by the target audiences preferece for lower budget, but percieved higher benefit CPU's?
Personally I maintain that either CPU is perfectly stable and problem free if the right peripheral choices are made.
AMD or Intel makes no difference if the surrounding componants (esp the mobo chipset) are rubbish.

Aeth..

[chainbolt]

Originally Posted by Whisper

Then visit every other Hardware site on the Internet that caters for both Intel and AMD and go check their forums for which CPU attracts the most posts with people requesting solutions to their problems.

What do you want to say here? That AMD user have more problems? Or that more forum goers are using AMD than Intel processors? Forum users are such a small group that it really does not matter anyway

The people who know most about durability, stability, and reliability are certainly the big OEMs. They represent probably 98% of the desktop market and only very few of their buyers will ever populate a forum. And we know who the OEMs are preferring.

[chainbolt]

Originally Posted by JimX

I don't understand. I posted a real life example of something I did, and you say that Athlons only have a paper advantage in games? And you then go on to quote some paper benchmarks?

The results I posted are not paper benchmarks, these are results achieved by me with several A64 and P4 processors - did you actually check out the source?

The point is that with the videocard so dominant for contemporary 3D games, you do NOT get an actually user noticeable difference between a P4 and a A64 at similar price points - although there is no doubt that you achieve better fsp with the A64. There is also not doubt that a gaming enthusiast will of course go for the processor that delivers the most fps. I get a lot of requests for recommendations, and I awlays recommend an A64 system for somebody who tells me that his main purpose is gaming. Yet the fact remains a fact: I have never noticed any actually difference when playing DOOM 3 or HL2 with similar priced A64 or P4.

[Varuna]

I agree with Chainbolt. My experience with nvidia and via chipsets hasnt been encouraging, most of them have a lot of rather serious bugs.

I would be hesitant to put them in a production environment.

[Deja Vu]

Originally Posted by Whisper

If you want to be a cheap arsed AMD fan boy fine, go into your forum and look at all the people asking this and that questions about how to solve stability problems.

Then visit every other Hardware site on the Internet that caters for both Intel and AMD and go check their forums for which CPU attracts the most posts with people requesting solutions to their problems.

Quality costs, especially when you are discussing the complete package, but nobody ever whats to talk about THAT!

I also wonder which has more posts in general and which has on average more people viewing? Add this to the fact that i would say there would be a greater amount of people here trying to get the best out of their chip. As well as the fact that AMD has a new system for overclocking and whatnot with the athlon 64's no-wonder you are getting more posts.

Also good luck adding up quality costs.