Intel will be releasing their new P4 3ghz chip before Xmas and AMD are 1ghz away from this so far, there is speculation that they may have finacial problems? anyone clarify this??

Tony

 

From : http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/27658.html

- Jon

 

Clock speed (i.e Ghz or Mhz) doesn't necessarily mean that the chips perform the same like for like. I.e An AMD 2600+ is as quick if not quicker than an equivalent P4 2.6Ghz but it doesn't run at 2.6Ghz.

If you put an AMD up against an Intel chip like for like, the AMD will **** on it time after time and they are also much cheaper.

Shame if they did go under though.

Marc

 

3ghz not alot when they already have a 2.8 out!!


3.6 is aimed for next easter

Si

 

AMD 2700+ with the new chipset from nvidia is currently the fastest AMD at the moment and it can be just as fast as the intel P4 2.8!

 

Lies, damn lies and benchmarks...

Pick and choose your tests and an Intel fan can trumpet the P4 kicking the Athlon's ***. AMD fan can laugh at the Intel camp on other benchmarks.

Although the Mhz race is largely pointless now (bar the gamers market place), but having AMD vs Intel keeps the market honest IMHO.

[Edited by ChrisB - 10/27/2002 9:39:47 PM]

 

for the overclocking POV, Intel is better. More Robust core

 

From http://www.tomshardware.com/ :


The benchmark results prove that with its Athon XP 2800+ plus the nForce2 chipset, AMD can take back the performance crown. Above all, because the Front Side Bus clock has been increased from 133 MHz to 166 MHz, the CPU can take full advantage of the higher bandwidth of the nForce2 chipset with Dual DDR333.


http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q4/021001/index.html

- Jon

[Edited by scoob_dood - 10/28/2002 5:12:25 PM]

 

You forgot the key clause though....

You can't get an XP2800 till next year. I can have a P4 2.8Ghz set on my desk tomorrow.

A paper launch and good reviews on a web site don't equal cash in the bank. It could stomp all over the P4 and be 50% quicker at everything (P4 wins the OpenGL benchmarks, Athlon is quicker at some DX games - proves my point above) but it's fap all use if it's not on the shelf.

[Edited by ChrisB - 10/28/2002 5:18:18 PM]

 

Gotta agree with ChrisB. As things stand I will be going back to Pentium Power for my next PC after going the AMD route this time.

Simon.

 

Im going out a limb here, doesnt the AMD chips have compatability issues aswell??

Also how many business use AMD?

i think intel does something right

Si

 

yeah but isnt AMD coming out with a 2GHz 64 bit chip whilst Intel is wallowing with a 1Ghz chip. Rumour has it that companies like nVidia ( who have a pretty sizeable server farm ) are looking to move to AMD on the server platform?? Thats a pretty HUGE market to crack.

 

Businesses don't buy them pure and simply because they aren't educated about them. It comes back to the old Microsoft monopoly scenario. How many people are starting to use Linux nowadays? People didn't before because they didn't know much about it and it was easier just to go with Microsoft. I go with AMD because

(1) I'm sick of tired of monopolies like Intel and Microsoft
(2) Cos they're miles cheaper than Intel for just about the same performance.
(3) Cos i like to be different.

But hey we all like different things for different reasons so....


Marc

[Edited by marxsmann - 10/28/2002 9:17:26 PM]

 

on the flip side to the above, i've always had intel before running my last two athlons and yes they are cheap but the hassle gettng them running (temperature issues, conflicts on motherboards with certain devices etc) makes the intels a walk in the park by comparison in my exp.

If i'd charged my hourly rate for the time taken to purchase and build an intel and an amd the intel would work out far cheaper.

Back to intel for me next time.

 

Have to agree with ptholt. I've been using an AMD 1.4ghz for a year now, at the time the benchmarks were looking a lot more favourable for the AMD and that was compared to a 1.8 Intel.

But overheating issues have been untollerable in the summer, even with upgraded fans and an open case. I'll probably be going back to Intel, despite the extra price.

As for monopolies, I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. If the product is better/cheaper/supported, then it gets my cash. Can we really blame Microsoft for making the best programs on the market? XP is genius, a real giant leap in homebased OS's. IE is simply the king of browsers, the sooner Netscape stop making them the better. As for Office, well, has anyone had the misfortune of having to use Lotus? It's abysmal.

Cem

 

Imo overheating with Ath's is 'usually' down to incorrect fitment (no matter what folk tell you when you say they 'have' fitted the chip correctly).

Ath's are more of a hobbyist choice requiring more knowledge to get right, bought in order to get more bangs per buck and because Intel seriously overpriced their chips in the past and still do so to some extent. £500 for a desktop 'home' processor is a complete joke. The only way OEM's manage this is by charging the earth for thier PC's or fitting crap hardware in the rest of the sys.

The setup and fitment of any AMD chip will always reflect this. Unless you use 'decent' thermal paste applied as intended and not with a trowel, 'and' make sure your heatsink/fan combo is bang on and square to the die then forget it.

I run a 2.2 Ath with Zalman Flower H/S and offboard 120mm fan (not the most effective cooling combo but v quiet) and I OC it running a fsb of 145 mhz with increased voltages, I also have a v hot running 9700 Pro, all installed in a Lian-li case with switchable fan speeds. I never get temps over 44 degrees C under load, even in the summer or with the central heating blasting away. Idle is usually 32. Ambient case temps should always be inspected if overheating is suspected and crappy cases are usually the prob imo.

Having your case open doesnt give you any negative pressure and therefore wont help temps that much unless you also have a massive desk fan blowing over your mobo etc.



[Edited by SAMH - 10/29/2002 4:23:05 PM]

 

I think that 167 quid for a P4 2.4ghz 533fsb and 512kb cashe is quite reasonable so i dont think its over priced.
As for Nvidia going more towards the AMD chips.... hmmmmm well i think that due to Intel doing more chipsets than AMD (as AMD dont do chipsets) it would be against their interest to do so (but ATI may do?).

Tony
(keep this one going for a while )

 

They do. The original SMP Athlon boards are AMD 760 (or is it 761) chipsets.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a none Intel chipset motherboard for a P4.

 

im not going to even comment

 

Being an owner of both Pentium & AMD chips I would always choose AMD over Pentium for personal systems purely due to price.

I use a 2.2GHz P4 and a AMD XP 2200, I can't really notice any difference between the two if i'm honest.

 

of course AMD do chipsets, most AMD boards used Via (crap) but both my AMD PC's use 760 and 761 respectively. And £440 or thereabouts for a P4 2.8 is just extracting the urine imo

[Edited by SAMH - 10/30/2002 2:16:11 PM]

 

Intel chips are great for those who want to overclock 'em only because they've got thermal management whereas the amd's thermal management is rather limited: it'll stop working permanently if it overheats

I don't know of any compatability issues with AMD.

 

me either i have built lots of amd based machines and they have all been fine, same with intel except the price is too high for the 2.8Ghz. Via chipsets aint exactly crap for amd machines they were the best you could get until amd got their finger out with their own. Dell are looking to start supplying AMD chips now in their machines AMD chips are starting to be used in huger server farms and other super computers so you cant really dish out that much grief to AMD they are doing a damn good job with their cpu's after coming from basically nowhere into a market that was a total monopoly.
if you remember Intel have had some very big compatibility issues in their time.

All the Intel chip troopers should just calm down and the same to the Gorilla AMD fans, just enjoy the competition and the cheaper prices

 

Other way round IMO.

Me thinks you've been lucky having no VIA / AMD issuest too.

Shave at least £100 of £440 for the current 2.8Ghz price.

 

why have i been lucky i just build machines using good components and keep upto date with drivers no need to be a rocket scientist.


what do you mean thats the wrong way around ????

 

hmmm some interesting comments.

My amd prior to this which was a complete mare a 1.4, running on a abit kt7a-raid board (not exactly crap at time of release) and if you went and looked in the newsgroups for the first 2-3 months of this boards life you would see a list of components like a family of fours tesco shopping receipt of hardware compatability issues with certain bios etc.

Basically it was a lottery, do i go for most recent and get creative soundblaster support but loose something else, or change the sound card to something else just so i can get something else to work.

Was a total farce and the bits i was installing were all pretty recognised brand names and had reviewed highly, yet it was still a mess.

Get an intel board, chuck the bits on, fires up.
No messing around with sci-soft sandra checking temps etc, no changing bios version every few days hoping some other hardware would stop clashing.

at the time the abit board was definately bleeding edge, not leading edge.

 

ah but you see that wasnt a chipset problem was it ?? nope it was a M/B problem the other boards using the same chipset were ok.

Thing is i dont like either company but i dont hate them either i just hate everything IT (i suppose that why i work in IT)

 

the point i was making though was in 12 years ive never had ani usse like that with ANY intel chips/board combo's.

ive only ever had 2 amds and similar issues with both!

 

ah well tis a shame just do what i did get rid of the blooby PC (old dual 233 P2 refusing to boot up so out the window it went)

 

There's known issues with VIA chipsets, Audigy sound cards and various GeForces in the past.