Intel is now the better choice...for the same reason AMD once was!

I

InorganicMatter

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
15,461
I always find it ironic when the tables turn. AMD guys have always said that AMD was the better choice because you could buy it for less than Intel and then overclock it to be faster than the more expensive Intel. Observe:

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/fx60/quake4.htm
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116240
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103608

$250 difference...for two extra frames...and the Intel can easily be overclocked to outperform the more expensive AMD.

Is my logic correct? Flawed? Discuss.

I put this in Intel Processors since a flame war is almost gauranteed if I put it in the correct forum (AMD), but if the mods think it should be moved please do so.
 
FX line is overpriced like the P4EEs.

I dont think AMD has lost its edge, the 4800+ can hold its own, or just get any X2 and OC it.

I just wonder about the next gen when all these talked about chips come out. I think Intel is gonna step up this time around.

More leapfrog, so hopefully a price war :)
 
YARDofSTUF said:
FX line is overpriced like the P4EEs.
Click to expand...
You forget that for the last two years AMD guys have said "the 3000+ overclocks faster than the P4EE!!!11!" Now suddenly we can't compare the regular line to the enthusiast line because of the price difference? I think not.

And yes, a price war would be real nice :cool:
 
sac_tagg said:
You forget that for the last two years AMD guys have said "the 3000+ overclocks faster than the P4EE!!!11!" Now suddenly we can't compare the regular line to the enthusiast line because of the price difference? I think not.

And yes, a price war would be real nice :cool:
Click to expand...


You can, but why can't you also compare the 4800+?

I paid somewhere around $500 for my 4400+ and I can run 2.7ghz. Compare that against the FX adn EE line.
 
nice try !!!!!!... but the correct chip to compare the 950 is the 4800, the fx60 compares to the 955. the 4800 costs 630.
 
YARDofSTUF said:
FX line is overpriced like the P4EEs.

I dont think AMD has lost its edge, the 4800+ can hold its own, or just get any X2 and OC it.

I just wonder about the next gen when all these talked about chips come out. I think Intel is gonna step up this time around.

More leapfrog, so hopefully a price war :)
Click to expand...
nuff said
 
i'm an amd-only guy, but price wars will benefit all of us, especially since it looks like intel has something worth a damn on the desktop lately. i say, go price wars.
 
Just buy an opteron 165 and overclock it to 2.8-30Ghz, I've seen many people do it. But i'll be honest the 920 is a cheap alternative to Athlon X2 or opteron 165. That new 910 proc (or whatever they are calling it) that will run at 2.5Ghz~ thats duel core with a 533Mhz FSB for $150~ is very tempting just for a file server, or a cheap HTPC. I think AMD should come out with a Athlon X2 @ 1.6 with 512K L2 for $150-200.
 
It is cool that Intel is unlocking the EE line. Makes it nice & easy for a complete noob to overclock via multiplier only. And can be done even with (some) OEM systems!!

Makes me want one (if it wasn't so expensive), but truthfully I would probably just lower it to 14x and crank up the FSB, same as my 920. Though it would be nice to have the flexibility of an unlocked multiplier.
 
santaliqueur said:
i'm an amd-only guy
Click to expand...

Why? Why not just get w/e just happens to be the best, be it AMD now, possibly someone else in the future? Do you own substantial amounts of AMD stock, or does your entire family work there? Other than that, no real reason to be exclusive... esp if Conroe comes out and whoops AMDs ass...
 
Its always gonna go back and forth, this and that................Just play with what makes you happy................and I agree....price wars would benefit any and all...!!
 
why does everyone always compare a non fx/ee chip to one? you can oc the fx60 too..

a better comparison would be something like a 920 for $260 oc'ed to 3.6 to 3.8 vs a $300 165 @ 2.6 - 2.8 the opteron would probably be faster by a little.. but it also costs $40 more..
 
Good OC'ing intel boards still cost more than good AMD boards, it seems. Unless there are Intel boards that can bring a 3.0ghz chip to 4.6GHz for $99? (You can get a DFI nF4 Infinity board that can hit 400MHz HTT for about $89 to $99, $129 or so for the SLI versrion) Most of the recommended Intel OC'ing boards are $200 to $300 Asus 955X and 975X boards. 'Course, the lower price of DDR2 negates part of this.

I'm actually thinking of getting an Intel based system soon, since I've already done everything there is to do on Socket 939. Athlon 64's, X2's, Opteron single cores, and Opteron dual cores. My DDR is going bad, and I want to play with DDR2. Socket AM2 wont offer anything exciting until Q1/07 so right now, I'd say Intel is something to pay attention to. It's been about 3 years since they've done anything innovative for desktop performance.
 
santaliqueur said:
i'm an amd-only guy, but price wars will benefit all of us, especially since it looks like intel has something worth a damn on the desktop lately. i say, go price wars.
Click to expand...

I'm a whatever-gets-me-the-best-performance-for-my-budget guy. Which has been AMD for far too long. I haven't had an Intel since my Celeron 300A. I wouldn't mind seeing AMD stay dominant for a while, just to bring a bit more parity to the OEM sector, but I also wouldn't mind seeing an Intel chip worth a damn for gaming. The Conroe has me interested at least, which hasn't happened in a very long time.

As for the original post. Apples and oranges, and only in one game. Not really worth much.
 
I'm surprised nobody is even mentioning this yet.

This is at 16x12. Of course it's not gonna be more than a few % pts off.

It's freakin GPU limited at that resolution. All that is important is that the CPU is at or beyond the threshold of being able to FEED the GPU. Kinda like the 3000+ vs. 3500+ vs. FX-53. While the 3000+ was maybe 10-15FPS lower at high resolutions, the 3500+ already fed the GPU sufficiently and obviously the FX-53 is +/- less than a percent.
 
The closer the performance on both sides, the better it is for us consumers :) Im glad intel is getting their act together after such an embarressment (netburst).
 
sac_tagg said:
I always find it ironic when the tables turn. AMD guys have always said that AMD was the better choice because you could buy it for less than Intel and then overclock it to be faster than the more expensive Intel.
Click to expand...
"AMD guys" have said AMD was the better choice because AMD's performed better, and were cheaper. Also, overclocks yield more performance per mhz, since AMD's are clocked lower.

Observe:

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/fx60/quake4.htm
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116240
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103608

$250 difference...for two extra frames...and the Intel can easily be overclocked to outperform the more expensive AMD.
Click to expand...
AMD still performs better ;)
I don't think the FX60 should have been used in the benchmark. Or at least an X2 4800+ should have been included also, because those cost less than the intel, and are only 200mhz less than the FX60.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103544 - $630
$85 difference... for possibly equal frames or at most a few fps difference ... and AMD's can be overclocked too!
I was able to get my $280 opteron 165 overclocked to 2700mhz... I'm guessing the processor that comes stock 600mhz more than mine, might be able to break 3ghz which is not bad
Is my logic correct? Flawed? Discuss.
Click to expand...
yeah, I think it's flawed. If you're going to judge processors based on price, at least include a processor from both sides that are in a close price range. Even if the 4800+ is worse than the intel.. it should be included since it's not much worse than the FX60 (only 200mhz), but costs a lot less.

BTW, I'm not an AMD fan boy or anything. I go for the best solution for my price range, and that has been AMD for a long time. I just don't think this is a fair comparison.
 
sure, the 950 might only be marginally slower than the FX-60, and it is more expensive than the 4800, but consider the fact that the 920 is being OC'ed on average way, way, way faster than the 3.4ghz of the 950 (more than 1.1ghz faster), yet is way cheaper than any dual core except the 820. Now consider that the X2 3800 usually only hits around 2.4ghz OCed. I'm sorry, but that 4.5ghz 920 OC'ed is a way better value than the 2.4ghz AMD... esp when you consider that the 920 is using DDR2, so the RAM isn't obsolete, and the platform *might* be upgradeable to Conroe. If not... well, at least you can still transplant your RAM over, same cant be said about AMD right now....

I just think bang for buck/performance is all Intel right now. I just cant help but feel like it iwll be a bloodbath for AMD once Conroe and Merom are out.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
sure, the 950 might only be marginally slower than the FX-60, and it is more expensive than the 4800, but consider the fact that the 920 is being OC'ed on average way, way, way faster than the 3.4ghz of the 950 (more than 1.1ghz faster), yet is way cheaper than any dual core except the 820. Now consider that the X2 3800 usually only hits around 2.4ghz OCed. I'm sorry, but that 4.5ghz 920 OC'ed is a way better value than the 2.4ghz AMD... esp when you consider that the 920 is using DDR2, so the RAM isn't obsolete, and the platform *might* be upgradeable to Conroe. If not... well, at least you can still transplant your RAM over, same cant be said about AMD right now....

I just think bang for buck/performance is all Intel right now. I just cant help but feel like it iwll be a bloodbath for AMD once Conroe and Merom are out.
Click to expand...

Slips off chair and slams chin on desk, LOL!

QFT! I was going to post something very similar but now I don't need to.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
sure, the 950 might only be marginally slower than the FX-60, and it is more expensive than the 4800, but consider the fact that the 920 is being OC'ed on average way, way, way faster than the 3.4ghz of the 950 (more than 1.1ghz faster), yet is way cheaper than any dual core except the 820. Now consider that the X2 3800 usually only hits around 2.4ghz OCed. I'm sorry, but that 4.5ghz 920 OC'ed is a way better value than the 2.4ghz AMD... esp when you consider that the 920 is using DDR2, so the RAM isn't obsolete, and the platform *might* be upgradeable to Conroe. If not... well, at least you can still transplant your RAM over, same cant be said about AMD right now....

I just think bang for buck/performance is all Intel right now. I just cant help but feel like it iwll be a bloodbath for AMD once Conroe and Merom are out.
Click to expand...

4.5Ghz is the average overclock for these chips? Do we have an overclocking database for it?

Also does not a good overclocking board for a 920D cost upwards of $200? I'm not up on Intel chips at the moment.
 
i personally just don't like Intel's old mentality of more mhz=performance. they've contradicted themselves with the Pentium-M cpu's. I just dont like long pipline count and low IPC.

Efficient processors FTW! be it AMD or Intel
 
Stellar said:
4.5Ghz is the average overclock for these chips? Do we have an overclocking database for it?

Also does not a good overclocking board for a 920D cost upwards of $200? I'm not up on Intel chips at the moment.
Click to expand...

4.5+ Ghz is what people are hitting with the 6_1's Cedarmills (single core)

with the 900's Presler (dual cores) more people are usually "only" hitting 4Ghz.

My 920 does 3.95Ghz on default voltage and high end air cooling.
Granted I could probably crank up the voltage & get higher. But I'm content enough with 3.9Ghz for now.

http://www.crowdcontrolusa.com/overclock/shizzy2.html
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
Now consider that the X2 3800 usually only hits around 2.4ghz OCed. I'm sorry, but that 4.5ghz 920 OC'ed is a way better value than the 2.4ghz AMD... esp when you consider that the 920 is using DDR2, so the RAM isn't obsolete, and the platform *might* be upgradeable to Conroe. If not... well, at least you can still transplant your RAM over, same cant be said about AMD right now....
Click to expand...

1. you forget that AMD has the mem contorler on the CPU DDR2 isnt realy needed
2. ill bet my PC that you will need a new mobo atlest for Conroe
3. 2.5 is the avg for the 3800+ with good cooling were 4.0 is the avg with good cooling for the 920
 
Robstar said:
Dual 265's should own all and be cheaper than a 955EE setup.
Click to expand...

Provided you ignore the $400 motherboard needed for those CPU's and the extra cost of Reg'd RAM.

But two 265's would be awesome for DVD shrink. Games wouldnt be too terribly fast, and 940 sucks for OC'ing :(
 
robberbaron said:
Provided you ignore the $400 motherboard needed for those CPU's and the extra cost of Reg'd RAM.

But two 265's would be awesome for DVD shrink. Games wouldnt be too terribly fast, and 940 sucks for OC'ing :(
Click to expand...

Games with SMP/SMT awareness might see a healthy boost from a dual-265 system. Also, the new (81.XX) Forceware drivers will probably be able to help out as well.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
Why? Why not just get w/e just happens to be the best, be it AMD now, possibly someone else in the future? Do you own substantial amounts of AMD stock, or does your entire family work there? Other than that, no real reason to be exclusive... esp if Conroe comes out and whoops AMDs ass...
Click to expand...
i dont ask if you intel-only guys own a ton of stock, or if your famlies work at intel. you need to understand that people dont always agree with you.

i'm an amd only guy because in my opinion, the P4 has been pathetic at best. there is some good intel stuff coming out now, but i'm not interested at the moment, because when my current machine is maxed out, i'll have quad cores and 16 GB ram. barring any significant hardware failures, i wont need another machine for 7 years or so. if not for the smoking hot tech tour server combo i bought, i'd still be using my athlon xp 1700+, and loving it. unless the next hot game requires hardware beyond what i currently have, i wont be considering intel (or amd) for a long time. and i'd probably only upgrade for a game in the half-life series, so it may be more than my 7 year estimate :)

my 'amd only' comment refers to desktop only, i bought my first laptop a few months ago, with the pentium M 750. the thing rocks. i'm certainly not anti-intel, i just bought who was currently king at the time. no way i was going to buy a turion when the pentium M was so sweet. a company with such resources can only be behind for so long, but i do love my opterons.
 
robberbaron said:
Provided you ignore the $400 motherboard needed for those CPU's and the extra cost of Reg'd RAM.

But two 265's would be awesome for DVD shrink. Games wouldnt be too terribly fast, and 940 sucks for OC'ing :(
Click to expand...


You can get an MSI, ASUS, TYAN for like 200-240.
 
Intel will have a lead for a few short months this year. AMD will release 65nm products and Intel will be in the doghouse due to performance/watt again. Intel's current 65nm products are just catching up to AMD's 90nm. I personally don't care what anyone runs in their computer. To each his own...
 
what intel needs is on die mem contorler then i could see them realy giving AMD a fight but till then matching AMDs speed is the best intel is going to be able to do
i will say intels mobile chips kick all ass AMD needs to work on getting better batt. life
 
freeloader1969 said:
Intel will have a lead for a few short months this year. AMD will release 65nm products and Intel will be in the doghouse due to performance/watt again. Intel's current 65nm products are just catching up to AMD's 90nm. I personally don't care what anyone runs in their computer. To each his own...
Click to expand...
Actually, by the time AMD does full 65nm, Intel will be on the 45nm process. They are scheduled to ramp up the 45nm process next year. Some say 2008, but Intel says 2007. And in 2007, Intel will be firing all of its funs like it will be this year, but next year, they will have quad core. AMD will too, but when it comes to mass production, Intel kind of wins there. The lack of an integrated memory controller is bad, but it could be worse. The shared L2 and direct L1 to L1 connects allows for communication between the cores w/o having go to through the FSB. The quad cores are going to be seperate dies, but i'm inclined to think there will be a core to core communication system that does not involve the FSB.
 
My choice:
Mobile: Pentium-M by far, or dual core
Desktop/Server: Opteron/athlon64. No contest.
Cheap/lowend: Tossup. Athlon64 for non-sff, intel for sff
 
Robstar said:
My choice:
Mobile: Pentium-M by far, or dual core
Desktop/Server: Opteron/athlon64. No contest.
Cheap/lowend: Tossup. Athlon64 for non-sff, intel for sff
Click to expand...
I agree, but lowend it's usually pretty easy to get a cheap Sempron + budget mobo, better than a celeron.
 
freeloader1969 said:
Intel will have a lead for a few short months this year. AMD will release 65nm products and Intel will be in the doghouse due to performance/watt again. Intel's current 65nm products are just catching up to AMD's 90nm. I personally don't care what anyone runs in their computer. To each his own...
Click to expand...

Umm.... Intels next desktop line is based around a mobile processor. Do you really think that AMD's desktop can compare to an Intel Mobile processor in the wattage dept? If you do can you pass me some of what you're smoking. It's been a rough day and I could use some release. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top