AMD Desktop Chips Edge Ahead Of Intel

24 Aug, 2004 at 10:10pm ET Article published in Tech

Advanced Micro Devices’ top-end desktop processors are faster than Intel’s for most applications, according to benchmarks from ZDNet Germany’s labs.

In a test, Intel’s Pentium 4 560 running at 3.6GHz and the 3.4GHz Pentium 4 550 failed to outperform alternatives from AMD. The Pentiums, both with the new Prescott core and 1MB of onboard Level 2 cache, were pitted against the Athlon 64 3800+ running at 2.4GHz and the 2.2GHz 3500+. The benchmarks indicated that the Athlon 64 has an advantage in office and Internet applications, and with 3D games, said Kai Schmerer, the senior editor who conducted the tests for ZDNet Germany, which is part of CNET Networks.

Source: ZD Net

Comments

25 Aug 2004 ~ 3:34am TheSmJ At first glance, I thought the subject ment AMD was ahead in sales...

I could dream though.
25 Aug 2004 ~ 7:49am deepsea With better performance and a lower price, it's only a matter of time. I guess that's the thinking behind the latest Intel price cuts...cut prices because we can't beat the performance....
25 Aug 2004 ~ 8:31am mmonnin The price cuts are coming because they are releasing faster high end chips. They lower everything else so they can put new chips on top.
25 Aug 2004 ~ 12:57pm Slacker A P4 3.6GHz vs A64 3800+ and a P4 3.4GHz vs A64 3500+ isn't exactly fair. They should have compared a P4 3.6GHz vs A64 3600+ instead.
25 Aug 2004 ~ 12:58pm entropy Well, honestly if you say that, then it just proves how much further ahead amd really is....
25 Aug 2004 ~ 2:37pm BlackHawk

Slacker wrote:

A P4 3.6GHz vs A64 3800+ and a P4 3.4GHz vs A64 3500+ isn't exactly fair. They should have compared a P4 3.6GHz vs A64 3600+ instead.

Technically the P4 3.6Ghz has a 1.2Ghz advantage over the A64 3800+. I don't see how that's not fair on AMD's part.
25 Aug 2004 ~ 3:42pm RWB

Black Hawk wrote:

Technically the P4 3.6Ghz has a 1.2Ghz advantage over the A64 3800+. I don't see how that's not fair on AMD's part.

True, true... plus it is just a rating, and not very accurate if you ask me.
25 Aug 2004 ~ 5:08pm Omega65

Slacker wrote:

A P4 3.6GHz vs A64 3800+ and a P4 3.4GHz vs A64 3500+ isn't exactly fair. They should have compared a P4 3.6GHz vs A64 3600+ instead.

There isn't a Athlon 64 3600+ (yet). Also historically when ZDnet/PC Mag/PC World do these type of comparisons they pit the Best chip vs the Best Chip. On the Socket 939 Platform (AMD's Best) the current choices are only the 3500+ (2.2ghz 512K), 3800+ (2.4ghz 512K) and the FX-53 (2.4ghz 1MB).

The corresponding chips on the Socket 754 (Single channel platform) are the 3200+ (2.2ghz 512K), 3400+ (2.4ghz 512K) and the 3700+ (2.4ghz 1MB). If ZDnet had chosen these chips, AMD still wou'd've won. On the A64 Dual channel only gives you 0-6% performance boost due to the onboard memory controller