Which is Better ? Intel or AMD ? My experience

MissilemanMissileman Orlando, Florida Icrontian
edited February 2004 in Hardware
It's the age old question isn't it? Since I have 2 of the top boards right now (see sig) I though I'd give you what I found during my change over.

I have always been a non Intel user (AMD, Cyrix). I never keep a setup more than a few months. I had been running the NF7 board for a few months. It ran quite well and was always high in the benchmarks. As I posted in another thread I was getting a barely noticeable stuttering in 3D games. It was frustrating me to no end. At that time I had the RAID-0 and the 9800 Pro the NF7. I decided to give Intel a go since the available bandwidth was so much higher on the 875 boards so I ordered the IC7-MAX3. (Then I found the problem, but it was to late). Here's what I found during the change over.

The Intel with a 2.6C at stock speeds beats the O/C Barton 2500+. With a 2.6B processor they are virtually identical except in memory bandwidth. Intel always does almost double the NF7 on Sandra Memory bandwidth. Of course the NF7 is already O/C so it really is behind at stock speed. (I never ran my 2500+ stock).

When I did my intial setup the only thing that changed was MB and processor. Everything else remained the same.

In Aquamark the NF7 got 38,593. The IC7 with the B processor got 39,126. The C processor got 40,257. It gets over 44k now that it is overclocked.
3Dmark2001 and 2003 followed an identical pattern (don't remember exact figures).

Sandra Memory bandwidth on the NF7 was in the 3500 realm while the IC7 was always over 5000 and went higher when I went to the higher latentcy RAM (whole nother post).

Disk performance was better on the Intel controller over the Sillicon one in both burst and sustained.

Real world use, you couldn't really tell the difference. Bang for the buck easily goes to the AMD.

AMD's rating system in this case seems to be pretty close overall.

I have to say I like the IC7 better right now since I have it. It benches slightly higher than the 64 bit AMD's in most cases where it counts. Hyper-threading appears to give about a 5% boost, but in real world use it is nice to be browsing the web, doing a virus scan, spyware scan, and typing email all at once and have the machine act like it is still idling at the desktop.

I know this will stir up some issues and you can probably find articles or numbers going the other way. I am just stating what I found for general interest. I was very careful in using the same hardware, software, settings, etc... when I changed over because I too was curious.

Make of it what you will.

Comments

  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited February 2004
    Your findings are consistent with what I've seen in reviews and benchmarks. But for me, personally, it's the same as the mac vs. pc argument - it comes down to price/performance ratio. I'm sure the intel platform is a bit higher performance, but I can't afford it :D
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited February 2004
    Eh. Personally, I just use whatever. :D I don't really care, as long as it's fast. ;D Generally, I've stuck more to AMD because they're cheaper. But my laptop is a 2.4 P4, and I've got a dual S370/DDR MSI board (that died for no reason a few weeks ago... :mad: ).

    But lately I've been buying old boards- in the past two weeks, I've picked up a Tyan S1837 (I think) Thunderbolt dual slot 1 board ($50), a Supermicro S2DGU dual slot 2 board ($45 with a 400MHz Xeon), a Supermicro P6DLS dual slot 1 board ($10), a generic i440BX single CPU slot 1 board, an Abit LX6, and a HP i815-based mATX S370 board with an AGP slot.

    The dually boards I'm keeping, the i440BX and the HP are being donated to Habitat For Humanity (All I needed off the 440 board was the HSRM. But, the board was $5, so I just bought the whole thing) and the LX6 is in the trash because it's dead (also cost me $5- I just needed the HSRM off it, too; the Tyan didn't come with any).

    So, I bounce back and forth. I don't like the way the P4 works (long pipeline + high clockspeeds), or it's price, but I don't really mind it, either. As long as it's not a Via C3 or a Transmeta Crusoe, I don't really care. :D
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited February 2004
    The HT on the p4s really does spark some interest into the debates over which is better.

    As many times as I've told myself "man, those P4-C chips with HT really kick butt when O/C'd" I still find myself going the AMD-route. Just tonight I ordered a Mobile 2500+ from NewEgg. 2CPU has an interesting article up on the performance of the Prescott chip and it shows how it performs with HT in comparison to the Northwood. Maybe Prescotts will truly be able to shine once the Grantsdale motherboards get here. If what the article shows holds true in most cases, then F@H might be able to benefit greatly from a highly O/C'd Prescott, but until then we can only imagine. If Grantsdale does make running the Prescott a viable option (I don't think frying mobos makes it very viable ATM) then maybe that will be what it takes to push me over into the "I'll dabble with Intel" again camp, but I love my AMD. :)
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited February 2004
    a2j, stop at a surplus place, pick up a supermicro dual pII/III board for $10 (or a Tyan for $50) and a couple of PIII-450s @ $11 each (or a couple of 1GHz CuMines from Newegg's refurb and a couple of upgradeware slotkets)... then you can "dabble" with Intel's stuff for a lot less $$ than the P4 costs... :D
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited February 2004
    Geeky1 wrote:
    a2j, stop at a surplus place, pick up a supermicro dual pII/III board for $10 (or a Tyan for $50) and a couple of PIII-450s @ $11 each (or a couple of 1GHz CuMines from Newegg's refurb and a couple of upgradeware slotkets)... then you can "dabble" with Intel's stuff for a lot less $$ than the P4 costs... :D

    I have (not mine personally) a dual 933 pIII system and a dual 1GHz pIII system and a dual 700 pIII system I can dabble with, but I want to dabble w/ some new stuff. :D:D
  • MadballMadball Fort Benton, MT
    edited February 2004
    I have always used AMD, and I probably always will. The main reason is the same as most people: biggest bang for the buck. My brother has a 2.6b P4. It performs about the same as my 1700+ @2.2ghz AMD. But he paid way more for his than I did for mine. If I had unlimited funds I may consider a P4, but would probably still buy an AMD64.
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited February 2004
    A2J:

    :eek: PIII GOOOOOOOOOOOOD :D

    Actually, I'm surprised. This Tyan board is sitting on my desk, because all of my E-ATX cases are occupied (one has the NF7, the other the K7D, and neither one want to come out right now...) It's stuck with two PIII-450s because none of the slotkets I can get locally work in SMP, and I'm waiting on a couple of upgradeware ones. Anyhow, it's got the two 450s, a whopping 256MB of SDRAM, and a 40gb/4200rpm Toshiba laptop hard drive on a Promise ATA-133 controller. The system is very slow compared to say, the K7D, but I attribute a lot of that to the lack of ram and hard drive speed. We'll see how it does when I can get some more SDRAM and a faster hard drive... :D
  • MissilemanMissileman Orlando, Florida Icrontian
    edited February 2004
    Well this is my first Intel for my home system. Had literally hundreds of Intel's in the lab from Original Pentiums to 6 Processor P4's and 8 Processor XEONs.

    Believe me when I say I am like the rest of you. Bang for the buck is a big factor for me as well. I pick up pieces one at a time usually. I was just so frustrated with the stuttering on the NF7 and Intel did that big price drop I said what to heck and went for it. Ended up having to spend an extra 250 for RAM since the IC7 doesn't like low latentcy RAM, and if I had to do it over again I probably would have stayed with my AMD, but it is all water under the bridge. I have it now and by Jimminy I'm gonna use it :) The Intel is quicker, but hyper threading has it's quirks too. Not as bad as a true multi-processor but sometimes threads get shifted off to the other virtual processor and are hard to wake back up.
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited February 2004
    8 Processor XEONs

    *drool*
    I know the slot 2 Xeons did 8-way SMP, but I've never been able to find an 8-way Xeon board. 4-way is the most i've ever seen. I could use an 8-way SMP system for... something. What that something is, I don't know, but I'll figure something out. Office apps and surfing sound good to me... :D
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited February 2004
    The v4 F@H client supports 8 cpus, right? :D
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited February 2004
    It sure does.

    Good discussion guys.

    I have thought about an IS7 and a good OCing 2.6 or so for FAH but I could build a few AMD systems for that.
  • muddocktormuddocktor
    edited February 2004
    Well, I've recently built both AMD and Intel systems and with overclocking and Intel price drops, the difference between the 2 isn't but around $60-70 and both are nice responsive systems. I just got a P4 folding rig going this evening using an Abit IS7 board from Newegg's refurbs for $50 and it had all the stuff in the box and nothing's wrong with it either, as far as I can tell. I'm not having any ram problems either and it's got 1 stick of Corsair XMS3200 Cas2 in it(robbed it out of the NF7-S).

    It's pretty hard to tell the difference between AMD and Intel just by the way they run with essentially the same parts in them such as drives, vid cards, etc. One thing I have noticed is that hyperthreading really helps folding production by letting you run 2 instances with little reduction in speed of each instance. My P4 at 3.38 runs right up there with the AMD dualies I have running at almost 2.2 GHz and that's saying a lot. :ninja:
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited February 2004
    Yes, it is saying a lot.
    muddocktor wrote:
    My P4 at 3.38 runs right up there with the AMD dualies I have running at almost 2.2 GHz and that's saying a lot. :ninja:
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited February 2004
    Yeah, what it says is that I should try to talk my parents into using the money they were going to use to send me to college to set up a very large folding farm with dual p4 xeon systems... :D
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited February 2004
    Missileman wrote:
    Well this is my first Intel for my home system. Had literally hundreds of Intel's in the lab from Original Pentiums to 6 Processor P4's and 8 Processor XEONs.

    Believe me when I say I am like the rest of you. Bang for the buck is a big factor for me as well. I pick up pieces one at a time usually. I was just so frustrated with the stuttering on the NF7 and Intel did that big price drop I said what to heck and went for it. Ended up having to spend an extra 250 for RAM since the IC7 doesn't like low latentcy RAM, and if I had to do it over again I probably would have stayed with my AMD, but it is all water under the bridge. I have it now and by Jimminy I'm gonna use it :) The Intel is quicker, but hyper threading has it's quirks too. Not as bad as a true multi-processor but sometimes threads get shifted off to the other virtual processor and are hard to wake back up.

    Check out this recent news post.....
    [link=http://www.short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10474]Athlon XP-M 2500+ Review (DDR400 2.4ghz Performance vs A64 & P4"C")[/link]
    Athlon XP-M 2500+ $100 2.4ghz (a real 3200+) with Stock air and 2.6-2.7 with Real cooling (Thermalright SLK series or water)

    Also IMO it's more accurate to compare the P4 "C" & "E" series against the Athlon 64 & Opterons. But I will admit that I do lust after a P4 3.0"C" i875 Combo.
Sign In or Register to comment.