Post your comments and questions on AGW #30: AMD Now More Expensive Then Intel Clock For Clock.

__________________
ActiveTuning - Partner & Director Of Sales & Marketing

Seeing as Intels MHz is fluff compared to the AMD processors...who cares. Intel decided to pump up the MHz and not the performance....

Article was retarded... compares the price of an Xp2000 vs. p4 1.7, then compares the speed of an Xp1800 vs p4 1.6a... the states that Intel is making it easy to overclock while amd won't "throw them a bone"... is it just me.. or are P4's multiplier locked with no way to unlock, and t-birds simply fill in the hole and have an unlocked cpu... or am i missing something?

Billy

My cordless phone operates at 2.4Ghz and it costs less per clock than either processor.

Before I comment let it be known that I run 2 AMD systems. A T-Bird 1Ghz running at 1248 and an AXP 1800+ yet to be overclocked. With that being said I find it extremely amusing that AMD supporters can't grasp the obvious. The P4 is cheaper per Mhz. Back when AMD wasn't running up to par with Intel, back when a 400 Mhz AMD K6-2 couldn't compete with the 400 Mhz Pentium 2 AMD fans were screaming at how overpriced the Pentium 2 was eventhough they were the same Mhz. It didn't matter that the Pentium 2's IPC was better than the K6-2's, the only thing that mattered is you could get a processor at the same speed cheaper. Fast forward to today and these same people are griping at how Intel's IPC is slower than AMD's and thats why AMD has every right to charge more per Mhz. AMD's processor numbering scheme is a total joke. They use it to get more money for less Mhz. Don't get me wrong, I love AMD processors and I bought what I thought was the fastest processor at the time, but I still believe the numbering scheme is wrong. Let the processor stand on it's own merits instead of giving it a crappy PR rating, which is essentially what it is. Mhz for Mhz Intel is far cheaper these days whether you like it or not.

Hey try doing your homework before shooting your mouth off.
There is more than one factor in determining the performance of a CPU. The first, which every newbie is familiar with, is the clock speed. There is another major factor, that is less well known. What is amounts to basically is Instructions/Clock. AMD has boosted the number of instructions/clock cycle on their XPs.
This means that although the clock speed may be lower, the instructions/clock is much, much higher. Intel may be using a higher clock cycle, but they are neglecting the Instructions/clock.
Look at any established benchmarks comparing the two. You'll find that AMD chips outperform Intel chips on nearly all comparisons except memory bandwidth.
Mhz for Mhz comparisons mean nothing. Performance is where it's at.
As for overclocking, XPs are easy to overclock; you just have to join the L1 bridges. Granted, it is not as easy as before, but now only requires one extra step.
So again, do your homework before shooting your mouth off. It is obvious to me that you are little more than a FSB newbie with no idea of how CPUs really work.

Skip right over the mechanics of grammar and punctuation. What about context, and the difference between opinions and facts?

"But supposedly as software is written to take advantage of the Pentium 4's Netburst and SSE2 architecture, the gap between the two CPUs close."

The idea is carried onto the next paragrapgh with the foliowing ackward opening sentence.

"This is really truer then I was even willing to give credit to."

Ok. These are facts it seems. Until you read the last sentence of the SAME paragraph. Now the author comes right out, questions what has just been read, and closes by saying that he doesn't know. Then why are you writing about the topic. The only thing you've done is eliminate any credibility for the remainder of your article!

"Does this really mean that the code is actually written around the Pentium 4, and how much of a benefit will this mean for my friend? I don't know as I am not a programmer"

If you don't know then on what basis does the next paragraph read as it does? What it looks like is that the author has no idea of which he writes.

"As it is, those who program aren't too happy with Intel's request to change the way they put code together. Looks like they're coming around after all."

After that bout of circular logic it is time to present information out of context.

"The Pentium 4 1.6A... that many of us have been able to run at least at 2.13 GHz... still doesn't run as fast as an Athlon XP 1800+ (1533 MHz) in half of the benchmarks out there... but they both cost about the same and there's this certain sense of satisfaction in running a CPU at 33% overclock that makes it worth wild."

Do they really cost the same? Can you run a CPU without a motherboard? Marketing people put this kind of half true shit into ads. It does not belong in articles. If price is the constant and overclocking is the contrast then both processors be overlcocked. If your going to mention this spectacular overlcock don't you think it should specify which chip. I only know because I'm a geek. Not everybody is. As an aside I buy for performance, not overclocking percentages. And the article says throughout that the XP kicks ass. It does not make sense that the slant is how awesome the P4 is. Use real disadvantages like thermal output and fragile cores. It woul be obvious to include the XP 1600 in the comparision. Must've been rated that way for a reason. Again this reads like a bullshit marketing piece. Now that is wild. Find the mistake with that word.

There's more, alot more. But the corrections are as longer as the draft it is pathetic. C'mon people you can do better. There are hungry editors everywhere.

Anyone actually read it?

This is why I don't write these columns anymore.

I'm trying to see the point from two views.

Those who look at the MHz and assume that the P4 is faster BECAUSE it is a higher megahertz rating.

Those who see the PR rating as a more acurate way to compare the two brands of CPUs.

And then, I throw on top of that that it's nice to see AMD getting MORE MONEY than Intel for the same clock CPU. Remember in the past when AMD was always considered "the price leader".

You see... I'm taking different views. What happens when you don't take different views? It's called T-U-N-N-E-L-V-I-S-I-O-N.

When will you guys ever learn that AGW is a COLUMN. An editorial. Not a review and not a f****** encyclopedia of CPU factoid.

I'm tired of addressing 14 yuear olds that post anonymous responses in a forum.

You guys win.

I quit.

Bye Dave.

__________________
Hey. What kind of party is this? There's no booze and only one hooker. -- Bender (Futurama)

If your going to attempt to post an article in an intelligent fashion, at least make sure you provide your readers with a working understanding of the mechanics of both the AMD Athalon XP, and the P4 Northwood. Make sure they understand that while the P4 may operate at a higher frequency, due to its pipelines, it actually performs fewer instructions per clock-cycle (IPC). Also make certain that your readers are aware that the AMD Athatlon XP's do support MMX and SSE, but that they *do not* support SSE2, and that while SSE is currently the industry standard, SSE2 is quickly replacing it and that this will become a factor in the future.

I can understand the point and counter-point view and style, and I can appreciate it, however, before you launch into this hotly debated topic, you really should provide your readers with a solid foundation.

Peace, love, and general happiness.

Thank you for posting constructive criticism. I acknowledge the errors of my ways and will not attempt to make "generalized points" to such a hostile crowd in the future.

Frankly, I still use the 1800+ myself. As I stated in the column, it IS faster in 90% of benchmarks that the 1.6A running at 2.13. The best part (only part) of the P4 is that I was able to run it at 33% overclocked.

I know a lot of people that overclock for the sake of overclocking and I made the assumption I may be addressing some of that crowd. I guessed wrong.

I was overclocking Celeron 300As to 450 for the hell of it 4 years ago, but at the time I still preferred to run a mildly overclocked K6-III 400!

Maybe I'm more crazy then I thought I was and people don't overclock for the sake of overclocking. Perhaps I'm out of touch... DON'T ANSWER THAT.

__________________
Hey. What kind of party is this? There's no booze and only one hooker. -- Bender (Futurama)

Look dude smoke the crack AFTER you right your editorial next time... Kay?

I liked the story and I remember taking my own trip down that gamming lane:

The 2600, NES, Sega, Turbo, PC, Sony, 64, PS2, NGC, and now I'm back to building my own water-cooled PC, I'm a gamer through out the years I grew-up with these games and they keep me off the streets and out of trouble. So I just wanted to let you know that whenever you talk about the good old days I feel you...

Thanks for the trip, and I'll gladly go again & again with you.

My kids told me to say hi to every one out there in Mario's world.


Gotta love em.


BLACKCELL:

__________________
after all we are the entrepreneurial generation
and When you invest & invent you get the best

~ Dejuan Stokes ~

Hmm, I think some people just don't like you for some reason.

__________________
Road Runner!!!!

You're still being misleading, and playing semantics games to make the AMD chips look bad.

1 Athlon MHz does not equal 1 P4 MHz. It may be 5% more expensive, but it is 30% faster.

In fact, it does a LOT more per clock. So, if you want to compare apples to apples (i.e. IPC - that's 'Instructions Per Cycle') and total work done, via benchmarks, the AMD chip is still far better bang for buck.

BTW I have an Athlon AND a P3 (and a G4 powerbook hehe) so don't even call me a fanboy. Have a nice day.

Maybe i'm the only one who realizes that the typical "Performance = IPC * Mhz" is flawed. I understand why IPC is itself a function of frequency -- thus making the above equation misleading -- can you guys?

__________________
paul@pleaseohpleasedontspamme.slcentral.com
A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems -- P. Erdos