Athlon 64 & Pentium 4 [Archive]

Heinster

July 20th, 2004, 07:38

Anyone have these 800mhz FSB processors? How well do they work with Chankast? I am a AMD type of guy, so I would like to think the the Athlon outperforms the Pentium.

Are you only here for flaming? Because if you want realistic results go to Toms Hardware and many other PROFESSIONAL benchmarktesters..... You'll see that P4 800fsb normally outperforms an AMD, but outperforming is a big word since the differences are almost not worth mentioning.

AMD wins the price performence "any day" and when it was because of the money I would have bought an AMD but since I work with multiple aplications at once (multitasking) P4 performence is alot better plus more stable(very important), that's why most servers have P4 as well as all the graphical working companies that have besides MAC (which is the best in performance for working with graphics) often a P4 to do some things on for smaller customers....

So asside for hobby use(games, movies, downloading, chatting) most would never think of taking a AMD. Yes I am a professional user so I would buy a P4 over AMD any day when it comes for doing my work.... If I would buy a second pc just for my hobbies then I would be nuts paying too much for a P4...

Stezo2k

July 20th, 2004, 11:53

You'll see that P4 800fsb normally outperforms an AMD

Hate to think that i'm causing a flame war, but the Athlon 64s have been outperforming the Pentium 4s since the release nearly a year ago.

Alright, you may mention the 3.2 GHz P4 Extreme which is twice the price of most of the highest performance Athlon 64s, the Athlon 64 3200+ nearly matches it's peformance in 32 bit alone, not to mention the FX series, the 3400+ and the 3800+ which also beat the p4's peformence in 32 bit mode.

When it comes to the AMD 64 cpus, you can't really compare them to the p4s at the moment, because they aint running to their full potential until Windows XP 64 comes out.

Don't get me wrong, in 32 bit cpus Intel are on top, but at present, AMD do have the fastest PC CPUs out. I believe when Intel release their AMD64 based processors, the competition will be tough.

DarthDazDC

July 20th, 2004, 12:56

so should i have got an athlon643800+ instead of a p4 3.2GHZ?

Strange

July 20th, 2004, 15:52

2 AP Raul
Yes, A64 have 1600Mhz FSB... It have memory controller inside, instead of North bridge of MB...
2 DarthDazDC
Nope, only P4 what can beat A64 is Extreme Edition sample(~800$ cost) You can buy A64 3200+ - its have the same speed as Northwood P4 3.2Ghz ones and sometimes faster...
When it comes to the AMD 64 cpus, you can't really compare them to the p4s at the moment, because they aint running to their full potential until Windows XP 64 comes out.
Yeah... But their performance in 32Bit application can be compared to P4...

Doomulation

July 20th, 2004, 17:05

That would still be quite unfair as seeing as they are made for 64-bit, and thus probably better in the 64-bit apartment rather than the 32-bit. Plus the 64-bit ones has a higher price tag.

And we're pretty much straying off the main topic for the argument over the processors.

Clements

July 20th, 2004, 17:53

DarthDazDC

July 20th, 2004, 17:57

but with the northwood processor and the fx-53 its only a 0.8 frame difference!

Clements

July 20th, 2004, 18:01

So what? You're willing to pay $300 more for a slower processor? Look at the prices on Pricewatch - Extreme Editions are nearly $1000. Not so good now, eh?

Nightmare

July 20th, 2004, 18:09

damn... i was sure i had said "please" :whistling

DarthDazDC

July 20th, 2004, 18:09

i paid £181 for the 3.2 processor and if i was to buy an fx-53 it would cost me double of what i bought the 3.2 for

Clements

July 20th, 2004, 18:27

achiles

July 20th, 2004, 18:54

3.2GHz Northwood is positively low-end compared to Athlon64s, so no wonder it's cheap. Prices are exponential so you need to pay big £ if you want that extra performance. I'm simply stating the following:

1. The Extreme Editions are a complete watse of money and are easily out-performed by much cheaper processors.

2. P4s are not faster than Athlon64s at their competitive price point.

I can keep posting more gaming benchies of P4s being completely anihilated by Athlon64s:

you notice how only one of the athlon xp are on that benchmark not even a 3200 made it to the benchmark p4 3.2 1mb $277.00 athlon 3200+ $190.00 plus the 3200 after week 51 are fsb locked the p4 are not. any high cpu is a waste of money they are just hype. (uhhh I got 2 fps faster than you uhhh awesome Iam broke but Iam faster uhh) athlon 64 3200 is $286.00 and 2fps faster. Another issue is overclocking, but Iam not getting into that.

Clements

July 20th, 2004, 19:01

You must mean multiplier locked, not FSB locked. Athlon64s can be FSB overclocked very effectively, with people overclocking 3200+ to 3700+. They didn't put AthlonXPs on since this is a Athlon64 Vs P4 benchmark, and the 3000+ is just for comparison. AthlonXPs are weaker than P4s but are much cheaper.

Future Pentiums will be FSB locked though, read the lastest Anandtech articles for information on this (this will displease o/cers as only 10% o/c is achieveable)

any high cpu is a waste of money they are just hype. (uhhh I got 2 fps faster than you uhhh awesome Iam broke but Iam faster uhh)

There are people who want the best and buy the best, and Athlon64s are the best as I've shown in six different benchmarks. I personally can't afford one either, but if I had the money, I'd buy an Athlon64, since they are faster.

DarthDazDC

July 20th, 2004, 19:10

after reading many benchmarks i do agree with this, but i dont want to spend £500+ foir a processor that will only perform around 5 frames more

achiles

July 20th, 2004, 19:13

You must mean multiplier locked, not FSB locked. Athlon64s can be FSB overclocked very effectively, with people overclocking 3200+ to 3700+. They didn't put AthlonXPs on since this is a Athlon64 Vs P4 benchmark, and the 3000+ is just for comparison. AthlonXPs are weaker than P4s but are much cheaper.

Future Pentiums will be FSB locked though, read the lastest Anandtech articles for information on this (this will displease o/cers as only 10% o/c is achieveable)

There are people who want the best and buy the best, and Athlon64s are the best as I've shown in six different benchmarks. I personally can't afford one either, but if I had the money, I'd buy an Athlon64, since they are faster.

I take predictions or statements about a company production plan with a grain of salt I only base my knowledge on know facts. If I went by what someone said a company is gonna do with their products especially a cpu company then i would go crazy. (new cpu canceled heres a new one, now wait some more) it is all a game to them. oh and I meant the xp where fsb locked not the athlons 64.

achiles

July 20th, 2004, 19:24

I would buy a athlon 64 myself if they werent so expensive and the motherboards werent so full of bugs, I work at a compaq authorized service center and we see them (and play with them every day when testing of course hehe) and they are fast for gaming but they are not balanced when you multi task and the current mobos are a nightmare but I know they will get fixed, it is a relatively new platform full of pontetial and considering the fsb controller it in the cpu they are cheap. Still I like the p4 for their balance with their ht multitasking.

Clements

July 20th, 2004, 19:35

I take predictions or statements about a company production plan with a grain of salt I only base my knowledge on know facts. If I went by what someone said a company is gonna do with their products especially a cpu company then i would go crazy. (new cpu canceled heres a new one, now wait some more) it is all a game to them.

Intel don't want people overclocking. Future Intel processors will have their FSB locked, but motherboards can get around it, but only by so much. Just read here:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2124

oh and I meant the xp where fsb locked not the athlons 64.

NO Athlon chips are FSB locked full stop. How are so many people overclocking their CPUs? How come it is active in my BIOS? Please stop the misinformation. I still prefer Athlon processors since I like to play games, that's the primary thing I use mine for.

Ilitirit

July 20th, 2004, 21:13

after reading many benchmarks i do agree with this, but i dont want to spend £500+ foir a processor that will only perform around 5 frames more
don't forget that the Athlon64 is 64bit, while the P4 is 32bit. so the P4 is essentially a 'cul-de-sac' as a long term investment.

aprentice

July 20th, 2004, 22:06

AthlonXPs are weaker than P4s but are much cheaper

Dude, you are so wrong :P
An Athlon 3200+ does NOT equal 3.2ghz, it is 2.2ghz.
If a 2.2ghz XP can be on par with the 3.2ghz p4, then
by no means is it weaker, as a matter of fact, it is way
more stronger. Comare the 2.2ghz p4 to the 2.2ghz XP and
you'll see what I mean :P

DarthDazDC

July 20th, 2004, 22:40

i REALLY should have got an athlon 64 3200+ instead of a p4 3.2GHZ, as with an athlon 64 its got more longevity than a pentium

Strange

July 20th, 2004, 23:26

Great explanations Clements http://www.ngemu.com/forums/images/smilies/Standard/thumb.gif
Dude, you are so wrong
An Athlon 3200+ does NOT equal 3.2ghz, it is 2.2ghz.
If a 2.2ghz XP can be on par with the 3.2ghz p4, then
by no means is it weaker, as a matter of fact, it is way
more stronger. Comare the 2.2ghz p4 to the 2.2ghz XP and
you'll see what I mean
I think he knows that =) But if use AMD PR system in theory its equal P4s 3.2Ghz... But ofcourse its little slower than it =)
i REALLY should have got an athlon 64 3200+ instead of a p4 3.2GHZ, as with an athlon 64 its got more longevity than a pentium
Too late ;)

Nightmare

July 20th, 2004, 23:31

Dude, you are so wrong

and you think you are right ?
so funny... in fact you are right when you have said he can't compare an amd 3200 with a P4 at 3,2 ghz, because of the clock speed... but you do a similar mistake !!! how many time did it take to amd to arrive at 2,2 ghz ? intel has past this speed a long time ago before amd...

ever heard the word "anachronism" ?

Stezo2k

July 21st, 2004, 00:02

But if use AMD PR system in theory its equal P4s 3.2Ghz... But ofcourse its little slower than it =)

Too late ;)

actually.... the AMD PR system is produced by comparing the CPUs to the Athlon Thunderbird processors, it doesn't really apply if you compare the PR with the speed of intels latest CPUs since hyperthreading and the 800 MHz FSB came into place

Strange

July 21st, 2004, 01:13

Yeah i know that, but Thunderbirds is no longer exists now...
But A64 PR comparing to P4 i think... Since they have very close performance results...

achiles

July 21st, 2004, 08:34

Intel don't want people overclocking. Future Intel processors will have their FSB locked, but motherboards can get around it, but only by so much. Just read here:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2124

NO Athlon chips are FSB locked full stop. How are so many people overclocking their CPUs? How come it is active in my BIOS? Please stop the misinformation. I still prefer Athlon processors since I like to play games, that's the primary thing I use mine for.

my 2500xp is not fsb locked but my next door neighbor's 2500 which is a 39 week one is locked. A lot of ppl got the week 38 and under cpu but anyone above is pretty much done for at least on the 2500 xp.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=28&threadid=1352692

and if the p4 are fsb locked explain this http://www.abit-usa.com/news/2004/20040701.php 800mhz overclock with stock cooling is not minimal for me.

mezkal

July 21st, 2004, 10:13

The bottom line is that it's horses for courses. Sure the A64 family is faster than P4s. But for my needs of music software I'm unwilling to go to A64 just yet. Oh btw when I bought my machine almost 18 months ago A64's weren't commonplace either, nor was their pricing. Right now its AMD. Next time its Intel. These type of discussions aren't worth fighting over. It all depends on what you buy when and why.

Nightmare

July 21st, 2004, 10:19

you're right mez, but i think they'll never understand that... :whistling

Stezo2k

July 21st, 2004, 10:52

Sure the A64 family is faster than P4s. But for my needs of music software I'm unwilling to go to A64 just yet

every processor has it's advantages, mean as this is a console emulation site, we usually refer to the gaming performance rather than other performance, i'm sure most of us agree that the main advantage the P4 has over the AMD K7/8 series is video encoding, Intel usually always take the lead

Stezo2k

July 21st, 2004, 10:57

Yeah i know that, but Thunderbirds is no longer exists now...
But A64 PR comparing to P4 i think... Since they have very close performance results...

Yeah, I think your correct, now they do seem to be similar since the A64 came out.... Not sure if this will change when the latest P4s have Intels new PR rating system, this will be similar to the Radeon rating system, e.g 620, 660, 680 etc

Heinster

July 21st, 2004, 16:47

In the stuff I've seen, the Pentium 4s get beaten by Athlon64's everytime, and they are cheaper, even in 32-Bit, in gaming benchmarks. Even the Extreme Editions get slaughtered. Just look on any benchmark site. Intel are in trouble.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-22.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/images/image022.png

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/images/image029.png

Depends what you use as a source I guess... But I could be wrong but I allways believed Tomshardware site to be nonbiased... But I could be wrong here.....

Hmmmm reading now that you are hammering more about the A64 and you might have a good point there Clements..... But for proffessional use I would allways go for an Intell above AMD... Because of the hyperthreading/multitask part.... Might sound strange but my dual 500 celeron was faster for the stuff I'm doing and more stable then a AMD 1GHz. This was because of the multitasking, so as soon as photoshop got a hickup it would only occupy one cpu so the other could go on with flash and even burn a cd.... With the latest Intell cpu's it creates multiple software cpu's what helps alot when I'm doing multiple stuff.... But I must also agree that most people are not running multiple heave software aplications at once so this would give no extra performence (who wants to photoshop while playing doom3?)

Clements

July 21st, 2004, 17:09

Quake 3 is optimised for hyperthreading so that's why it's much faster with Intel. AMD is faster with all games not based on Quake 3.

Anyway, NONE of the [very old now] benchmarks you posted took Athlon64 into account whatsoever, all that shows is that P4s are faster than AthlonXPs which I already stated myself in the thread earlier.

mezkal

July 21st, 2004, 17:20

Actually man on *all* threaded apps P4's hyperthreading isn't always gonna be fastest in terms of benchmarks but the P4 will always feel more responsive. Threading means that no matter what there is a always a spare clock cycle or two ready for input. It's not the same as REAL dual CPU or better yet QUAD CPU setups but it sure feels close :)

Also don't confuse threading and hyper-threading. No app can really be hyperthreading optimised per se. They can just be thread-aware or not (as the Quake3Arena engine is). Hyper-Threading just virtualises two CPU's from the original CPU (Virt. CPU 1) and what was originally HLT (Halt CPU activity for cooling) instructions on spare clock cycles (now Virt CPU 2). This is how the P4 always feels more ready for user input.

Cheers

Clements

July 21st, 2004, 17:36

my 2500xp is not fsb locked but my next door neighbor's 2500 which is a 39 week one is locked. A lot of ppl got the week 38 and under cpu but anyone above is pretty much done for at least on the 2500 xp.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=28&threadid=1352692

All that link shows is that AthlonXPs are multiplier locked, and they are after week 38 which is true. This is NOT the same as FSB locked. I have stated this and you have not understood. You can modify the FSB on any multiplier locked 2500+.

Heinster

July 21st, 2004, 18:21

Anyway, NONE of the [very old now] benchmarks you posted took Athlon64 into account whatsoever, all that shows is that P4s are faster than AthlonXPs which I already stated myself in the thread earlier.

Yeah I mentioned that you did;)

achiles

July 22nd, 2004, 04:21

All that link shows is that AthlonXPs are multiplier locked, and they are after week 38 which is true. This is NOT the same as FSB locked. I have stated this and you have not understood. You can modify the FSB on any multiplier locked 2500+.

Ill give in on the athlon seeing as I have a 2500xp that is unlocked maybe my bud's bios is fsb locked, so you won, but what about your statement about intel cpus WILL BE LOCKED coment, you act like you work there or something.

If there is something I have learned from cpu makers is never to believe on them until a product is out. I have sent you the link and you didnt comment on it.

Clements

July 22nd, 2004, 05:37

Ill give in on the athlon seeing as I have a 2500xp that is unlocked maybe my bud's bios is fsb locked, so you won, but what about your statement about intel cpus WILL BE LOCKED coment, you act like you work there or something.

the way cpus work is to get the clock speed (ie 1.87 for a 2500+) you multiply the multiplier by the front side bus. On the 2500+ the multiplier is 11 and the fsb is 166. Some some chips, it is possible to change the multiplier as a means of overclocking. You could change the 2500+ to 11.5x166. Multi-lock is when you can't change the multiplier. This is bad... very very bad. It makes it much harder to overclock because you can only change the fsb.

Emphasis on the bold. I know Bartons are multiplier locked after week 38 whatever it is. You are saying they are FSB locked. The guy says you can only change the FSB. This means that the FSB is NOT locked as I said ie NOT FSB LOCKED. This is the reason I stopped you, just a simple terminology error, that's all, not a real big deal. I own a Barton too, and I can o/c mine fine by modifying FSB.

Mobile Bartons are multiplier unlocked anyway, so you can up the multiplier AND FSB.

This means that your friend can overclock his Barton as easy as just upping the FSB in the BIOS, providing his mobo allows it which normally it should. If he can't change his FSB his motherboard or BIOS is at fault, not the CPU. You are lucky since you can up the multiplier AND FSB overclock at the same time.

Multiplier locked
FSB locked

= different things.

2500+ Bartons are multiplier locked after week 38. But these CPUs can be FSB overclocked still. You don't have to change the multiplier to overclock. My Barton is currently FSB underclocked since I can change FSB.

I hope this is very clear what I mean on this subject.

If there is something I have learned from cpu makers is never to believe on them until a product is out. I have sent you the link and you didnt comment on it.

The point in mentioning Intel was that in the future they will lock their FSB. You will need to buy certain motherboards to unlock it, and they can't 100% override the lock. Meanwhile AMD chips are completely FSB unlocked.

I read articles. No I don't work for Intel. Yes the processors are unreleased, but that doesn't nullify anything, since no one knows if the situation will change, but as it stands, FSB locked by default for the future Intel CPUs mentioned in the link I presented earlier from a more non-biased source and not a mobo manufacturer site.

This thread is getting passed it's usefulness. I don't enjoy having to explain these simple things over and over. :plain:

achiles

July 22nd, 2004, 07:58

I read articles. No I don't work for Intel. Yes the processors are unreleased, but that doesn't nullify anything, since no one knows if the situation will change, but as it stands, FSB locked by default for the future Intel CPUs mentioned in the link I presented earlier from a more non-biased source and not a mobo manufacturer site.
. :plain:

non biased? Previewers are among the most scrutinized members of the computer media simply because they get paid from the same companies that they review, not to mention the fact that they get testing examples from them, and that aplies for both intel and amd. motherboard manufacturers are among the most honest manufacturers you will find in this bussiness simply becuase most of them have the same products, and some of them make them on the same factory. Will these new cpu make a difference on chankast and newer emulators I dont know, I dont have one, so I cant say what stands and what doesn't. I just hope that they become faster, more reliable, I easier to program on.

Heinster

July 22nd, 2004, 10:43

Well at Tomshardware site one year AMD is judged as best other year Intel.... So I can't say they allways judged AMD or Intell better untill now......

Lilwolf

July 22nd, 2004, 18:59

One thing that keeps says... amd faster... no intels faster...

THEY BOTH ARE!

depends on what your more interested in... floating point or integer based calculations. Different parts are optimized in different ways.

BUT...

AMD has ALWAYS been best price / performance in ANY test. That is really the only thing you can say 100%

Strange

July 22nd, 2004, 19:55

indeed...

Nightmare

July 22nd, 2004, 20:13

cooliscool

July 22nd, 2004, 20:29

yeah ! but who make research/improvements ? INTEL ! amd just wait intel's improvements and copy it... there is a reason for this price...
and remember that SSE appeared with the first P3 400/450 Mghz, and on amd it'd appeared only at a speed of 1,4 Ghz... 1 Ghz between them...

Err, no, AMD introduced 3DNow! which is essentially a weaker SSE (floating point simd), in the K6-2, which started at 300MHz. Intel copied AMD with FPU simd. Without AMD making 3DNow!, SSE prolly wouldn't exist, at least not at that time.

Strange

July 22nd, 2004, 20:36

2 Nightmare
lol - you are TOTALLY WRONG... Since Athlon was released, there in no any similar things in AMDs CPUs and Intel ones - only patented technologies like SSE. And really - SSE was even on P3, but 3DNow! was even on AMD_K5 and P4 doesn`t have 3DNow! and 3DNow!+ too... So your example in not good... So reason for this price is only one - its just a intel brand - thats all.

Nightmare

July 22nd, 2004, 20:55

Err, no, AMD introduced 3DNow! which is essentially a weaker SSE (floating point simd), in the K6-2, which started at 300MHz. Intel copied AMD with FPU simd. Without AMD making 3DNow!, SSE prolly wouldn't exist, at least not at that time.

3Dnow is appeared to counter MMX (pentium2), amd haven't any mmx intructons, and make some improvements yes, but intel has react with his sse, and we know why sse is needed... without 128 bits registers chankast can't work...
after that, amd has clearly followed intel...
programs are based on pentium/mmx/sse/sse2 instructions set, not on amd instructions set, try to find over the net the informations about amd instructions...

now they made an improvement with their Athlon64, but if intel add something on his next cpu generation (and be sure they'll do) the Athlon64 users will be verry happy...

Edit* 2 strange
how many program use specific 3Dnow features, do you know that ?, ALL programs are based on pentium/mmx/sse/sse2 instructions set...
(i know some program who used specific 3Dnow features but it was just as option, quickly abandonned, to the profit of intel standard )

cooliscool

July 22nd, 2004, 21:23

No it wasn't meant to counter MMX, they are two totally different things. MMX = integer, 3DNow! = FPU. It was made to help out the K6-x's slow FPU, just needed developer support. Just about all current games/video card drivers use 3DNow!/3Dnow!+/MMX+/MMX/SSE/SSE2. SSE3 is in the Prescott Pentium4s, but it's a new set so support will take a while to sink in.

MMX was not a P2 thing either, it was introduced in the middle of the P1's life (most 166MHz Pentiums and higher have it).

Nightmare

July 22nd, 2004, 21:34

No it wasn't meant to counter MMX, they are two totally different things. MMX = integer, 3DNow! = FPU.
i said counter, not improve.

Edit * oops, i said improve later, but not in that sens...
mmx = multimedia (for professional market)
3dnow = fpu for 3D (for gamer market)

cooliscool

July 22nd, 2004, 22:06

FPU for gaming? The FPU is used in alot more than just gaming and 3D stuff.. audio processing, video processing..

Nightmare

July 22nd, 2004, 22:44

FPU for gaming? The FPU is used in alot more than just gaming and 3D stuff.. audio processing, video processing..

yes, fpu can be used in lot of apps, but the marketing target was the gamer... (i don't think they had targeted 3D/audio/video artists, and for audio/video floating point are not heavily used).

WhiteX

July 23rd, 2004, 07:19

Well, I prefer Amd because here in Brazil it is a hell of lot cheaper and i am a cheap old hag!
Oh! And strange, 3dnow was only implemented by the time of k6-2.

Stezo2k

July 23rd, 2004, 13:53

yeah ! but who make research/improvements ? INTEL ! amd just wait intel's improvements and copy it...

Thats statement is wrong, it's not just AMD using similar techniques

Don't forget, AMD released X86-64 nearly a year ago, and Intel are developing CPUs based on that architechture using reverse engineering.

refraction

July 23rd, 2004, 14:03

Nightmare

July 23rd, 2004, 16:10

Thats statement is wrong, it's not just AMD using similar techniques

Don't forget, AMD released X86-64 nearly a year ago, and Intel are developing CPUs based on that architechture using reverse engineering.

what do you mean by reverse engineering ? reverse engineering it's when you take an existing program/technologie (a cpu in this case) and make improvements wich doesn't existing yet (for programs it's generally for your own use)... but i think intel develop his own 64 bits based cpus since more than a year... you really think intel has used the 64bits architecture of amd ? intel has made modifications to be compatible with the A64 because there were only some small differencies (small, yes), and because the amd cpu was released before the intel one ... i don't see why you use reverse engineering if it's to return to the original one after... doesn't make any sens...
i have read articles saying intel has used amd's prerelease technical notes, but i can't believe that, theses notes just contain inputs/ouputs of the cpu and his general architecture, what do you want to do with that ? you can't change the core of the cpu with these infos...

Edit* and cpus, like programs, contain specific hidden signatures, so be sure that if intel has used A64's architecture/core, everybody will know that, soon or later...

mezkal

July 23rd, 2004, 16:24

Thats statement is wrong, it's not just AMD using similar techniques

Don't forget, AMD released X86-64 nearly a year ago, and Intel are developing CPUs based on that architechture using reverse engineering.

Stezo, two points :-

Intel developed a 64bit platform based on shared information between HP (DEC's Superscalar Processor) and AMD some 4 years ago. Due to the nature of technology, by the time it reached the market it was just too slow. They have since capitulated to AMD in the 64bit stakes erring on the side of caution and letting AMD set the 64bit desktop market goal posts.

Intel has NEVER reverse engineered but they certainly have "appropriated" certain technologies through clever use of legal infrastructure. Infact it's AMD who have practically built thier whole business on reverse engineering practices: First with the K5 and later with certain DEC SuperScalar techniques that became 3DNow! Pro and thier 64bit long word interfaces.

Heinster

July 23rd, 2004, 17:29

I have an AMD 64 3400+ chip, the performance is very nice, but i know here AMD and Intel stand.

Intel: faster when it comes to stuff like Video Encoding and other application based software, seem to be nice and quick doing Math calculations due to SSE being different and more optimised on Intel chips.

AMD: On top when it comes to gaming, seems the processors have more of a nack at handling this over software apps, so is usually used in Gaming Rigs rather than professional Rigs.

AMD are really at a lower clock speed than Intel chips which could explain the performance difference and price difference, but from what speed they do have they make excellent use of.

Spread the word brother ;)

But when it really comes to differences in gaming then the real gaining in performence can be found in the graphicalcard and the differences in cpu pale in comparences of the differences the graphicalcards can cause.

I bet a AMD 2000 with a 9800pro will reign over a P4 3.0 with a 9600 pro in games like splintercell and others.....

Except ofcourse in emulation.... Emulation is 90% cpupower......

Strange

July 23rd, 2004, 23:01

Hmm, and intel already built 64bit cpu, but not for home using - Itanium and Itanium2.

mezkal

July 23rd, 2004, 23:28

Strange you'll note I did already say this. I just didn't quote it by name. Check my previous post. They did intend to release it for home use - eventually - but it just doesn't perform. It's much the same reason why 64bit XP hasn't reached high levels of production.

Strange

July 24th, 2004, 01:16

Hmm, Itanium was developed for servers, there is no way it can be for home use...

mezkal

July 24th, 2004, 05:37

Strange, you're arguing again. Over nothing. I never said it was made for home use. I made it quite clear that Intel are letting AMD forge the way with the Ath64. So what? Why make redundant statements. Intel brought 64bit out first. It was too slow. They basically stopped it. The Ath64 is fast yes. In 32 bit applications and Windows. It remains too be seen how first it will be in a ful 64bit environment. Longhorn is going to be that 64bit environment. By that stage ALL desktop CPUs will be 64bit. Please don't start this again with me. None of my comments in the last post were anything more than clarifying history.

Stezo2k

July 24th, 2004, 08:58

Stezo, two points :-

Intel developed a 64bit platform based on shared information between HP (DEC's Superscalar Processor) and AMD some 4 years ago. Due to the nature of technology, by the time it reached the market it was just too slow. They have since capitulated to AMD in the 64bit stakes erring on the side of caution and letting AMD set the 64bit desktop market goal posts.

I know Intel have created 64-bit computing before AMD did, but what i was refering to is X86 based 64-bit desktop computing, sorry for the confusion, i should of stated that