AMD is going down hill

[eli]

the new 800FSB P4's kick AMD's ass!

[Google]

[icyrus76]

wondering where you got that from...and through wat did you compare it to?

In the past Intel has indeed been beating AMD..but performance wise, i still think AMD is better, though it may give you more heat, but overall, i've used both Intel and AMD in the very beginning, and AMD is more stable..furthermore, AMD is way more easier to overclock than Intel family chips...with the exception of Nathan's OC Frenzy..lol..but yeh, just my thought..AMD, more affordable and decent...comparing the prices ..Intel P3 1.8Ghz is over 200 CDN, where as the AMD XP2500+ Barton has dropped close to 100 CDN in teh past month..you decide..

[[TN] Nathan]

Both companys have their pro's and con's. Let's leave it to that and not start a company bashing discussion.

Nothing is ever gained from it.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com

[eli]

ya it was just a stupid thing I felt like doing. I was bored. Yes they both do have there pro's and con's Nathan. The barton 2500+ overclocks well, is cheap as hell, and its very good for gaming. Intel's new offering of the 800FSB is a plus though. I was thinking about getting one of those. Then I thought hmmm......Barton 2500+ $90 good motherboard $80. cheap as hell, for intel, its atleast $120 for a decent 800FSB motherboard, and then atleast $170 for the cpu. they both have there pros and cons id say.

[[TN] Nathan]

Very true.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com

[mpetrie]

Even though they both have their pro's and con's i do agree, it seems that AMD has been getting a lot less hype lately. Its sad because im a big AMD fan. I hope they pull through this, i would hate to conform due to Intel's monopolization. Hopefully AMD has a few more tricks up their sleeve, i think overall the CPU industry needs a complete revamp. They have been using the same designs for years, its time to use some newer technologies. I bet anything that the motherboards for Intel will help out their success more than anything, did you get a look at that DFI Lanparty Pro 875 Canterwood board?! Man thats awesome. I would buy an Intel just to get a motherboard that looked that cool.

[DMW]

[[TN] Nathan]

What headaches? What remorse?

The PRO875 never had one problem and overclocked beter than any motherboard I have even had the honour of testing.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com

[XS|CCW]

To prove that AMD is getting kicked in, check the Futuremark ORB, now overrun with Intel P4 scores. AMD has a tought road ahead.

Craig

[DMW]

and it is just as it a was a year ago when intel was being trounced by AMD....it goes in cricles....and always will.

Let's wait and see what the Hammer has to offer.

[XS|CCW]

Opteron isnt looking great, A64 (Clawhammer) is all they have left. Using LN2 only a 400MHz OC was gained from an Opteron.

Craig

[DMW]

there's a little more than just the Clawhammer in the works...
as for the OCing...it simply cannot be included in the "straight up" comparisons....while it might apeal to the tweakers in us, there is still more performance from the AMD camp per clock cycle than the "other" folks. Plus it's more cost effective. Also remember that there is very little current "desktop" type production and support as this chip was destined for the "business" type workstations. There may still develope a "gamer" version MOBO for the Opteron with tweaked chipsets and wonderful goodies...but for now, AMD seems happy just spanking the Xeons....hehe

all AMD has "officially" posted on their web is this processor roadmap...


....personally, the smartest move intel has made in the past 5 years has been to dump the RDRAM and go with the DDR. That helped them a BUNCH!
I also think they learned a lot these past couple of years not to try and hold their public hostage on pricing and to also not release a crap product that has so many bugs even recalls couldn't help.
Now if the could just learn one more thing from AMD....try not changing the socket layout and mapping so frequently that there are so many different boards that are incompatible with so many chips.
Most all of AMD's chips will work in boards made in some cases more than a years ago....this appeals to many for cost savings/upgradability. Like me!

[MoNk]

If you look at the 800fsb P4's performance compared to a off the shelf Barton 3200+ in games (not regular software, i.e. encoding software) you will see that the p4's smoke the amd's.
_________________
It's All Good !

[DMW]

lol.....yeah, but it took an 800MHz FSB to do it!
why on mother earth would you compare a chip with 1/2 the other's FSB and then say it "smoke the amd's"???
hmmm...
2.4GHx/800MHz vs 2.16GHz/400MHz....you honestly think that a fair compare?

and I admit that I said "per clock cycle" but I was also thinking with matching FSBs too!

Take a step back and compare the AMD to the 2.4GHz/400FSB or maybe even the 533FSB intel chip.
Then factor in the MOBOs....as an example, can that Chaintech board you just reviewd run all socket478 intel chips? With and without HT? Does ANY intel board do this??? If not, please head back to the store and please pay more for a new board. I realize that i should know more about intel so that i can make these as statements, and not questions...but that doesn't make much for a discussion does it? hehe
So, are there and intel boards that are backwards compatible with all socket478 CPUs?
Furthermore, why did intel have to change the socket just to up the FSB....it seems that AMD didn't.

My little A7N8X will run all AMD Athlon, Athlon XP and Duron SocketA up to 3200+ @ 200/266/333/400 Front-Side bus.
Does intel have a form factor that supports 40 CPUs?

Can you imageing the intel counterpart? It would have to be a board that supports everything back to the socket 370 P3 coppermine w/133FSB.
DOH!, but you can't do that because the chips have a different number of pins!
too bad.

IMHO- I think that sometimes reviewers get a little bit of tunnel vision when it comes to the lastest gear, and do not get a true bearing on their products that they get to review because this stuff is generally just "sent" to them....and they either get to keep it for free of just send it back...but either way...the cost impact is never real on the majority of it. Prices become number and not "how many times we stay in to eat rather than dine out" or "the kids need braces..but!!! .....arghh"

I suppose it's just a matter of how you are looking at it...I get performance equal to and in most cases better than the intel couterpart of the same speed (my XP2100 @1.7GHz)...plus I have money left over for other stuff. In 6 months...I just buy a new CPU and not have the MOBO headache to deal with.
(I have at least 12 moths worth of catching up to do on CPUs...because I see nothing installed in any of my machines that this 2100 does not handle well. I might be able to upgrade and do things "better", but will I notice on much of it? Probably no. I am not a benchmark, and nor do I run Prime95 24/7 as it's seems others do. Occasionally, I will install Sandra or 3D Mark....just to gauge my self and ensure things are well and maybe do a little tweaking....but for the most part, banchmarks are just tools with which to advertise. My upgrades will come "as needed"

When I look at CPUs...I look at the specs...not the code names. As for the "XP3200+"?...well I see a chip @ 2.16GHz....that perfoms as well if not better than most that intel has to offer up to that rating (in the same FSB range! i.e. 400/533) up to about 3GHz to 3.2GHz.

and I'm telling ya....there's more than likely just one P4 3GHz chip that gets remarked a bunch of times at lower speeds. Just as AMD did on a smaller scale with the Orion chips. I wound up with a 900MHz core in my 700MHz CPU, for a lower price (which meant running my "700 @ 900 was infact NOT an OC at all (which is what I personally think is happening with the 800FSB intels))....but in those days it took a goldenfinger device to unlock it. These days most things OC'able can be reverse engineered through the bios.
I just don't want to hear you ladies crying "foul" if AMD does it again in the future.
Intel took a serious bashing throught most of the AMD-XP saga...but that time has ended and the SocketA format should be retired soon (we might get another chip or two, eh?). I would like to see a few more 400MHzFSB chips out of it...just so that I have a bit of upgrading to do.

AMD people will embrace this short transition of "performance leader" and relish in the knowledge that for the past 3 years, "we got more, and paid less!"

[[TN] Nathan]

Now if that's not thumping the AMD bible, I don't know what is.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com

[DMW]

"amen"

[JJ320]

Yes DMW AMD is a faster chip per "tick" hands down,however I would like to note that AMD Itself compares the 2.16 to the 3.0 GHz INTEL chip in performance and in price. So as long as AMD compares the chips in this fasion so will I. Sounds like your complaint should be laid against AMD and not us INTEL fanboys. I have seen some intel chips priced below the AMD counterpart (3.0 GHz and the 3000+). And lets face it AMD is getting way to agressive with there rating system. No way a 3000+ will outdo a 3.0 GHz @ 800 MHz fsb. In fact the 2.4c and a canterwood chipset running stock clock speds can out perform a 3000+ in some cases.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-07.html

Of course this negates the old AMD advantage, one I used to tout, of more performance vs price. No longer is this the case, you can get a 2.8GHz 800 mhz bus for $200 less than the 3200+ and it clearly out performs it. In fact if you shop around you can get a a 2.8c and a ABIT IC7 motherboard for less than the cost of the 3200+ chip. Is there any advantage to AMD any more?

Your mobo. may support 40 proc. mine will support no less than 16 pentium 4 chips and who cares if it supports 40 if 30 of these run at slower speeds than your current one. AMD will lose this selling point along with the others when they release the Athalon 64.

Who cares if it took 800 MHz bus to do it. Remember the old computers like 386 . The proc. and bus ran at the same speed. I have read several articles in numerous publications concerning this and the concensus is...... we are losing much performance due to fsb bus and memory bottlenecks so INTEL the largest chip manufacturer is leading the way in solving the problem. Saying "it took 800 MHz to do it!" is like saying it took 3.2 GHz to out perform a 3.0 GHz.................well DUH. And if raising the fsb is such a crime then AMD is guilty as well my old 1.33 thunderbird and my 2000+ ran at 266 and the 3200+ runs at 400......correct? With that said it is interesting that the 3.06 not running on the 800 MHz but on the 533 still outperforms the 3200+.....so it didn' t take 800 MHz bus to do it! HUH the 3.06 533 crushing the 3200+....yes it's all true folks.

I like AMD but they are hurting there credibiltiy with this rating system, When confronted AMD spokesman will try to put some spin on it by saying the XP chip rating is determined by comparing it to the performance of the older Thunderbird core, however other AMD reps. have been quoted saying that the rating of the chip is determined by comparing it to the pentium 4. Not to mention they typically release the chips around the same time as the the INTEL counterpart. This is a good marketing scheme but not an accurate rating system.

Not that INTEL is "the golden child" but AMD is having trouble keeping up nowadays and it would be more realistic to say they have released a 2700+ and not a 3200+, that is if they want to rate the XP against the Pentium 4c. I would switch back to AMD in a second if they could truly release a faster chip, or one that performs the same for less.

[DMW]

[JJ320]

Your a smart fellow but please Tom' isn't the only web site showing the same benchmarking results, and even if TOM has a bias towards INEL that wouldn't change the benchmark results unless of course you are assuming that TOM rigs the tests. I have never read on TOMS AMD's phoney logic concerning the rating systems I read that in MAXIMUM PC, and CPU mags.

The fsb IS a chip property so I am not comparing apples and oranges. Why do we need a new mobo. because the chip runs a faster bus. THE DDR bandwidth increases to keep pace with the CHIPs fsb.The PCI and the AGP bus are not necessarily affected by the fsb because they operate on a divider(unless you overclock them). The PCI and AGP buses are the same on a P4 operating at 400 MHz fsb or 800 fsb.

Yes if the chip ran on a slower bus it would not perform as well. BUT lets keep in mind that the 2.16 AMD chip came out much later than the INTEL 2.0 GHz I hope it's faster.

Oh ya first the excuse was "The Pentium is running on RDRAM and the AMD's are tested using DDR and that is why it's faster."

now it's "The INTEL's bus speed is higher that is why they perform faster."

What's next "OH IT'S CLOUDY OUTSIDE AND THAT IS WHY MY AMD RUNS SLOWER THAN YOUR INTEL."

I swear AMD XP retail boxed chips must come with a book full of reasons why AMD cant keep pace with INTEL. Yes the 2 GHZ AMD will outperform a 2.GHz INTEL but as I stated before they release the chip so much later ,August of 2001 vs feb. of 2003 hello 1 1/2 years folks, it should be faster. How about we compare the Latest INTEL vs the AMD's top of the line CPU 16 months ago the ATHALON 1400 or maybe the 1800+...............Ya thank you.

Please how can you be critical of a company who works toward increasing performance by reducing bottlenecks In the System memory and fsb.

OH and by the way there is one good thing about AMD they help reduce the prices of the INTEL chips.

AND no I dont just by a chip based on whats on the box, I buy based on performance and I can get an INTEL chip that strongly outperforms any thing that AMD has released all for the price of the 3000+. The only consumers that even have to consider if the writing on the box is true or false are the ones buying AMD products. If you buy an INTEL 2.8 GHz it will run at 2.8 GHz, If you buy an AMD 2800+ it will perform much lower than a 2800+ would be presumed to perform at giving the capability of the new P4 C series.