AMD vs Prescott

[The3ntropy]

Okay, people really need to get their heads removed from their rear ends. I am tired of hearing all of this crap about the prescott's thermal output. I must have seen at least a hundred articles criticizing the prescott, calling it an oven, too hot, blah blah.

To put an end to this crap from these AMD geek boys, here is some nice hard evidence.

From AMD's site, the Athlon 64, which includes models FX51, FX53, 3000+ through 3800+, all have a maximum thermal output of 89.0 watts.

source:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...ec_Rev_ENG.pdf
http://www.amd.com/gb-uk/assets/cont...on_Rev_ENG.pdf


From Intel's site, the Intel 2.8E, 3.0E, 3.2E, (prescotts) all have a maximum thermal output of also 89.0 watts. The higher end chips, including the second revision 3.2E and 3.4E have a maximum thermal output of 103.0 watts.

source
ftp://download.intel.com/design/Pent...s/30056102.pdf (page 64)


So what was that you moron prescott critics? Oh you didn't know that your worthless 64 bit processors are exactly the same as the prescotts? And since the people who would be bashing the prescott's thermal output couldn't do the math, 103 watts is only a 15% increase for the higher end prescotts. (Which also have the performance increase of far more than 15%)


Another interesting point, AMD says flat out that any one of their crappy processors are going to die within seconds of being powered on without a heat sink. I wonder what Intel did about this; ignore the problem like AMD just did?

source:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont..._Rev05_ENG.pdf (page 4)

Of course not, how could you forget about the Thermal Monitor Feature from Intel. The PROCHOT# signal, in both the prescott and new LGA socket processors, is a feature that specifically prevents the chip from overheating. This feature throttles down the frequency of the chip to prevent any and all damage from occurring, even in a catastrophic failure of a heat sink. (it falling off)

source:
ftp://download.intel.com/design/Pent...s/30056401.pdf (page 24)
ftp://download.intel.com/design/Pent...s/30255301.pdf (page 30)


For now, I only have one question for all of the prescott heat bashers out there, what are you bashing morons? Processors get hot, they always have. AMD processors are exactly, to the watt, as hot as prescotts are. If any of you have any evidence to refute what is here, I would very, very gladly like to see it.

[SDK]

Intel is a monopoly... People doesn't love monopoly...

Linux is to Windows what AMD is to Intel.

[The3ntropy]

The only difference is that Intel is good and makes a better, faster product then AMD. Let's think for a second then, intel is better, faster, bigger, AMD is slower, smaller. . . so if Intel is faster and more efficient, why isn't intel linux, and AMD crappy microsoft.

[allenb1963]

Different strokes for different folks....

Since I'm not using autocad, maya or any other processor intensive apps on a regular basis I'm not going to see a performance gap between Intel and AMD. Given that fact, I see no reason for me to shell out the extra bucks for A NAME.

As for the 64 bit part of the discussion, you have to admit that this is one circumstance where Intel has to play catch-up with AMD and you should be GRATEFUL...things like this keep Intel honest and on its toes. After all, AMD has made YOUR Intel machine cost less and that makes us ALL winners....no matter which chip you prefer.

[cgkanchi]

1. I have yet to see someone indulge in Prescott bashing at AO.
2. If you notice, AMD never disputed what you are saying, it's misguided zealots who did.

Oh you didn't know that your worthless 64 bit processors are exactly the same as the prescotts?

Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong here, but the AMD 64's came first. That would make the Prescott a clone of the AMD 64 and not vice-versa?

Cheers,
cgkanchi

[SDK]

Originally posted here by The3ntropy
The only difference is that Intel is good and makes a better, faster product then AMD. Let's think for a second then, intel is better, faster, bigger, AMD is slower, smaller. . . so if Intel is faster and more efficient, why isn't intel linux, and AMD crappy microsoft.

I really think you need to read a lot of review of AMD/Intel war... Intel processor are better in some test while AMD is better in other test (Mostly gaming).

If I take your idea, any compagy that are big do better product that small compagy?

[The3ntropy]

Tim_Axe was poking fun at prescotts here posting this link about prescott heat.

I am grateful for competition and understand that it makes everything better. The 64 bit chips that run standard x86-32 applictions though, are going to continue to do only that. I have still not seen any significant server applications that are ready to benefit greatly from a migration to 64 bit. I understand the benefits of the jump, but my dual xenon 4GB ddr servers are still handling thousands of queries a second on the database and webserver, and are spitting out results without problems. No games take full advantage of 64 bit code. So until there is some reason software side for me to upgrade my hardware to 64 bit, all of you with your AMD 64's still look to me like people who drive military issue Hummer's in a city.

I never called either processor a clone of the other, just saying that they both had the same thermal heat dissipation.

while AMD is better in other test (Mostly gaming)

Really? Oh you must be referring to Directx8 or OpenGL gaming, since that is the only place the Athlon 64 takes a lead over the P4. The Athlon 64 and P4 both ranked within 1% on all of the Directx9 tests but the P4 took a strong lead on almost every other benchmark they did. If the Athlon 64 pulled ahaed, it was by 1% or 2%.

source:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200...n-fx53-17.html

One other thing to mention as well, before someone attempts to target price comparisons, I bought my 2.8C M0 for $200. Being an M0 SL6Z5, it was produced with a batch of northwood gallatin extreme editions (3.2EE, 3.4EE). I have got it up to 3.8 with only air cooling (a $50 swiftech MCX478-V), right now it is at 3.5Ghz. It doesn't have the additional cache activated, but it is running perfectly stable at 3.5 with a 1000Mhz FSB at 1.600 volts. The Athlon FX 53 is ~$700, mine was ~$250. If I even neglect the 25% FSB gain and higher core speed, I could call my chip the same as the 3.4EE in the previous link. Considering the 3.4EE did the same or better in every benchmark, except the old Directx8 and OpenGL tests, going dollar/peformance, I would score well over 200% of what the FX 53 would get.

[SDK]

This in my last answer to this thread because you cleary hate AMD and trying to make you understand AMD and Intel good/bad point would just be a waste of time.

But I have time to waste.

Xeon cost 1000$ and Athlon 64 cost 200$. Is Xeon x5 faster that an Athlon 64?

[nihil]

Well,

I take the view that the whole discussion is academic, unless you really have a use for high end equipment, and the majority of users do not.

Secondly, the processor is only one of the factors affecting performance...............it is important that all components are "balanced", so with a high end processor you are going to fetch up with a very expensive system.

Let's face it "bragging rights are expensive"

I think the whole heat issue is irrelevant provided that you use properly specified heatsinks, fans, thermal paste and a good case design. If it were that much of an issue then the manufacturers wouldn't make the processors because they wouldn't be able to sell them?

My feeling is that AMD have been slagged off for making hot processors for a long time, so now that Intel have made one the AMD boys are having a bit of revenge

just my thoughts

[The3ntropy]

SDK > If you can provide any proof for your statement, I will gladly adapt my opinion to match the facts. You clearly said

while AMD is better in other test (Mostly gaming)

I did not start this thread to have it become some AMD vs Intel thread, but if you can provide a link to a reputable site or some kind of benchmark that shows how 'AMD is better in gaming', I would gladly read it and like to see it. I understand that AMD has taken a lead in Directx8 and openGL architecture, but games that require these instructions have been outdated for years and any 1Ghz proc and generic video card can handle them fine (When was the last time you played a game of Quake and were worried about fps?). When I see that P4's and 64 FX's both get the same scores, with only a few percent variations, on Directx9a/b/c architectures, I call them the same. But since the P4 shines on damn near anything else you can throw at it because of its higher clock, I will continue to recommend it and use it. But again, if you can show something to refute what I have stated and posted here, I would be glad to read it.