AMD vs Prescott

Quote:

---

There is not a lot of user that overclock their machine. I don't consider that fact when buying a CPU.

---

How can you not consider overclocking a factor when it can make that much of an enormous difference? I always squeeze all of the performance that I can get out of my hardware. When there is the potential to increase the speed by 30-50% how can you ignore that and then go compare the results of the processors running at stock speeds? I pushed an additional 35% out of mine which is very noticable, with only a minimal amount of modified cooling (buying a new heatsink), it is as stable as it is at stock speeds, and now I never even need to bother with it (unless I want to), it just works.

Why would you not want your processor to run at its fastest possible speed?

Did you read? I never said anything about overclocking. When I bought mine, it ran hot out of the box.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2026&p=3

Unless it has been improved.... I never bothered to look back.

alittlebitnumb > If you refer to the fact sheets that are from both intel and amd, that I have posted previously, you will see that both processors have the same thermal output of 89.0 watts. This thread was not about the temperature of the processors under load or at idle, the discussion just drifted off with me and SDK.

The temperature of the processors at idle and load will be very different, that will depend upon the hertz rating of the processor and the heatsink that is being used. If these factors were kept the same, then the temperatures would be the same. With different heatsinks being used, and also the different clock speeds of the two processors, you cannot compare the temperatures that they are at during idle and load tests.

I was comparing the actual thermal output of the two processors, which in this case is the same. Both companies show that the processors both output 89.0 watts.

I run a P4 3.2E (yes prescott @ 800mhz FSB adn 1MB cache), and thers not a whole lot of difference with the heat generated by the processor from my old 2.8ghz machine.

I prefer the Intel chips over the AMD's. Sure AMD's are cheaper, but I get more preformance out of the Intels than what I do with the AMD's. And yes I do game a lot but I don't really notice a difference with the AMD processor.

I don't think human eyes could see difference between AMD and Intel Processor at all if they are supposed to be equal. (Exemple, P4 3.2 vs Athlon XP 3200+)

You have to remember, that the P4 3.2 runs @ 3.2ghz, the XP 3200 runs at what? 2.1ghz?

Some thing like that but their core architecture is very different! Intel was always marketing MHz but now, they stop. Something that AMD learn a while back! :)

Sorry I came to this thread late, but I've been away on a trip for the past week or two...


There is a problem with your standing on your source material. If you take a very close look at your Intel source, you would see that 103 watts is the TDP, or average thermal dissapation. Intel's maximum thermal output is not listed anywhere in that document!

On AMD's source, they list the maximum. You cannot compare AMD's maximum heat dissapation to Intel's average heat disspation and claim that they are the same temperatue.


Yes I run AMD. But this is because I wanted an affordable Dual Processor system. I would also happily build a prescott system and overclock it like a bat out of hell. But that would mean single processor, and I enjoy two processors too much to go a single processor route.

I'm not trying to sound mad, but I'm trying to show that I understand both sides of the issue, and want to point out that you are standing on something very unsteady. We can talk about whatever you want in this thread, but I just wanted to show that your primary source documents are being interperted inaccurately.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by cheyenne1212
You have to remember, that the P4 3.2 runs @ 3.2ghz, the XP 3200 runs at what? 2.1ghz?

---

Cheyenne ... that's the whole point,
Intel's focus is on Mhz, GHz nowadays, AMD on actual performance.
AMD cpu's do more in one clock cycle then a similar Intel cpu, that's way they can have lower Mhz rates and still perform very well.

Next, I see people here comparing Athlon64, Athlon FX, Xeon, P4's, those cpu's are all very different and built for other purposes.
Like stated before by people overhere is the Xeon primarly a cpu used in multiprocessor systems. If you want to compare cpu's and price tags then compare cpu's that aim at the same market share. For the Xeon this would be the Opteron (also a member of the 64bit Hammer architecture family). The Celeron compares with the Duron, the P4 with the Athlon.
The Athlon64 has the advantage that it has 64bit and 32bit compatibility while no other processor for the home market has this onboard, so you have to say AMD is ready for the home pc future.

The prescott is probably the fastest cpu at the moment but probably also the most power hungry and hot one.

If you realy want impressive oc results and cool temperatures without spending a lot of money I would go for an Athlon Mobile with Barton core with the right batch ID, those run at low stock voltage, meaning they run cooler and have a lot of head room for oc'ing, and as some sort of bonus they come all unlocked. This is cause the power management in laptops need to influence cpu speed in order to save battery time.

conclusion the AMD / Intel struggle is more about emotions and what kind of stuff you want to do with your pc.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by VictorKaum
If you realy want impressive oc results and cool temperatures without spending a lot of money I would go for an Athlon Mobile with Barton core with the right batch ID, those run at low stock voltage, meaning they run cooler and have a lot of head room for oc'ing, and as some sort of bonus they come all unlocked. This is cause the power management in laptops need to influence cpu speed in order to save battery time.[/B]

---

SO TRUE!


I have two sweet Mobile Bartons in my current rig -- Dual IQYHA-stepping 35watt 2400+ Mobile Bartons. They're running at 2.4GHz / 1.7v. Temps are in the upper 40's to lower 50's. Passed Prime95 without trouble. 2.4GHz is ~3400-3500+ish or so. And running them dual is like a dream. Very nice indeed. Overall the processors, motherboard, and cooling cost less than $450. I had HDD/CDROM, and getting everything else (minus video card) ran me up to $650. Not bad for this mean of a machine. :cool: