AMD cries foul!

Chipmaker AMD has accused an industry consortium (founded in part by Intel) of changing the way a performance test (SYSmark 2002) works in a manner that favors the Intel products. AMD has long claimed that it can hold its own against Intel's offerings even though their chips run at a slower clock speed than their Intel counterparts. According to the article (see link below) the new test has had components that favored AMD removed while components that favor Intel have been added, some in multiple instances. As a result, the AMD processors that were able to excel above the Intel line under SYSmark 2001 are now lagging behind using the new version of the test. On a personal note, I think the 'megahertz myth' is just that...a myth. True performance in an everyday working eviroment is what really counts. So I'm posting a poll to see how my fellow AO members feel about the 2 chips. Hopefully after you vote in the poll, you'll post and let us all know why you prefer your choice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/27/te...odaysheadlines

This is from the NY Times....you may have to log in to view the article, but membership is free.

I have had better luck using AMD. I have a pentium II 300 that runs slower than a AMD 200 that I had running with the same hardware and software. I can run DVD almost seamlessly on a AMD 200 and on the PII it skips contantly. (And both are running the DXR3 DVD decoder card, win 98 minimum install on a 1 gig hard drive.)

I to believe that mhz is wrong to focus on, especially with AMD, that can do multiple calcs in one hertz!

I'm willing to bet that AMD runs away with the vote here. It's funny how people who are really into linux and software development type things almost always prefer AMD, while gamers and other "less serious" users tend to go for Intel, presumably because of Intel's high Quake 3 scores.

I personally would go for AMD because i think their range of products are just as good if not better and also more affordable.I have personally seen a AMD K6 500 with 64MEG Ram,32meg scr/card and 6 gig h/drive outperform a intel celeron 600 with more or less the same criteria.

Again that's my personal opinion.
Good post allenb.

regards
v/man

Hi Al,
I chose the AMD purley because I am a tightwad and the AMDs are less expensive. I have also had very good luck with the AMD CPUs. The last 25 or 30 systems I have built were all AMD and ( knock on wood ) none of those customers have been dissatisfied. The Intel chips were always my choice untill I found I could build 1 and a 1/2 as many systems as I could with the ever more expensive Intels, I mean eegadz!! Have you looked at the prices of the old Xeon cpu's? Intel must be vewy, vewy, pwoud of them.


[gloworange]AMD[/gloworange]

I have always had an easier time overclocking AMD systems, and the price difference is another factor. I have always found the systems to be quite comparible by my own standards, with that being said. You could see why I would choose the cheapest of the two.

I have used AMD only in the last few years and found AMD's although cheaper and have its plusses, I have had bad luck with AMD's CPU temps. However, I do have to say I have had good luck otherwise as long as I have decent cooling.

I do game pretty seriously (I do win money if you were unsure about my seriousness) but I love AMD
I think the group of people that like AMD better are just the smarter ones ;o

Agreed albn....there are two very important things to remember when considering AMD processors...a good CPU fan and an AMD-approved power supply. These are both items that you should never overlook!

I've got mixed emotions about processors. I had a AMD K6-2 at 475 Mhz that wouldnt work at all, it constantly over heated, the only way to keep the computer running was to take off the case and put a large fan next to it. Currently I've been using Intel Xeons, which have performed quite well, even under work on video editing. The price of AMD is a major interest, because I know I paid top dollar for two 1.5Ghz Xeons, when I could have probably gotten a lower price on a comparable AMD. On a side note, does anyone know how AMD chips handle in a laptop, because I'm looking into getting a new one, but I don't really want to kill my wallet on it.

like alittlebitnumb I have had problems with AMD's when it concerns temperature.

MY first system kept overheating for that reason but I didn't build it myself. So adding a few fans did the trick.

I am now running a P3 and I can tell you when it comes to multitasking, intel processors don't compare to AMD. Intel is just slower in that bracket.

I figure though, above all, it all depends on what you are using you PC for.

Just my thoughts. :)

Guidance...

Well i have to say amd makes the better chip ... get this i have a k-6 at 600 mhz ok my brother has a p4 at 1.7ghz and mine is still faster and runs every thing better

The p4's and the new athlons are both good chips but amd will get you more bang for the buck. k-6 600mz faster then a p4 1.7 I think not.

I too have an easier time with AMD. It is my chip of choice.

I have a HP 1gig lap top with dvd, ethernet , and a bunch of other bells and whistles
It has an AMD chip and runs everything I want >including dvd decrip with no probs. Power consumtion isn't bad either {anybody got a AMD and comparable Intel laptop, how about a power consumtion test}
the case gets hot but HP tech said that is normal
all of my machines are amd but one, p133 lab box, and I wouldn,t own anything else.
PS intel chips won't let you turn off the serial number, amd WILL

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by oldguy

PS intel chips won't let you turn off the serial number, amd WILL

---

If by serial number you mean the PSN, you can turn this off in the BIOS. It can be turned off with software, but if its not disabled in the BIOS, it can be turned back on (even without requiring a reboot).

Also, Intel stopped shipping the PSN's in the processors quite a while ago (around end of 2000 I think)...

Nice little chunk of info Matty...thanks, I always enjoy learning something new!

how about the double cpu, (i think?)

Quote:

---

Who makes the better chip?

---

There is no simple answer to this question. It depends on lots of things like benchmarks, chip versions, memory configurations and load of other factors. If you want to see a running commentary of the war between Intel and AMD, check out www.tomshardware.com. This guy really knows what he's talking about and the site has heaps of up to date information about the performance of all the new chips.

Wow...33 to 3 in favour of AMD. I was thinking AMD would be favoured amongst us AO users, but was thinking something like 70% or something, never knew it would be leaning to AMD so heavily.

At our home, we always had Intel CPU's. I didn't really hear about AMD until I was about 15 or something (4 years ago - roughly). Anywho, I use to buy PC's from DELL and GATEWAY (very good PC's in my opinion), but ever since I became more familiar with computer hardware and how it works, how it's connected, etc, I've always favoured AMD.

About half a year ago, I decided to stop my trend in buying branded PC's from DELL and GATEWAY and decided I'll take the challenge and put one together myself. I couldn't believe the price difference between Intel and AMD - AMD's CPU's were about half the price for similar clock speeds - I couldn't understand why people would buy Intel's if they were more expensive, unless AMD's performed badly.

So, I chucked the system all together (suprisingly easy for my first time) and 6 months down the track I have no regrets - AMD is sensational and I doubt I'll go back to buying Intel. I've read that AMD's overheat easily and you can't leave em on too long (heard that somewhere, don't know where), but it was obviously all crap, as I've left my PC on for weeks on end and it performs like a dream!!

AMD all the way I say!!

:D

Ciao,
Greg

About eight months ago I read an article claiming that an AMD running at half the "speed" (MHZ) of an intel processor could actually outperform the intel (ie...800 mhz AMD outperforms intel 1.6ghz) As you can imagine I was sceptical, so I found out for myself. I own a Duron myself, and had the opportunity to work on a brand new Dell pentium 1.7ghz. After being on used to my own computer, I felt like I was crawling on the pentium. It's hard to believe, but it's true....AMDs kick pentium ass.

Benchmarks should be taken with a grain of salt. AMD vs. Intel (I go for AMD everytime), NT vs Linux (remember that benchmark? NT tweaked vs. RH right out of the box? Yeah, that's fair.), NVidia vs. ATI...

We should remember two things. 1) If, in any of the aforementioned, any one of the two go away entirely, the other owns the market and that means they can make the prices whatever they want. PRIME example is Intel. If it weren't for AMD (and other happenings along the way), we'd still be on P2 400mhz machines and paying an assload at that. 2) Competition breeds better products. AMD, I think, makes a better product. Not just because they're AMD but because they know and have been trying to get the word out that the megahertz theory is just that. A theory. Intel's repeatedly used the market's ignorance of what really goes on by putting "400 mhz FSB!" and "It makes your internet scream!" on their boxes and ads...

First off, 400 mhz FSB is only 2 x 200 FSB pipelined and second, when does a proc have ANYTHING to do with the internet (which is NOT an application)? Educate the endusers, give them a choice. Me, I'll go with AMD every time and I'm one of the most hardcore gamers out there. I'd never use an Intel for gaming, ever.

And overall, the G4 by Apple beats the pants off Intel and AMD. Why? Because it's a 128-bit processor which means it pumps more per clock cycle. (well, more than that but it's the rough gist)

AMD rulez....
till this feb, ive built lots of intel based systems....but it was then when i built an athalon xp 1700+ based system for myself....and after that there has been no looking back.....
ive pursuaded all my clients to go for AMD.....

I think the Tom's Hardware article also mentions that AMD did not cry foul when sysmark originally had a bunch of AMD-favoring stuff in there for no practical reason. I don't think it's as clear cut as 'Big Bad Intel is being Mean to Good AMD'.