What CPU do you use?

Post by **ccb056** » January 25th, 2004, 11:10 pm

Which CPU do you use, AMD or Intel?

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » January 26th, 2004, 12:08 am

INTEL RUUULLLLLEEEESSSS

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » January 26th, 2004, 1:53 am

AMD Athlon XP 2100 T-Bred clocked at 1.74GHz w/ 128KB C1, 256KB C2, and 266MHz (133MHz) FSB.
I OCed this baby of mine to AMD Athlon XP 2400 T-Bred clocked at 2.0GHz w/ 128KB C1, 256KB C2, and 266MHz (133MHz) FSB.
Hopefully I will be able to get a K9 Athlon 64 DTR Laptop the summer of 2007.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » January 26th, 2004, 10:28 pm

K9s will feature the following above Intel CPUs:
64-Bit
GHz
FSB
Cores
Multi-CPU Environment
Cache 1
Cache 2
Cache 3
Hyper Threading
Hyper Transport
Onboard NorthBrige (Memory Controller) for the most advanced RAM
Cooling
Quiet
Power usage
Performance
And best of all:
MUCH, MUCH, LESS EXPENSIVE
Name one thing that AMD K9 will lose to Intel's P5.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » January 26th, 2004, 10:33 pm

And they are so POWERFUL!!!

Of course AMD ones.

Post by **ccb056** » January 27th, 2004, 1:48 am

AMD does what Intel does but cheaper

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » January 27th, 2004, 1:57 am

Uh, no.
Prescotts cost $300 for 3.2GHz.
AMD Athlon 64 3200 costs only $260.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » January 27th, 2004, 2:41 am

7/17 is not most of the benchmarks.
Besides, the Prescotts are to be poor quality since 90nm is new to
Intel. There will be many bugs that will slow it down.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » January 27th, 2004, 3:00 am

Then why do most people vote Anandtech over Tom.
People being PC builders.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » January 28th, 2004, 11:56 pm

lol.. Tomshardware can blow me.. I recommend my friend site... http://maximumoverclockers.com

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » January 29th, 2004, 12:00 am

Thanks Neo!

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » January 31st, 2004, 5:22 pm

They have a messed up site:

thracx · Post by **thracx** » February 9th, 2004, 3:06 pm

AMD 2600+ ovc. to 2.2gHz

It has been treating me well. Down with Intel. hehe... Actually I have nothing against Intel - if you want the faster CPU, then chances are, Intel is your brand. If the price/performance ratio is important (as it is for 99% of people), then AMD is your brand.

For my other computer specs, see:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~tfemino/CerebrumSpecs.htm

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » February 9th, 2004, 9:37 pm

Actually, I think the price to performance ratio of P4C's to Athlon XP's is abotu the same. The HT makes up for this I think.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » February 9th, 2004, 10:01 pm

An Athlon XP 2600 T-Bred only costs $76.
A Pentium 4 1.4GHz cost $81.
Uh, there is a big difference there.
Prices from PriceWatch.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » February 9th, 2004, 10:16 pm

thracx wrote:...if you want the faster CPU, then chances are, Intel is your brand....

Actually, the Athlon 64 FX-51 does outrun any Intel CPU in all gaming and office applications. They only lose to them in some professional (programming) programs because of the huge Cache 3 on the P4 EE.
But that should be corrected.
AMD promised a much larger cache on the K9s.
And as we saw how they beat the P4s big by having 16x as much Cache 1, we can be sure that AMD will beat Intel in this Cache 3.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » February 9th, 2004, 10:25 pm

What about prices from Newegg?

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » February 9th, 2004, 10:29 pm

These are the cheapest prices.
If it costs more at NewEgg, buy it from the cheapest place on PriceWatch.

thracx · Post by **thracx** » February 10th, 2004, 10:46 am

Smartweb wrote:Actually, I think the price to performance ratio of P4C's to Athlon XP's is abotu the same. The HT makes up for this I think.

Of course we could argue this forever, as I don't know of any super-thourow tests out there, although I do beleive http://www.tomshardware.com would agree with me.

I know that my CPU seems compriable to a P4 2.6 gHz CPU (my friend has one of those) - mine costs $76 now on http://www.pricewatch.com and the P4 costs $150 - half the price for very simular speeds? Of course when you add overclocking, I think the P4 does benifit more, but I've never dealt with P4s, nor P4 overclocking for that matter, so I couldn't say for sure. And I repeat, if we are talking about the best chip, I'm fairly confident that the newest P4 takes the cake (although I give respect to the AMD64 chips)

Aggressor Prime · February 10th, 2004, 11:33 am

When it comes to overclocking:
P4 2.4C can reach 3.4GHz on Air. (Best P4 OCer)
Athlon XP 1800 DLT3C (1.53GHz) can reach 2.6GHz on Air. (Best Athlon OCer)
And when it comes to performance, only trust PCWorld:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,a ... g,2,00.asp

If it is Hyper Threading and SSE3 you see missing, AMD will add these in the late K8s and early K9s.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » February 10th, 2004, 11:33 pm

For most multitaskers (which is most all of us except simple-minded people liek AP), HT nearly doubles performance.

Aggressor Prime · February 10th, 2004, 11:52 pm

A dual 1.7GHz system (performance of one) is as fast as a single 3.4GHz CPU. All it does is increase stability.

thracx · Post by **thracx** » February 11th, 2004, 12:05 am

Aggressor Prime wrote:A dual 1.7GHz system (performance of one) is as fast as a single 3.4GHz CPU. All it does is increase stability.

And note that two 1.7 gHz AMD chips are cheaper than one 3.4 gHz P4 chip, although I suspect the available motherboards for duel CPUs possibly aren't as good as single-CPU boards (please correct me if I am wrong, as I haven't looked into duel-CPU boards, and if one are great, let me know so I can get one!)

Aggressor Prime · February 11th, 2004, 12:17 am

http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant ... ory_Code=M
with 2 Athlon MP 2200s
http://www.runtimecc.com/store.rcc?view ... ID=1796384
Total = $413
Total GHz- 3.6
Total Performance- 4.4GHz

P4 3.4GHz- $423 (w/o motherboard)

thracx · Post by **thracx** » February 11th, 2004, 4:14 am

Good compare Aggressor Prime, although the site for AMD CPUs is rather expensive.

When I think about having a Duel-CPU system, I like it. However, I have a 2600+ 333FSB, 8x APG card, and 2x512MB DDR400 RAM. Any ideas for motherboards? Typically I would sell my setup as a lot, but it would be nice to know what my options would be.

Quick question Aggressor Prime, you said, "All it does is increase stability." - I assume you are saying that the single CPU system is more stable?

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » February 11th, 2004, 5:01 am

Well, no dual Socket 462 supports DDR400 or AGP 8x.
For that you will have to move to a dual Socket 940 environment. (Starting from the *48s for DDR400)
Don't worry, I found this cheap board and these expensive CPUs.

Total Costs: $1944.96
Total GHz: 4.4
Total Performance: 7.4GHz (Since Socket 754 2.2GHz has a performance rating of 3.4GHz, the Athlon 64 FX-51 has one of 3.7GHz due to its Dual Channel DDR and the fact that the acceleration of performance increases w/ GHz because of the onboard memory controller. 3.7*2=7.4)

This is very expensive now because the only Opterons that support DDR400 right now are the *48s and they are the last Opterons to come out so far.
You should see a large price drop though when the Opteron *50s come out on March 29 and again when the Opteron *52s come out at the end of the year.

In other words, if you are planning to upgradeyour AMD system to a higher AMD system for a hyper threading effect, either wait for this price to be more reasonable, or wait for the late K8s (2005) which will have Hyper Threading.

thracx · Post by **thracx** » February 11th, 2004, 5:12 am

Aggressor Prime wrote:Well, no dual Socket 462 supports DDR400 or AGP 8x.

That sucks.

How about dual-Athlon64? hehe... (It's strange how that board you mentioned only supports dual Opteron, not dual Althon64, but I guess Athlon64 is still rather new)

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » February 11th, 2004, 5:15 am

Athlon 64s and 64 FXs are only for single-way environments.
They will be switched from Socket 754 and Socket 940 to Socket 939.
They cannot be modded into an MP CPU.
Opteron 100s are single, 200s are dual, and 800s are 4-Way and 8-Way.
They are down compatible.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » February 11th, 2004, 5:17 am

thracx wrote:Quick question Aggressor Prime, you said, "All it does is increase stability." - I assume you are saying that the single CPU system is more stable?

The dual CPU system is more organized with the data, thus more stable.

Sumpin_Wong · Post by **Sumpin_Wong** » March 26th, 2004, 6:33 pm

AMD all the way

3200+XP
2800+XP
1800+XP

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » March 27th, 2004, 6:27 am

INTEL all the way

P4 2.4C GHz - My desktop (costum built by me)
p4 2.4 GHz - Family Desktop(Dell)
p3 1.0 GHz - Family Desktop(Dell)

I dont know the specifications of the other two laptops:\

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 1st, 2004, 3:37 pm

ccb056 wrote:AMD does what Intel does but cheaper

AMD does what Intel does, only more effciently.

BTW, I use an AMD Athlon XP 2800+

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 1st, 2004, 4:51 pm

Intel has reached faster speeds than AMD

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 1st, 2004, 4:58 pm

Neo-Tebow2000 wrote:Intel has reached faster speeds than AMD

Are their CPU's faster because of it? No. AMD is beating Intel while running with a 1GHz deficeit. Its effciency. IPC (instructions per clock) Here we have AMD with an IPC of 11 and Intel with........6 (not to mention prescotts 31 stage pipeline). Intel having more MHz is irrelevant, because they cannot make good use of the extra clock speed.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 1st, 2004, 5:09 pm

They are the best to extend clock speeds

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 1st, 2004, 5:19 pm

Neo-Tebow2000 wrote:They are the best to extend clock speeds

uhhhhhh........

ok. Heh, you know Intel is dropping the Mhz game right? And will, eventually and hopefully soon, be replacing the P4 with the Pentium-M architecture, which runs at much lower clock rates. Clock rates are not everything, thats what i was saying earlier.

For a demonstration, run SuperPI. And we can compare completion times

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 2nd, 2004, 4:05 pm

Smartweb wrote:For most multitaskers (which is most all of us except simple-minded people liek AP), HT nearly doubles performance.

In the most extreme circumstance, i think it was a 28% difference. This isnt on a consistant basis either. Its more like 3-5% difference. HT, is more less a marketing gimic. Its primary function is just to keep the P4's long pipeline full.(Which is why you dont see it implimented in AMD processors that have a higher IPC and shorter pipeline. The benefits wouldnt be nearly as great)

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 2nd, 2004, 4:24 pm

I already ran that.. 32 seconds on a Pentium 4 2.4c ghz @2.8c ghz

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 2nd, 2004, 4:55 pm

Neo-Tebow2000 wrote:I already ran that.. 32 seconds on a Pentium 4 2.4c ghz @2.8c ghz

I know that can't be correct. Because an Athlon FX51 at 2.5GHz does it in 36escs.

Check our Thread here. Screenshots of SuperPI and CPU-z are posted.
http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showtop ... hl=superpi

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 2nd, 2004, 5:02 pm

I have it downloaded and that is what i got.. 46 seconds

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 2nd, 2004, 5:06 pm

now that sounds more like it

I got 48. Time to tweak

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 2nd, 2004, 5:12 pm

oh yes sir

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 2nd, 2004, 5:44 pm

Can you post an image of specs and SuperPI?

here is mine

http://www.MyOnlineImages.com/members/m ... reults.JPG

47secs, what an improvement, heh.
I am running stock though, no overclocking.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 3rd, 2004, 3:58 am

odd, I got 50 seconds this time.. Heres mine

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 3rd, 2004, 5:36 am

It only shows your fastest time, if you have ranit more than once. There is no optimization in this program for either processor, it just comes down to pure computational power (it really stresses the FPU where AMD is far superrior) Intel relies on heave SSE2 optimization to make up for this, which not every program suppports.

pathachio · Post by **pathachio** » March 25th, 2005, 8:59 pm

I've noticed on a few tests on CPUs i've read online that INTEL tend to do better in all the theoretical but when it comes to games and other applications the AMD pulls through as the better CPU, with the INTEL unable to turn its performance to usable power

ComputerBB

What CPU do you use?

Which CPU do you use?

What CPU do you use?

Speaking of Tom