An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
I personally like Intel more, cause its more for other things exept gaming. AMD is very good for gaming, but not for everything else.
That is completely false. The general rule of thumb when it comes to single-core is Intel for audio/video encoding, heavy multitasking, some 3D rendering; AMD for everything else - especially games, compilers, scientific apps, video editing, and some other 3D rendering. The only real reason to go Intel is if you do something like audio/video encoding. Even then, however, a dual-core X2 would even be better. When it comes to dual-cores AMD's dual-core chips (Athlon 64 X2) are faster than Intel's (Pentium D) in pretty much everything, even A/V encoding.
AMD Athlon 64 & Opteron dominated in mid 2003 & all of 2004.
No, they didn't. The Athlon64 and the Opteron were not so far ahead of the Pentium 4 and the Xeon in the 2003-2004 year. The point where AMD overtook Intel in terms of performance was the middle of this year, with the release of both the Athlon64 and Opteron dual-cores, and with the release of the FX-55.
After that, it all went downhill.
I'll say, Intel's played a great marketing game with the Pentium 4, but they've really screwed up. As an ardent fan of Intel CPU's, I'm sad to say that. I liked my Northwood, a LOT. I hate Prescotts, though some of the added features on the Prescott were nice. For instance, I liked the added cache, the 64-bitness, improved hyperthreading SSE3 and EIST were nice additions. I feel they could have been better implemented on the Northwood, which wasn't such a hot-running power hungry maniac of a core.
In my opinion, they should have added all of the Prescott features to a 90nm version of the Northwood. Had I been in Intel's shoes, that's what I'd have done. I'd have also let AMD release the X2 first, I wouldn't have launched the Pentium D the way Intel did... I'd have made sure it had at the very least a 1066 MHz frontside-bus, and a shared cache of 2MB.
But nooooo....
On the flip-side, there's a little redemption with the Pentium M. Low power, fast running, and the basis of Intel's next processor architecture. I really like the thing, I wish more laptop manufacturers either paired it with faster or dual-channel RAM, as benchmarks show it can make use of that.
Even still... 2005 is clearly AMD's. It has been a perfectly dismal year for Intel. I'm not buying anything Intel 'til Yonah comes out...
And now for some rebuttal.
Quote:
Intel's HT is integrated into there chip, like an add on where as AMD's HTT is part of it's core design.
Intel's Hyperthreading takes up about 5% of the die space on the chip. In addition, it's part of the core. The hyperthreading components have been on Pentium 4 chips since the Willamettes, they've merely been disabled all this time.
Quote:
The only real reason to go Intel is if you do something like audio/video encoding.
As well as on a budget. Intel's strong chips right now, in the \"enthusiast\" community are only the 2.8-3.4 GHz Pentium 4's, and the Pentium D 820. I would take a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 over an Athlon64 3000+, particularly if I were doing video encoding. Of course, this is purely hypothetical... I have no intent for Intel to get ANY of my money from me buying a Prescott/Smithfield.
Last edited by A_Pickle on Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
I will have to disagree with you A_Pickle, mid 2003 & all of 2004 was well known to be dominated by AMD's A64's.
I mean, there stock even went up. Sure Intel sold a lot more than AMD, but this is not what I meant. Intel is obviously larger than AMD.
But AMD did shine though & there is loads of proof on the net to support that statement.
And to close, Intel is still @ least 18 months behind AMD. So, it did not take AMD 1/2 year to be in the lead! It took then @ least 2 years to come on top & dominate.
AMD uses newer innovative technologies with a completely different core design where as Intel is still hacking away @ there old age Net Burst. Until Intel comes out with something better (SCI Technology or something of that matter), AMD will always be in the lead.
Who knows, maybe just maybe this time Intel's misleading advertising will back fire on them ;)
P.S. Polls speek for themselves.
Last edited by Super XP on Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
I will have to disagree with you A_Pickle, mid 2003 & all of 2004 was well known to be dominated by AMD's A64's.
It's nothing more than a simple delusion to think that AMD had faster processors during 2003 and 2004. Unquestionably, NOW they have the faster ones, in 2005. That's not in dispute. But 2003 and 2004 were anything but \"definitively\" AMD's golden years. Intel's Pentium 4 wasn't so \"antiquated\" back then.
I disagree. In gaming, number-crunching and compiling,, yes. However, Prescott and Northwood still maintained a strong lead in 3D Rendering, media encoding and overall multitasking power. Only with the FX-55 and the Athlon64 X2 were these former Intel fortes taken... and that was mid-2005... not 2003 or 2004.
Last edited by A_Pickle on Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
I disagree. In gaming, number-crunching and compiling,, yes. However, Prescott and Northwood still maintained a strong lead in 3D Rendering, media encoding and overall multitasking power. Only with the FX-55 and the Athlon64 X2 were these former Intel fortes taken... and that was mid-2005... not 2003 or 2004.
I'm sure an Athlon 64 3800+ or 4000+ could overtake a Prescott/Northwood in media encoding, etc.
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
Intels single-cores have an edge over AMD in audio/video encoding. It is such a huge edge that going with an AMD single core for such purposes would be stupid.
You guys have to stop acting like AMD fanboys thinking AMD is better then Intel in everything. This is not the case.
Last edited by KoolDrew on Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Intels single-cores have an edge over AMD in audio/video encoding. It is such a huge edge that going with an AMD single core for such purposes would be stupid.
You guys have to stop acting like AMD fanboys thinking AMD is better then Intel in everything. This is not the case.
I wouldn't call it that much of a huge edge.
I like Intel's processors mainly because of their overclockability. That's why you see 7GHz P4's and only 3.9GHz FX57's.
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
I'm sure an Athlon 64 3800+ or 4000+ could overtake a Prescott/Northwood in media encoding, etc.
I doubt that. I find more often than not AMD's numbering scheme is a bit mis-informative. A 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 (Prescott) would beat a 4000+ in media encoding. A 3800+ would be beaten by a 660 just fine.
Quote:
I wouldn't call it that much of a huge edge.
It really is though. The edge AMD single-cores have in gaming is the edge Intel single-cores have in encoding. You always see the AMDs at the top of the lineup in gaming, so too do you see the Intels at the top in encoding. 3D rendering is a little more \"balanced,\" but even then, generally speaking Pentium 4's have a lead in that too. A Pentium 4 630 will beat a 3200+ in 3D Studio Max rendering, and it'll do even better in Lightwave. The only rendering application in which Athlons dominate is POV-Ray, which is command-line based anyways, and isn't used professionally.
I'll admit on the dual-core front, AMD trumps Intel, but that's because Intel foolishly gave each of their dual-cores a single 800 MHz frontside bus. The problem is core communication and data feed. If the Pentium D's had more data feed, then I'm certain that the Pentium D's would retain the lead in media encoding.
Last edited by A_Pickle on Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
