is intel really better then amd

[Wile E]

My 5600+ is clocked the same as a 6400+ at 3.4GHz, and has the same amount of Cache, 2x 1MB. And as you stated, an E6600 clocked at 3.75Ghz beat the 6400+ at 3.4GHz, that's a given, it's 350MHz faster... And as you also stated, the AMD's tied, or beat it in some cases and also cost less, yes? The Alcpone 3Dmark06 thread is a place to start. If my setup is so inferior, then why do I beat Q6600's, nevermind the E6600's, even with the same graphics card? I mean, after all... it was stated here earlier that Quad cores blow dual cores out of the water..

My bad, I misread your specs. Thought you had a 5000+

And I also had a typo, the E6600 was at 3.375GHz, not the 3.75 previously typed.

So no, your AMD does not meet the E6600 clocked to 3.4GHz.

And don't just look at the overall 3dmark score to compare. Go into ORB and look at just the cpu scores of Core2's clocked the same as yours. You lose, and by a significant margin. Of course you might be able to outpace a few Intel systems, but I bet those people didn't clock their cards or cpus as far as you. As far as 3Dmark06 cpu scores, it only took 2950MHz for my E6600 to beat my 3.4GHz AMD, with the same card and ram.

You really have no grounds to stand on, I've owned all the chips you just mentioned, and know this from first-hand experience.

 

[Bluefox1115]

I love Intel/NVidia branded applications like 3DMark. *cough* Optimized for? Yep. Also, yes Intels are faster. They use a FSB, where as AMD's do not, we use a reference clock in conjunction with a multiplier. Also, memory clocks higher, and so does the FSB on Intels, where as AMD's are kind of limited.. memory clocks and timings make a HUGE difference in the numbers.

 

[Wile E]

I love Intel/NVidia branded applications like 3DMark. *cough* Optimized for? Yep. Also, yes Intels are faster. They use a FSB, where as AMD's do not, we use a reference clock in conjunction with a multiplier. Also, memory clocks higher, and so does the FSB on Intels, where as AMD's are kind of limited.. memory clocks and timings make a HUGE difference in the numbers.

That's a BS argument. Before Core2, AMD dominated these benchmarks. Don't pull out the conspiracy theory because you don't like the truth of the matter.

And technically, the fsb of the Intel is a disadvantage. AMD's HT link is much more efficient, as is their memory performance. Your argument is completely backwards.

 

[Bluefox1115]

compareResultId=2524014


For a processor that costs $83+ more than mine, it didn't beat me by much.. a mere 162 points and also has 4MB cache compared to my 2x1MB, and a memory speed anywhere from 1066MHZ to 1400MHZ, FSB anywhere from 1066 to 1400 compared to my HT and memeory of 1160MHZ. His higher clocked memory and FSB, and 2MB more cache make up for the 279MHz difference. 3201 to 3480. 355FSB vs 290Reference. 9xMulti vs 12xMulti. There's a difference between a 5000+ BE setup Clocked and Configured the same as mine, just because of the difference in cache, about 400points or so. I think it's a very good comparison.

 

[Bluefox1115]

And for the record, I never stated, quoted, or suggestion of any conspiracy theory. I'm not denying a Core 2 can beat an AMD, in benchmarks, or even games. I'm not denying or ignoring any thruth(s). Intels have more cache than any AMD, which makes a difference, they utilize way higher clocked ram than any AMD, which also makes a difference. Intel has better chips, yes, but most come at a price. This was never about Intel being the best or worst, the 3dMark06 record is held by an Intel, and this thread isn't even about benchmarks, but raw performance, noticeable to the naked eye.. I believe this whole thread was about cost comparison between the two companies and their performance similarities and differences?

 

[Wile E]

What's your compare link? You state this stuff, but I don't have yours to compare to theirs.

And the bus speeds aren't the determining factor here. Take the E4400. 200fsb (800 in Intel speak) 10 multi and compare it to the 3800+ X2, that also runs on a 10multi and 200 bus speed. The E4400 mops the floor with it.

And again, just because the Intel may have ram running at a higher Mhz, doesn't mean it's faster in use than the AMD. It takes a lot less ram frequency from AMD to achieve the same memory performance as the Intel. Intel's design is actually a drawback, thus the reason they plan to move to their version of on-die controllers and HT called CSI, on the Bloomfield cpus.

As far as the price is concerned, that wasn't what we were discussing originally, we were discussing clock for clock performance. On the price front, you have to realize that E6600 was only being used as an example. It's EOL, so the newer chips are actually cheaper. So for the price vs price argument, the E4600 fits the bill. It even has the same bus speed and cache amount as your 5600+, and it's a dead even match to your chip in performance. Until you overclock both chips, that is. Then, as we all know, Intel takes the lead.

 

[cdawall]

this is turning into fanboyism. stop before this is closed.

 

[Wile E]

this is turning into fanboyism. stop before this is closed.

Sorry cd. I'm just stating facts.

 

[candle_86]

games like sup/com also benefit from faster core speeds as well as more cores.. it is becoming a bit of a boring bloody chestnut thow cos it is only one game and its guaranteed to get brought up..

controling all those ai units and weapons trajectories takes cpu power.. period.. but it is a one off..

a decent amd system will play games perfectly okay and most games are still gpu limited..

fritz chess is about the only true multicore game.. not exactly popular with the average shooter type thow.. he he he

as for crysis.. my amd system played it just as well as my intel one does..

trog

I can get CnC3 to lag on my system from CPU lag lol, i had 100 avatars all firing at the same time on a scrin base while my vertigos took care of there carriers, and right before the action started it was smooth as butter, as soon as that happened, the game crawled lol.

Then again i can also make RA2 lag still, build 400 harriers and use them all at once, you will see what i mean lol

 

[cdawall]

Sorry cd. I'm just stating facts.

haha and i agree currently C2D beats out AMD X2 by ~300mhz when you go clock for clock ie a E6850 and X2 6400 come pretty close to each other, but the e6850 takes the lead in most benches...still

 

[candle_86]

if a faster cpu gives a genuine increase in frame rates its down to one thing and one thing only.. a crap none gaming resolution is being used.. if a more gaming realistic resolution is being used the increase would not be there.. the system would be gpu limited..

2006 is out of date its default resolution is too low.. it lies thru its f-cking teeth as does any other "gaming" cpu benchmark on the web..

at real gaming resolutions.. this mythical need for a fast cpu or even a quad cpu just does not exist.. sup/com apart before some bugger who cant be arsed to read the thread brings the damn thing up again..

gaming is about grafix card. grafix card.. grafix card.. simple..

trog

not quite, i noticed one hell of a diffrence between Sempron 3400 and x2 4200 in games like CSS, went from having 23FPS 16xAA 16xaf @ 12x10 to 98FPS average 16xaa 16xaf

 

[Bluefox1115]

compareResultId=4495926


We all know Intels have greater headroom for OCing. It is a fact. It's also a fact and an earlier statement made by you that, AMD/Intel are about equal for gaming, which, is what the question posed by this thread is asking. Does the <b>playing field</b> level out somewhere? And the answer is YES. That's the fact.

 

[cdawall]

not quite, i noticed one hell of a diffrence between Sempron 3400 and x2 4200 in games like CSS, went from having 23FPS 16xAA 16xaf @ 12x10 to 98FPS average 16xaa 16xaf

cache size comes into play there you went from 256kb to 2x512kb which makes a huge difference

 

[Bluefox1115]

I can get CnC3 to lag on my system from CPU lag lol, i had 100 avatars all firing at the same time on a scrin base while my vertigos took care of there carriers, and right before the action started it was smooth as butter, as soon as that happened, the game crawled lol.

Then again i can also make RA2 lag still, build 400 harriers and use them all at once, you will see what i mean lol

Good comparison. No machine, not even the world record 3DMark06 Intel rig can own up to RA2's wrath. it all depends on the application coding.

 

[candle_86]

now to see if i can make CnC Gold lag

 

[Wile E]

compareResultId=4495926


We all know Intels have greater headroom for OCing. It is a fact. It's also a fact and an earlier statement made by you that, AMD/Intel are about equal for gaming, which, is what the question posed by this thread is asking. Does the <b>playing field</b> level out somewhere? And the answer is YES. That's the fact.

As far as purely gaming, then yes, it doesn't really matter unless you get the oddball situation were a couple of fps make the difference between playable and unplayable. I was taking your statement in more of a general sense, thus my response. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

[Bluefox1115]

No worries.. like I said before.. no hard feelings or disrespect to anyone in the thread... I saw the fanboy come out in everyone, even me. lol.

 

[Bluefox1115]

now to see if i can make CnC Gold lag

LOL

I miss playing RA2. Do they still have servers? and how do I get it to stop freezing or blowing up all my units in XP? lol

 

[Bluefox1115]

So does anyone dare to rival my AM3 CPU score? Or how about my 3DMark05 CPU Score? LMAO

 

[exodusprime1337]

omg!! what have i done, it was a simple quesiton, and could've been answered by a practically yes or no answer. To be honest with you, i'm a budget gamer. i chose amd way way way way way back in the k6-2 days which really isn't so long ago. i stayed amd all the way into 2k4 where i decided to try a p4 and... i didn't like it, it wasn't even performance it was just not right, i didn't like the architecture, the quality of hardware to support the thing, the heat... oh god the heat. so i played around for 6-8 months with it and then went on to other things. Then there was the a64. i remember the day i brought home my 3500 and packed in in my dfi nf4 sli-dr(god of all s939 oc'ing boards), i spent all my time at dfi-street tweaking the crap out of it and then i moved up to 4000 and hit 3.2Ghz and i was souped.

and then there was the core 2... well yeah it's faster... shiny new chip sitting on the same old tech.. sure that same old tech is working out for it but hey i like the innovation amd offers. the chipsets they shipped for it. just the at home feeling of and amd

and here i am today. x2 5000 black edition-nothing to shake a fist at but it does the job. just popped in my 8800gts g92 and hit 770/1850/2130 without a hitch. and my gaming... just the way i like it smooth as silk, pretty, and well it's cool. after some small mods to my cpu's ihs i don't even hit 40 full bore with this baby. not to many intel's can claim that, the voltage to get to 3.40Ghz 1.45 after vdroop.. not bad. and my video card shiny not even 24 hours old yet.. i know i haven't slept since i got it, chuggin away tearin up frames like there's no tomorrow.

 

[exodusprime1337]

you wanna know what's even better. the dude above me bluefox, is a personal friend, and although a bit mislead sometimes. he means well. he's doing alright with his rig, check the amd overclockers club, he leads in cpu scores that put him almost on par with many intel rigs. but the real kicker is that at his 3.5Ghz mem at over 1100Mhz, and his gtx. I can match and even beat his scores 150mhz less on my cpu and over 200Mhz less on my mem not to mention the conspiracy theorist himself the htt. Even in the same brand, video cards make a difference.

not enough people focus on them. i got my card today and it's all video card now. i just want my video card to go max with no issues. and i'm gonna get there. and my cpu will always stay as it is. and when something better from amd comes around... well i'll move up to the next great thing. that's that

 

[trog100]

i aint entirely sure whats its really worth but its a super pi score that shows up the difference between amd and intel.. my gently overclocked amd 6000+ at 3.350 managed 26 seconds... to 1 million digits..

my gently overclocked intel E8400 does it in 11 seconds...

even as they come out of the box both at 3 gig the amd would be around 28 seconds the intel around 14 seconds.. twice the performance..

the intel will overclock by 50% the amd 15%..

we really are talking nearly a 150% performance lead intel has over amd in raw cpu power.. i am talking the fastest chips from both sides overclocked to their real potential..

the real problem being as time passes this silly lead intel has is getting larger.. its hidden in real life by other factors such as grafix cards and slow hardrives but from a pure cpu power point of view amd has lost the plot entirely..

sad but true.. out of the box 100%.. overclocked way more.. super pi has to mean something.. its what clinches the deal for me anyways.. a simple test of raw cpu power..

trog

 

[Bill_Bright]

Geesh Dude - you are all over the place on this.

a few dollars more is quite a lot when you think about it and actually price it out. try and find an Intel board with a chipset that will supply communication to from CPU/Memory,etc, at the same rate and latency of an AMD, for about $150(including memory).

Sorry Dude. But that's another BS argument, or you really don't know what you are talking about. When you talk money, that's economics, not performance.

The question was, "is Intel really better?" The answer is "Yes."

Does Intel cost more? Yes. But that was not the question.

And yes, for a few dollars more "upfront", you can get better performance with an Intel package that, in the "long-run" consumes less kilowatts and over the life time of the "typical" PC (3 years), and places less demands on the home or facility cooling.

AMD= onchip memory controller= cheaper boards due to no need of a chipset to control memory,etc= better latencies/timings/speeds.

Oh come on! Not that old onchip controller crap again. This is one, one area where AMD made a better decision - but that one area is no where near enough to put AMD back in front of Intel - in terms of the "better" CPU.

I like both, and build with both. And for my personal machines, I build depending on budget and purpose, not on brand loyalty (although I do like Gigabyte boards - ). Based on that, unless AMD does something unexpected in the next 6 months, my personal PCs will all be Intels.

No need to go and OC memory seperately, or not at all with AMD, it just does, unlike Intel.

So? You are just nitpicking. That has nothing to do with end result.

You seem to feel CPUs are all about how much you can OC it. Sorry, but that is a very limited, and minority, viewpoint. Most people, fortunately, do not OC.

It's all about gaming, quality and performance, and in-game experience, not numbers.

And then you say,

So does anyone dare to rival my AM3 CPU score? Or how about my 3DMark05 CPU Score? LMAO

No. I'M LMAO!

As for equality? Of course an Intel is going to beat an AMD, but with a higher price tag.

And isn't that what I said all along? Thanks for backing me up!

 

[exodusprime1337]

seems to me trogg you're leaning away from the point as well. the whole thread started about games. you guys are terrible at staying on topic. like horrible. it's almost sad. if i bought a cpu to run superpi.. well this thread wouldn't exist probably. yeah raw power.. ok... whatever... wow intel has raw power.... and this matters to high res gaming how much???

Trog if you could, please show me how much 150% in raw cpu power over amd has made any game perform lets say... 150% less on an amd then on an intel?? not gonnna happen is it...

and answer this.. how many people bought their e8400's just to overclock??? because given the fact that intel's show up in almost all deskop store bought pc's and in notebooks doesn't seem like their selling point is "hey come to us our shit overclocks like there's not fucking tomorrow!!"

another point... how much of intel's market is made up of "enthusiasts" such as yourself??

the most important part of anybody's gaming experience is one thing. the end result. How does the game play. Does it lag? Is the framerate acceptable? Can it even handle the game?

The answer to all those questions is almost always a possitive answer. no it isn't laggy, framerates good, games runs smooth. and i can bee on your e8400 that you preach so highly about or i could be on my 5000. i played cod4 maxed out 1680x1050 and stayed around 80-91Fps the whole time (91 being the cap online), ut3 runs maxed out same rez without a hitch. wic runs fine as well high 40's almost maxed out. crysis even runs pretty good 50's for the most part.

so you see the forums have a bias towards whatever is the latest and greatest, a couple years ago all the same talk was going around but it was about amd because they were the latest and greatest. in fact i might even remember you here when i was just browsing the forums in 05 and maybe even before you were here in 04. and now intel has the "latest and greatest" and the whole forum went back to intel. it's just the way it is. people on the forums don't want what half the world settles for. we want the best we can get. and then there are those that stick with what they trust. i hate intel like i said in a previous post. they suck, always will, they'll never get my dollar. and it's not because i think amd is better, it's because i don't like the company that intel is, and as a consumer i've got a right to chose.

 

[exodusprime1337]

@Billbright-you state you build systems, and i understand you're points and they're valid, but when was the last time you built a system?? your specs look about 2003-2004ish?? i'd suggest you put up a pie chart and provide proof because however right you may be this has gone beyong my original question and you've just joined the ranks of all the others who turned my valid thread into a flamewar... except you apparently don't even own a core 2??