Dirty Harry:
 
Thank you...You said it perfectly.
 
Others: Recheck the name of the thread...
 
Back to the subject, why is Intel so worried about the + rating, this will all change when the new AMD chips come out. It's not like their losing money because some fool sees 2000+ and buys it because it's cheaper than the 2.0GHZ P4. AMD's 2.0GHz chip would be cheaper than Intel's anyway (if it existed) just look at pricing the last 5 years. Why is Intel hosting classes to educate people on power rating? They didn't in the past. I say this not to shoot at Intel but to critique them. They have made a few bad decisions before that cost them...Intel had to push the P4 out before it was ready in order to keep up with AMD (anyone remember that?, no P4 MBs for weeks)
 
Honestly if I had the money to BURN I would buy Intel. But I don't, and cannot justify the cost when my sh*t runs just as tight as yours (intel machines). I am just glad to have a choice unlike OS choices where you cannot get your cake and eat it too.

One question.
 
Do either of you support users in an Enterprise solution?
 
 
That's where the AMD vs INtel thing come into play. I went back to INtel one day while working on a DELL and realizing that I have never had a problem with an Intel based System. It simply works or it doesn't. No patches, tweaks , bioses, artic silver needed.
 
 
I'm a good tech, and most of my fellow workers, and network guys won't touch an AMD system at work or at home.
 
 
Work 60 hours a week on machines to come home to have to install a USB filter patch to get your stinking mouse working doesn't fly with me.
 
Course those of you not in computer field may have the patience , considering your not doing it all day

We use Win2000 Server, Exchange Server, and ISA Server. Our server hardware is a dual AMD MP 1700+ Machine. ALL 28 workstations are either T-birds, Durons or XPs (2 K6-3s). There is not one intel machine in the house except the UPS machine and it crashes twice a day, I am the sysadmin and rarely deal with problems there. The majority of the problems are on the user end. All the mice work without patches and none of them have any patches intalled OTHER than Windows Update patches. None of them have had a new BIOS flash. None of them have artic silver (all are boxed) I am a good tech as well and have found that a truly good tech can make the worst of machines run without to much problems.

I agree, and I can make any AMD machine work great. It's thef act that there are 20 more steps to do so and AMD systems have issues that Intel just doesn't.
 
I was the Domain Admin in Korea, we had 650 users. Not one AMD machine. At Encompass we had 300 users and not one AMD machine. Now 2 of the guys on our team were running AMD at home. They both said they didn't want to buy AMD machines for the office.
 
The reason.....they wanted to plug in the machines and have them work.

I've got a AthlongXP 1900+
and a Abit KR7A-133R ( KT266a )
I think the performace is great with my system.
I'm using a OCZ Goliath HS with a 80mm delta fan.
I like to rip my dvd's to divx, and I'm getting
currently 22 - 24 frames per sec. And my processor under full
load during this never gets about 40C. Now I DO NOT know how
well a P4 would do this since I've never had the ability or $$$ to run a P4 system, but I would like to know what other people are doing with thier systems. I know it's kinda off topic, but I'm courius as hell.
Have fun...

Adobe Premiere 6.02 is the most cpu/mem intesive program I use (games don't even compare) My chip can rip DV/16bit Stereo from Adobe Premiere 6.0 pretty damn fast!!! There's nothing like using a slider through a 5 gig video file and having it keep up video wise without hardly a stutter.

Sapiens74:
 
What 20 steps do you mean. ON my system it's 1. Windows install 2. Windows SPs or Windows Update 3: VIA DRIVERS (not patches). That's all here, never had a problem. See MicroSoft likes to favor intel and embed their drivers.

Installing Via drivers, adding any USB patches, or Raid Pci latency patches. That might not be 20 , but If I install something like a raid card on an Intel system it's gonna work 99% of the time. On an AMD system, you cant be quite sure if its gonna work at all.
 
 
Intel's are cheaper then AMD. IF you take the PR rating vs clockspeed and the AMD fan into consideration intels are cheaper.
 
I use mine for gaming and video editing

CyberGenX:
 
Your reference to the Intel chipset was incorrect; it was the i820 chipset and it only had issues because it used a faulty Memory Translator Hub in many of the units in an attempt to support SDRAM in addition to RDRAM. They found out that it didn't work, so they recalled all the motherboards and replaced the user's memory with the same amount of the MUCH more expenisive RDRAM. Now, when Via had issues with anything they would simply release patch after patch and then just give up, and not recall anything. Honestly, that's the only event that I can recall of a major Intel screw up and yet they had far better customer service in the end to correct it. Also, if you are so concerned about a topic of your own spinning out of control then you *might* want to consider not making posts that don't follow your original point.
 
So, why would Intel be concerned about the naming conventions of their competitors? Well, it's confusing to the consumer, and in the end confusion can only hurt both sides. Apple never named their processors in a fashion to compete with Intel yet they used all kinds of benchmarks years ago in an attempt to show a direct comparison (normally Photoshop and Quark stuff, especially since neither was never really optimized for x86 to begin with), so why should AMD? AMD is holding on to a shorter pipeline, and they can only take the clock speed so high. Plus, they tend to generate more heat with their current design and previous generation fab process (until the Thoroughbreds get out) which causes more complications and brings them closer to the glass ceiling. I mean, I see that someone has a 1900+ overclocked to 1.7GHz+ and I have no idea what kind of a speed increase that is. They have come to a point where they cannot be compared to each other directly anymore unless you are looking for bang for the buck, stability, compatibility (I mentioned this earlier) instead of clock speed. Both companies know this, and this is why AMD started using this naming convention. However, people STILL like compare the base clock rates, as in this quote from yourself:
 
"I realize that, I was saying the that Intel is touting the fact that their 2.2 beats out the 2000+. Well no sh*t Intel, there's about a 400MHz gap between the 2."
 
In reality, AMD is claiming that their processor will perform equal to or BETTER than a 2GHz CPU in a battery of tests, so if anything the difference would be < 200MHz between the processors. Yet, you state that there is a 400MHz gap between them. Well, AMD didn't seem to think so in naming them, so that's how they named it. Now, if the naming convention can confuse all these hardcore AMD sites and AMD users, how do you think the average person is going to feel about it?

From what I understand the PR rating is not comparing the XP to the P4, but to the Athlon Thunderbird. Unfortunately, AMD has obviously not done a good job on letting out that information---so I've heard.
 
I may not use strictly Intel setups, but I can't really dispute the fact that they have a leg up on almost everyone else in the chipset arena. As clutch has said regarding the i820 and the MTH: when Intel realized there was a problem, they remedied it at a major cost. AMD has shipped the 760MPX with faulty USB, yet you don't see them or any other company producing these boards doing a recall. Let's look at what companies products are being asked about how to fix this or that: it ain't Intel. I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't use Intel is gonna have problems, but Intel is a major player for a reason: their stuff works 99.99999999 percent of the time.

Quote:
From what I understand the PR rating is not comparing the XP to the P4, but to the Athlon Thunderbird. Unfortunately, AMD has obviously not done a good job on letting out that information---so I've heard.

Yes and "sorta" . The first part is correct in that AMD never intended to directly compare themselves to the P4 with the numbering scheme, however they knew it would happen (shocker). However, AMD *did* try to let everybody know initially that it was just a rating scale basing the CPU's performance on a battery of benchmarks and that it should perform on par using that number as a clock reference. Unfortunately, only a few of the major sites were reinforcing that point while many were stuck on the true clock speed and simply using the XX00+ as a name only rather than a rating as it should have been. So, they did initially try getting the info out, but it hasn't stayed out. And hey, leaving it as it is doesn't hurt them either since many people seem to think that they are still the underdogs in the game because they have a lower true clock speed.

Hello,
 
I work at company where we currently have over 1200 stores world wide. ALL of our stores' servers are ASUS, VIA based motherboards with 1.4Ghz T-Birds and 1GB Memory. We used to have Intel Seatle 440BX-2 boards out there with PII and PIII's. There haven't been just as many problems with these boards as there was with the intel boards. Overall everything has worked very well. Stability/Performance has been very good. The real issues here is price. It's still very hard to get a comparible P4 based solution that is equally priced.

This is always one of those fun posts, but the arguments are too far ranging.
It is clear early on that between AMD and Intel there was a race to see who could make the fastest chip. AMD won and the PIII 1.3MH was defective. Intel moved to the P4 to regain the crown in terms of speed. AMD changed the benchmark to "who could process the most instructions per cycle" as the real performance guide not raw processor speed. Hence, their new performance rating. The Achilles heal of the early P4 was the long pipeline coupled with a small onboard cache and the pricey Rambus memory needed to recover from cache mistakes. The P4 has now been shrunk in size, with a higher onboard cache, DDR memory support, and apparently a "as yet area" for hyperthreading to allow for more parallel instructions. Further, they are seemingly fabricating chips with a lower MH rating so that they can achieve some amazing OC speeds by raising the FSB.
AMD is shrinking its size soon. Their chips run hot. To achieve some of the incredible results that benchmarking shows heat is going to be a byproduct. They are also trying to one up Intel with their 64 bit instruction monster as a the product of the future.
Given that, the processor is still only as good as the chipset that works with it, and more particularly as these things gain in raw speed, the memory subsystem tied to them. The bottleneck as I see it is with memory. DDR333 (and if there is a DDR400) is beginning to show its limitation. The hated Rambus is actually proposing a solution that may be able to feed these hungry processors the instructions that can keep up with their appetites.
So, it is still too early to declare a winner since not all of the cards are on the table yet.

Quote:


You guys with strong opinions, grow up. If the world were as simple as which is better: VIA or Intel (just like the good ol' "my daddy is bigger than yours") and there would be only one clear, undisputable answer in all cases only one of those companies would be left within days. Same goes for which is the best monitor, car, RAM-type, school, Harddisk, ****-star, PC-game: anything you name.

H.


The only way to ever solve a conflict is just to sit on that damn fence.

i am not arguing i am happy with my via chipsets but i do agree on the price if a p4 was the price of amd then i could consider but till then i can't

take in consideration the money you get set back for the athlon xp, heat sink and a tube of artic silver, and that ram and mb are the same for both, it costs as mcuh or more for an athlon.

I was pricing up some components for a third more protable PC for LAN gaming.
By the time I had priced everything up, I found that an Intel solution (ASUS motherbaord, DDR-RAM, Northwood 1.6 CPU) came to about £20 more than an AMD solution.
Considering I know that the Intel solution will be easier to setup and offer me better stability I shall be taking this route.
Price shouldn't be the only thing looked at when making purchases.
The cheapest option is certainly not always the best.
 
Oh, did i read earlier in this thread that somebody reported problems with PC's based on the Intel SE40BX-2 motherboard?
I can only say bad luck as you were in a minority.
Behind the 850 chipset which I'm using now, I think I'll rate the BX chipset as probably the best ever, certainly for a no problem setup with absolutely no stability issues.

Here are prices from pricewatch today, I can add a NICE HS&F, DDR, Quality MB still be lower in price and equal in performance.
Who the h@ll needs artic silver, I live in Phoenix, AZ and don't use anything but regular white thermal grease.
 
$578 Pentium 4 2.4GHz
$495 Pentium 4 2.2GHz Sock 478
$265 Pentium 4 2.0GHz Sock 478
$354 - Pentium 4 2.0GHz
$202 -Pentium 4 1.9GHz Sock 478
$225 - Pentium 4 1.9GHz
$149 - Pentium 4 1.8GHz Sock 478
$164 - Pentium 4 1.8GHz
$135 - Pentium 4 1.7GHz Sock 478
$142 - Pentium 4 1.7GHz
$109 - Pentium 4 1.6GHz Sock 478
$115 - Pentium 4 1.6GHz
$103 Pentium 4 1.5GHz Sock 478
$103 - Pentium 4 1.5GHz
$114 Pentium 4 1.4GHz Sock 478
$98 - Pentium 4 1.4GHz
$95 - Pentium 4 1.3GHz
 
AMD
 
$231 Athlon XP 2100
$180 Athlon XP 2000
$126 Athlon XP 1900
$102 Athlon XP 1800
$93 Athlon XP 1700
$83 - Athlon XP 1600
$93 - Athlon XP 1500
$260 - Athlon MP 2000
$185 Athlon MP 1900
$159 - Athlon MP 1800
$156 Athlon MP 1600
$151 Athlon MP 1500
$134 Athlon MP 1.2GHz
$127 - Athlon MP 1GHz
$83 Athlon 1.4GHz 266 FSB
$89 - Athlon 1.4GHz 200 FSB
$76 - Athlon 1.33GHz 266 FSB

I added it up, a p4 retail 1800 is only 20 bucks more then an athlon XP 1800 with a nice heatsink and thermal grease. at the higher end yeah they are more epensive. Then again AMD doesnt make a 2400 yet

you win