Better Chip?

snailham6 · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:05

Intel Pentium D 930 Dual Core 3.00GHz FSB 800 2 X 2Mb Cache 775

or this one

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ socket 939 Dual Core 2.2ghz 512kb and 512kb Cache

for gaming and running other stuff Cheers

Liquid Tension · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:06

Intel

james.miller · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:09

LOL

amd. consumes less power, puts out less heat, and is faster too boot.

snailham6 · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:11

but the intel looks faster from spec the cache is 2mb to 512kb ?

Liquid Tension · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:12

So it boots what, 1 second faster? Power doesnt really matter in a home system.

If AMD were the cheaper and better chips Intel would not be where they are today...

Domo · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:16

Read this. Very comprehensive - scroll down for the benchmarks.

Just noticed. I don't think it covers 930s

james.miller · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:16

Liquid Tension said:
So it boots what, 1 second faster? Power doesnt really matter in a home system.

If AMD were the cheaper and better chips Intel would not be where they are today...

what?

booting? are you clutching at straws because you dont have a decent argument?

power makes all the difference to a lot of people. if cpu A does the same amount as cpu B but only requires 2/3 the power to do it, you can damn well be sure ill be buying cpu A. and if it runs cooler, that's even more of a reason for me to buy it.

snailham6 the 4200+ is 512kb for each core - 1mb cache, but the amout of cache is far from the be all and end all of cpu performance

sounds like you have a lot to learn Liquid Tension.

Jokester · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:18

The AMD chip will be faster than the 930 in almost all tasks you throw at it to be honest.

It's not all about raw MHz and cache.

Jokester

snailham6 · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:25

ignore looked at wrong thing !!

Liquid Tension · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:26

You supported your side of the arguement by clutching at the "booting straw"

Correct, FSB and cache are not everything BUT are probably the main 2 specs that most affect a chips performance

Snailham6 also said about the cache on each chip, you replied that the AMD chip has 2 x 512kb L2 cache, If were being like that the Intel chip in question has 2 x 2Mb L2 cache.

smids · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:28

The X2 currently beats any Intel DC processor put in front of it. Apart from Yonah (Core Duo), the Intel DC's suck. The X2 thrashes both in pretty much every single benchmark.

However, I would advise against the 4200+ and opt for either of these: 3800+, Opteron 165, Opteron 170, X2 4400+. The 4200+ is just not value for money.

Explicit · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:29

AMD, no doubt. Infact, for the price of the 4200+, you can get a server chip (opty 165) which has 1mb L2 cache per core, and clock the pants off of it (fx-60 speeds are not impossible). That will own the other intel "thing" anyday of the week with its eyes closed for good measure.

Knock-Out.

smids · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:30

Liquid Tension said:
You supported your side of the arguement by clutching at the "booting straw"

Correct, FSB and cache are not everything BUT are probably the main 2 specs that most affect a chips performance

Snailham6 also said about the cache on each chip, you replied that the AMD chip has 2 x 512kb L2 cache, If were being like that the Intel chip in question has 2 x 2Mb L2 cache.

Liquid, give up though, it has been proven time and time again that the X2 beats either the Smithfield or the Pressler at virtually everything.

james.miller · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:32

Liquid Tension said:
You supported your side of the arguement by clutching at the "booting straw"

you mentioned booting, not me :confused:

Correct, FSB and cache are not everything BUT are probably the main 2 specs that most affect a chips performance

no, the cpu is. fsb is only as good as the cpu's usage of it. what was the fsb of the p4's? quad pumped 200mhz (that's 200x4 = 800mhz). my opteron - i can run at at 200mhz fsb x 1 and it will comfortable destroy any p4. infact i can run 200x5 (1000fsb), x4 (800),x3 (600) and x2 (400) and show you what difference it doesnt make.

Snailham6 also said about the cache on each chip, you replied that the AMD chip has 2 x 512kb L2 cache, If were being like that the Intel chip in question has 2 x 2Mb L2 cache.

which proves the intel has more cache. which means what, exactly?

Liquid, i suggest you dont come on here shouting down people who have been here a lot longer than you, people who do their research before making any claims. These forums are a great source of information, so the best thing you can do is read up

smids · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:36

Yup, as Mr Miller said, FSB actually makes no difference on an A64 and the cache also makes little difference when you see a 512KB cache A64 Venice say of a 3800 variety on par with a P4 3.8ghz 2MB cache in most tasks and as he rightly said, making a claim with no justification isn't exactly helpful or intuitive.

Liquid Tension · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:37

I didn't shout, I posted my view to be followed up by your insulting and very cocky "LOL" :S

james.miller · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:39

because

Liquid Tension said:
Intel

is hardly a very informative post, is it? you can't name one reason why the intels are actually faster, or better in any way. infact in every single one of your posts all youve done is attack me.

amd. consumes less power, puts out less heat, and is faster too boot.

now that's a little informative. That 3 reasons in one sentance. BTW, its not my fault you don't understand what 'faster to boot' means (and no its not a reference to the booting time)

smids · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:40

Liquid Tension said:
I didn't shout, I posted my view to be followed up by your insulting and very cocky "LOL" :S

Most likely because you didn't justify yourself.

I see the 'boot' thing was thoroughly misinterpreted - he meant the expression 'to boot' as in 'also' or 'even'. It's even got a robot that will do your washing up -> it's got a robot that will do your washing up to boot

Monstermunch · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:41

The main difference between the two chips as I understand is FSB & memory bandwidth. Basic specs:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041^13042,00.html

Dont forget also that the X2 has:
64kb L1 instruction cache per core
64kb L1 Data cache per core
512kb L2 cache (1mb per core for 4400+) per core
Max memory bandwidth 14.4 Gb/s
3D Now Tech

& the Intel has:
16kb L1 Data Cache per core
12kb L1 Micro-op Execution trace cache per core
2mb L2 Cache per core
Max memory bandwidth 6.4 Gb/s

As I understand it cache acts like a filter, the L1 cache has to process everything that the L2 has to do but it's quicker. From the looks of it the L1 cache on the intel would be a serious bottleneck and wouldn't matter if there was 10mb L2 per core!

Plus look at the momory bandwidths, with the hypertransport the AMD has more than double the bandwidth of the Intel.

AMD Rule & Intel suck IMO

snailham6 · 6 Mar 2006 at 23:44

ok boys ~!!! rite which chip then dotn wanna spend more than 250£ so its either

AMD Athlon 64 Socket 939 Dual Core 3800 + Retail

or

AMD Opteron UP 165 (1.8Ghz) Dual Core S939 2Mb OEM

i want whats reli gonna be best for me and best value for money which do i RELI need ! ? thanks