Brand Loyalty

[Bjorn]

A friend of mine just bought a new HP computer with a 3.4 GHz P4 and a X800 Pro. The fan on the graphics card is rather loud and runs at high speeds, even on idle (slows down for 30-40 secs, then speeds up....). I wonder why that is ? Shouldn't be the graphics card since it's running 2D only. And i doubt that a A64 is that unresponsive at f.e 1.2 GHz.

That's wrong. The fan on a X800 Pro should run at speed only at boot time for about two seconds, then it should idle down to be inaudiable.

I know, it should be. Might be one of the system fans that starts up though he said that it was the graphics card fan. Might have to look that up. All i know is that the system is very loud, even on idle, and i'm blaming the CPU for it. Cause there should be no reason for overheating on idle because of the X800 Pro:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-powercons.html

 

[Scali]

Fact is, the Prescott runs hotter than A64

As I say, I trust Intel to make their stuff reliable with stock cooling. Numbers don't mean anything, as long as it doesn't crash.

A64 is a stronger gaming platform and is more innovative in several ways than Intel's latest.

I disagree. I think HyperThreading is far more innovative than AMD's hacking of 64 bit extensions to a 30-year old architecture. We all know that Intel's original 64 bit solution (Itanium) is more innovative than that aswell.
Besides, Intel's Pentium 4 will have the 64 bit extensions soon aswell, meaning it has everything that the Athlon has, and also HyperThreading and SSE3. So even if you think the Athlon is 'more innovative', the Pentium 4 will share all its features, and more.

 

[Scali]

I thought that performance was important also, after all, why not just by a Transmeta CPU then and really save power ?

Because a Transmeta CPU is horribly slow, while a Pentium-M delivers performance at more or less the same level as Athlons and P4s.
Which should be obvious to anyone, except for some blind AMD-zealots perhaps.

 

[Bjorn]

A64 is a stronger gaming platform and is more innovative in several ways than Intel's latest.

I disagree. I think HyperThreading is far more innovative than AMD's hacking of 64 bit extensions to a 30-year old architecture. We all know that Intel's original 64 bit solution (Itanium) is more innovative than that aswell.
Besides, Intel's Pentium 4 will have the 64 bit extensions soon aswell, meaning it has everything that the Athlon has, and also HyperThreading and SSE3. So even if you think the Athlon is 'more innovative', the Pentium 4 will share all its features, and more.

You seem to compare the old Athlon Thunderbirds against the new P4, the Athlon 64 against yet to be relased P4's with 64 bit extensions and the Athlon 64 vs a MUCH higher priced server CPU (Itanium). That doesn't seem that fair to me. And let's just say that i disagree about HT vs the 64 bit extensions of the Athlon 64.

Oh, and another thing, the rumours about the P4's 64 bit extensions makes it to be more of a "hack of an old architecture" that you're talking about.

 

[Bjorn]

I thought that performance was important also, after all, why not just by a Transmeta CPU then and really save power ?

Because a Transmeta CPU is horribly slow, while a Pentium-M delivers performance at more or less the same level as Athlons and P4s.
Which should be obvious to anyone, except for some blind AMD-zealots perhaps.

No it doesn't, perhaps if you're talking about performance relative to it's clock frequency but how fast is the fastest Pentium M that you can buy ?
And what's the price of it compared to a similary performing AMD CPU ?

 

[Scali]

You seem to compare the old Athlon Thunderbirds against the new P4, the Athlon 64 against yet to be relased P4's with 64 bit extensions and the Athlon 64 vs a MUCH higher priced server CPU (Itanium). That doesn't seem that fair to me.

I compared the old Thunderbird against the old P4, as in, the alternative to the TBird 1400 that I could have bought. I compare the Athlon64 against P4 with extensions because it will be released soon, before I will upgrade to a new PC anyway, and before I will upgrade to 64 bit in general (and most people), for the simple reason that Windows XP 64 is not available yet.
And I compared AMD's 64 bit architecture to Intel's 64 bit architecture, not specific implementations. Price has nothing to do with it. Intel could implement a low-budget Itanium aswell, just like AMD could implement a server-version with 9 mb L3 cache or something, it's about the architecture only.

Please don't pull everything out of context. It's such bad form.

And let's just say that i disagree about HT vs the 64 bit extensions of the Athlon 64.

I don't understand that. As far as I know, Intel is the first and only manufacturer to have developed such a technology. That would make it innovative to me. It hasn't been done before.
The 64 bit extensions on the other hand... how innovative are those? x86 in itself has been around for ages, and it has been extended many times before. 64 bit CPUs have also been around for ages... The way I see it, AMD just applied some wellknown concepts to the x86. Not an innovation, merely an evolution. It's a far more obvious step than developing HyperThreading anyway.

No it doesn't, perhaps if you're talking about performance relative to it's clock frequency but how fast is the fastest Pentium M that you can buy ?

The fastest one is the 2 GHz model as far as I know. And it performs in the area of 3 GHz P4/3000+ Athlon (based on benchmarks here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2129&p=1). Perhaps not the absolute top in performance, but surely high-end, and far better than any Transmeta. Would be good enough for me at this time, would probably be good enough for most.

And what's the price of it compared to a similary performing AMD CPU ?

Let's not twist things again... I mentioned Pentium-M as an alternative to the Athlon, since you brought up the powersaving issue. Then you implied that Pentium-M doesn't perform well, and suggested using a Transmeta.
I just stated that Pentium-M can compete with reasonably high-end P4s and Athlons, something a Transmeta cannot do, so it is not an option for most.

Price is another issue. Everyone has to decide for himself whether he wants that extra performance, or that extra powersaving. For some the powersaving is worth the extra cost, for others it is not.
Which is pretty much the same reason why I prefer Intel in general. For me it's worth the extra to know that I will get a decent all-in package of cooler, CPU, chipset. If you don't, that's fine, but don't bother me with it.
I am not going to buy AMD again, because it failed miserably on the first two attempts. I need a guarantee that the system I buy, will work, under any circumstances. Sadly there is no try-before-you-buy in the world of computing. And I don't have the patience anymore to take my PC apart and try to pinpoint what part is not working properly.
The word 'Intel' is pretty much equivalent with such a guarantee to me. Perhaps some AMD/chipset combinations work just as well, but I am not going to take that gamble again. If you want me to use an AMD, you will have to build and stress-test the system for me, and bring an Intel backup system. If I can work on the AMD without problems for a few months, I may take it. As soon as I run into trouble, I need a backup system ready. I don't want to waste any more time on AMDs as I already have.
Since I will get no such guarantees, and if I would want a backup, I'd have to buy it myself, I am not going to take the risk, and simply buy the backup only. So, if you want to convince me, you know what to do.

 

[Bjorn]

I compared the old Thunderbird against the old P4, as in, the alternative to the TBird 1400 that I could have bought. I compare the Athlon64 against P4 with extensions because it will be released soon, before I will upgrade to a new PC anyway, and before I will upgrade to 64 bit in general (and most people), for the simple reason that Windows XP 64 is not available yet.
And I compared AMD's 64 bit architecture to Intel's 64 bit architecture, not specific implementations. Price has nothing to do with it. Intel could implement a low-budget Itanium aswell, just like AMD could implement a server-version with 9 mb L3 cache or something, it's about the architecture only.

Please don't pull everything out of context. It's such bad form.

I have my doubts about a "soon to be released" P4 with 64 bit extensions.
And also about a low budget Itanium that also would perform well. It seems to need a very large cache to be able to get any performance out if it which to me says that it will be very difficult to make a low cost version.

Let's not twist things again... I mentioned Pentium-M as an alternative to the Athlon, since you brought up the powersaving issue. Then you implied that Pentium-M doesn't perform well, and suggested using a Transmeta.
I just stated that Pentium-M can compete with reasonably high-end P4s and Athlons, something a Transmeta cannot do, so it is not an option for most.

I brought up the powersawing issue when you mentioned that the P4 was consuming much less power on idle then a Athlon 64. And it happens to be the opposite. Then you bring up the Pentium M as an alternative. A mobile CPU that afaik isn't available in a desktop version. Which makes it kind of a moot point in this discussion.

Price is another issue. Everyone has to decide for himself whether he wants that extra performance, or that extra powersaving. For some the powersaving is worth the extra cost, for others it is not.
Which is pretty much the same reason why I prefer Intel in general. For me it's worth the extra to know that I will get a decent all-in package of cooler, CPU, chipset. If you don't, that's fine, but don't bother me with it.
I am not going to buy AMD again, because it failed miserably on the first two attempts. I need a guarantee that the system I buy, will work, under any circumstances.

I happen to think that you get "extra power savings, extra performance" and 64 bit extensions when you buy a Athlon 64 instead of a P4. Though you are free to dislike AMD because of your past problems. I sometimes do the same, i will probably not buy a VIA chipset again even though there's no indications that there are any problems with them since the K266.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I have my doubts about a "soon to be released" P4 with 64 bit extensions.

<jedi mindtrick/FUD mode on>

There will be a P4 with 64 bit extensions...and soon! Don't waste your precious money on that cheap AMD 64 bit processor, we'll have a better one out any day now...

</jedi mindtrick/FUD mode on>

Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[Scali]

I have my doubts about a "soon to be released" P4 with 64 bit extensions.

Why? Xeon already has the 64 bit extensions enabled and working. P4 has the extensions, just not enabled yet. So as far as I can see, it can be released anytime now. I believe it was scheduled for September or so, linked to the release of Windows XP 64.

And also about a low budget Itanium that also would perform well. It seems to need a very large cache to be able to get any performance out if it which to me says that it will be very difficult to make a low cost version.

We won't know until we see it, right?

I brought up the powersawing issue when you mentioned that the P4 was consuming much less power on idle then a Athlon 64.

Read back and see that I didn't mention Athlon64, but Athlon. Should have been even more obvious since I spoke of the Pentium-3 style cooler.

Then you bring up the Pentium M as an alternative. A mobile CPU that afaik isn't available in a desktop version.

What does it matter that it isn't available in a desktop version?
Neither is Transmeta afaik, and if you want to argue about AMD's CPUs... well, the reason why Cool'n'Quiet is a standard feature now is simple: AMD doesn't have a separate mobile CPU anymore. Basically they pick them according to characteristics. CPUs that work on low voltage are badged as mobile, the rest is regular.
All that matters is that you can build desktop systems from all these CPUs, and obviously, if powersaving is what you're after, mobile CPUs are what you want.
If it is a moot point, why did you bring it up in the first place?

I happen to think that you get "extra power savings, extra performance" and 64 bit extensions when you buy a Athlon 64 instead of a P4.

Yes well, I don't care about powersaving, performance is arguable, since last time I looked, P4 still beats Athlon at things like 3d rendering or movie encoding/decoding. That is the sort of thing that I do, and I don't care about which CPU runs Q3 fastest.
On top of that, HyperThreading is something that I really want. And as said before, by the time I'll upgrade, P4 will have 64 bit extensions aswell. And AMD's extensions are useless to me (and most people) until Windows XP 64 is released.
So, even if I didn't dislike AMD, I would still pick the P4, because it offers me the best features (and consider this: I didn't dislike AMD until I actually had one myself).

i will probably not buy a VIA chipset again even though there's no indications that there are any problems with them since the K266.

Funny you say that... I actually went back to using my MSI KT133A board (that was my 4th board, after 3 Abit boards with KT133A, which would often not even powerup correctly, but if they did, would crash within the hour), instead of the Asus KT266A board that I have, because the KT266A board was impossible to get stable. KT133A on the other hand works fine (except for the Project IGI 2 problem). Ofcourse it could be something other than the chipset itself, but if we assume that Asus makes an okay motherboard, the chipset will be the prime suspect.
There was just something severely wrong with the AGP port. A Matrox G450 (of all cards) would give a 'wavy' display after a while... A GF2 (an Asus no less) appeared to work at first, but then started to drop random polys, before eventually crashing. And a Radeon 8500 appeared to work fine, until it would eventually lock up completely.
So out of the 5 boards I've had for my Athlon, only one of them is actually usable. Nice average. I've never experienced anything like this with Intel-based motherboards.

 

[Bjorn]

Read back and see that I didn't mention Athlon64, but Athlon. Should have been even more obvious since I spoke of the Pentium-3 style cooler.

Well, i was talking about the Athlon 64 when i started the discussion. Though i have my doubts that the Athlon XP will consume more power then the P4 on idle. Especially after seeing the Prescott numbers.

If it is a moot point, why did you bring it up in the first place?

If you're talking about the Transmeta CPU then yes, it's also a moot point since it's also a mobile CPU. Though i brought that up after you started talking about the Pentium M. But i don't consider powersaving modes under low CPU usage to be a moot point, far from it.

Yes well, I don't care about powersaving, performance is arguable, since last time I looked, P4 still beats Athlon at things like 3d rendering or movie encoding/decoding. That is the sort of thing that I do, and I don't care about which CPU runs Q3 fastest.

Movie encoding/decoding performance is pretty much equal now on the Athlon 64 vs P4. 3D rendering is one area that the P4 still does better though. But of course, i don't care about that

On top of that, HyperThreading is something that I really want. And as said before, by the time I'll upgrade, P4 will have 64 bit extensions aswell. And AMD's extensions are useless to me (and most people) until Windows XP 64 is released.
So, even if I didn't dislike AMD, I would still pick the P4, because it offers me the best features.

If you're not a gamer and works mostly with 3D rendering then yes, the P4 is for you. At least at this point in time. Will be interesting to see what happens when Windows XP 64 is released. If it will be until Intel releases a 64 bit consumer CPU.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I have my doubts about a "soon to be released" P4 with 64 bit extensions.

<jedi mindtrick/FUD mode on>

There will be a P4 with 64 bit extensions...and soon! Don't waste your precious money on that cheap AMD 64 bit processor, we'll have a better one out any day now...

</jedi mindtrick/FUD mode on>

Nothing to see here, move along.

Not to mention the Intel chipset NVIDIA have been showing select people.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Can I quote you on that Dave? :|

 

[Scali]

But i don't consider powersaving modes under low CPU usage to be a moot point, far from it.

Then why do you disqualify mobile CPUs? You still haven't answered that.

Movie encoding/decoding performance is pretty much equal now on the Athlon 64 vs P4.

That's not what these figures say:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2129&p=9

With DivX, the 3000+ scores ~40 fps while the 3.2 GHz P4 scores ~50 fps. So the P4 is 25% faster, much more than the difference between 3000+ and 3200+ would indicate (that would be about 6%). So I would estimate a 3200+ to be 19% slower than the P4 still.

At least at this point in time. Will be interesting to see what happens when Windows XP 64 is released.

I doubt that the release of a new Windows version will suddenly make all existing P4 CPUs perform any worse.
Until there are also 64 bit-optimized 3d rendering programs available, I don't expect any Athlon64 to perform better either.
Also, it is far more likely that the P4 with 64 bit extensions will gain performance than that it will lose performance in 3d rendering. In short, I wouldn't count on XP 64 to magically fix the performance-problem that AMD has with SSE/SSE2.

 

[KimB]

Some evidence:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2026&p=3

As you can see, the Athlon 64's are the champions of low temperature/performance ratio, whether idle or loaded (the same heatsink was used in all tests).

As far as how much you trust Intel, Scali, that just shows that you could really stand to try an AMD system.

 

[KimB]

In short, I wouldn't count on XP 64 to magically fix the performance-problem that AMD has with SSE/SSE2.

I don't see how these things are related. The 64-bit extensions of the Athlon 64 should increase performance by ~20% (as they do in Linux currently).

And if you're going to draw comparisons like this, I could say that I wouldn't count on Intel's synthetic SSE/SSE2 performance to give them a leg up in memory bandwidth.

 

[digitalwanderer]

As far as how much you trust Intel, Scali, that just shows that you could really stand to try an AMD system.

AMEN!!!!

My Barton 2500+ is my first AMD system and it was a real eye-opening experience for me in a very, VERY positive sense!

 

[Bjorn]

But i don't consider powersaving modes under low CPU usage to be a moot point, far from it.

Then why do you disqualify mobile CPUs? You still haven't answered that.

Because i tought we were talking about desktop CPU's ?

That's not what these figures say:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2129&p=9

Hmm, i just read a review which said that the difference was minimal with the newest versions of the encoder/decoder. But i'll admit that i'm wrong until i can find the damn review.

 

[KimB]

Maybe you were looking at the Xvid performance numbers?

 

[dizietsma]

You can summarise AMD v Intel as follows

Intel 130/90 chips run hot, but they run. They also cut out well when the fan fails.
AMD64 chips run cool, and they run faster.

Intel chipsets are robust.
AMD chipsets are not robust when released and are polished over time. Via are faster than nvidia but need more loving. SIS are fantastic, maybe, no one knows, nobody buys them ....

In regards to video cards I am a lifelong nvidia devotee. The cards are fine and the company is never lazy. In fact they are never lazy to the point of being too enthusiastic at times. I have 9 nvidia cards.

Having said that I purchased an Ati 9800 Pro two weeks ago as I needed the DX9 performance for Far Cry and am still waiting for the dust to settle on the latest cards and software ( HL2DOOM3) releases. Damn cheap it was and plays this DX9 game great at 450/720. Fantastic product for the price. I'm luvvin' it .. make mine a large one, and it often does.

It is a two horse race in the graphics arena at present, but luckily for us both can be bet on and come up a winner.

 

[Sxotty]

SIS were horrid at one point in time though as the via were. I dont mean just bad I mean horrid and this tends to hurt them still. It takes time to overcome problems just as Scali is showing.

Just think if intel had rolled out millions of p3 1.1 ghz or whatever the failed chip was, they would have tons of people still going "geez I never trust intel they produce terrible products" Anyway I have a athlon 2500+ mobie processor and I love the thing. I will make sure that I get a processor with something akin to cool 'n quiet with my next purchase as well.

Anyway as to fanboys there are not enough here for it to be real zesty if zest as DW as described it is an accurate description.