AMD's processors are cheap and powerful indeed, but I suspect the only benchmarks in which they perform worse are based on clock speed. Ticks are the deciding factor in file conversions (e.g. DivX to MPEG2) and so far AMD hasn't pushed past 2.2GHz... Keeping in mind that even at this speed it competes with Intel's best, it would OBLITERATE all P4s (including P4EE, the Xeon on crack) at their current rates of 3 to 3.4GHz. No question. Pertaining to THIS thread, I've used hybrid SIMM/DIMM setups too - no problems with stability, but it never helped performace either. I'd have been better off removing the SIMMs to maintain low latency and fast access, but I was 13 and thought it cool to install as much as possible. =P I currently use a Willamette P4 (socket 423) with PC800 RDRAM (via i850). I don't remember anyone bitching about buying expensive RAM then; they just settled for SDRAM (and unknowingly suffered major P4 chokage). If memory is an issue yet again today, why don't people just go one way or the other like before? Buy what you can afford and be happy, or buy nothing at all. I plan to keep this RDRAM around for R659, if it promises anything for quad-channel PC800.
Ugh, IamTHEsnake apparently doesn't understand Hammer architecture in the slightest. :/
As for the introduction of DDR-II, I'm still wondering why we need it; PC4400 seems to be serving the world just fine, and it's a damn sight cheaper, too...
retrospooty, think again all this time AMD has been using a 64-bit cpu vs intel's 32-bit cpu. I think you have overlooked the fact that the cpu you are referring to is ALSO 64-BIT . THEN WE WILL SEE WHO WILL BE CROWNED KING ON A LEVEL PLAYING GROUND!!!
Bleh. The Intel vs. AMD argument that is trying to sidetrack this thread. Oh, well.... We've heard all sorts of stuff. Buy what you think is best. Right now, it's AMD on both the price/performance segment (Athlon XP) and the high-performance segment (Athlon 64). Intel WILL counter with something better eventually, but it's looking more and more like Prescott even with the 64-bit extensions is going to at best match the Athlon 64, and that's doubtful.
Now, as for this 2x2 arrangement of DDR1/DDR2 DIMM slots, I can't stand hybrid designs. I had so many problems back in the day with 486/Pentium chips on 2x2 30-pin/72-pin boards and later on 72-pin/168-pin setups. Yeah, you could get them to run stable after some effort, but it was almost always at the cost of performance as well as a lower maximum memory capacity.
Since DDR2 will only have a performance advantage when we start scaling to higher bus speeds, and that is likely to be at least a year away, if I were to get a 915P motherboard, I would much rather have a 4xDDR1 than the 2x2 hybrid. You would need to upgrade to a new CPU to make use of DDR2 (because the CPU would have to support a higher bus speed), not to mention that at least right now, DDR2 is costing a TON more than DDR1.
Hybrids often sound like a good idea, but they're really marketing BS. When people actually get to the point where they're thinking about upgrading their system to the newer options on hybrid boards, they usually end up needing a new motherboard anyway. So you can buy a 2x2 915P and potentially run DDR2 RAM for no performance benefit, and in one year or so when P4 chips that run on a 266 or higher bus come out, you'll end up discovering that your motherboard isn't certified to handle those CPUs anyway.
#1, "Why are you, so interested in DDR2 memory, when samsung already is avertising for DDR3 memory, with up to 51G Bandwith ..... !!!!!
Let us hear about that !!!!!!!"
That is GDDR3, graphics memory, not system memory.
#3, "Just make sure you get the new LGA 775 socket with that, because this socket will take the best performing CPU's for years to come, including 4 Ghz 64 bit HT SSE3 CPU's, before any competing 64 bitters will be even close to only 3 Ghz."
You have been brainwashed by the "MHz is King" strategy of Intel. AMD and Intel processors do not work the same way and cannot be compared like that. An A64 2.2Ghz CPU is equal to a P4 3.4Ghz CPU, and in most cases surpasses it.
Do some reasearch and have an open mind to other solutions.
"they are sexing up last years CPU's with P ratings to make them look new, without the matching performance"
What the hell are you talking about T8000? Opterons I assume - but if you don't think the A64 has earned it's rating then you need new glasses. The processor clearly ousts Intel's best in the tasks that are most common. Not to mention you have 64-bit promise with more registers as well.
Due to the new interfaces, like DDR2 and PCI-E, I do not think i915 and i925 are going to be very populair in the upgrade market, but for new (OEM) systems, they are the way to go.
Just make sure you get the new LGA 775 socket with that, because this socket will take the best performing CPU's for years to come, including 4 Ghz 64 bit HT SSE3 CPU's, before any competing 64 bitters will be even close to only 3 Ghz.
My reason for not buying AMD is that they are sexing up last years CPU's with P ratings to make them look new, without the matching performance. Whats yours?
i think it is great that boardmakers are finaly taking peoples budgets into account. especially when initial performance of both standards is 'on par'. i think 2+2 is not going to hurt anyone. And whosoever has the money to upgrade to DDR2 and all banks probably wouldn't go for grantsdale anyhow.
i'd still go amd anytime so it doesn't really concern me in the least what intel is going to do.
hey people forget what you've been brought up with. have your own opinion. the opinion is clearly amd. so,
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
16 Comments
Back to Article
BlackHawk2k4 - Tuesday, March 2, 2004 - link
Oh and by the way, your statement is invalid anyway, because they are BOTH currently running in 32 bit environments.32 bit AMD, vs 32 bit Intel, looks like a level playing field to me, and AMD is winning.
BlackHawk2k4 - Tuesday, March 2, 2004 - link
#12, you talk like Intel is paying you to say these things.They are not even remotely correct as you obviously have no clue about CPU architecture and how they work.
:rollseyes:
larson0699 - Monday, March 1, 2004 - link
AMD's processors are cheap and powerful indeed, but I suspect the only benchmarks in which they perform worse are based on clock speed. Ticks are the deciding factor in file conversions (e.g. DivX to MPEG2) and so far AMD hasn't pushed past 2.2GHz... Keeping in mind that even at this speed it competes with Intel's best, it would OBLITERATE all P4s (including P4EE, the Xeon on crack) at their current rates of 3 to 3.4GHz. No question.Pertaining to THIS thread, I've used hybrid SIMM/DIMM setups too - no problems with stability, but it never helped performace either. I'd have been better off removing the SIMMs to maintain low latency and fast access, but I was 13 and thought it cool to install as much as possible. =P
I currently use a Willamette P4 (socket 423) with PC800 RDRAM (via i850). I don't remember anyone bitching about buying expensive RAM then; they just settled for SDRAM (and unknowingly suffered major P4 chokage).
If memory is an issue yet again today, why don't people just go one way or the other like before? Buy what you can afford and be happy, or buy nothing at all. I plan to keep this RDRAM around for R659, if it promises anything for quad-channel PC800.
Shinei - Sunday, February 29, 2004 - link
Ugh, IamTHEsnake apparently doesn't understand Hammer architecture in the slightest. :/As for the introduction of DDR-II, I'm still wondering why we need it; PC4400 seems to be serving the world just fine, and it's a damn sight cheaper, too...
IamTHEsnake - Sunday, February 29, 2004 - link
retrospooty, think again all this time AMD has been using a 64-bit cpu vs intel's 32-bit cpu. I think you have overlooked the fact that the cpu you are referring to is ALSO 64-BIT . THEN WE WILL SEE WHO WILL BE CROWNED KING ON A LEVEL PLAYING GROUND!!!fool, your amd64 loving a$$ will be speechless.
KristopherKubicki - Saturday, February 28, 2004 - link
I think #8 has the most valid point here.Kristopher
TrogdorJW - Friday, February 27, 2004 - link
Bleh. The Intel vs. AMD argument that is trying to sidetrack this thread. Oh, well.... We've heard all sorts of stuff. Buy what you think is best. Right now, it's AMD on both the price/performance segment (Athlon XP) and the high-performance segment (Athlon 64). Intel WILL counter with something better eventually, but it's looking more and more like Prescott even with the 64-bit extensions is going to at best match the Athlon 64, and that's doubtful.Now, as for this 2x2 arrangement of DDR1/DDR2 DIMM slots, I can't stand hybrid designs. I had so many problems back in the day with 486/Pentium chips on 2x2 30-pin/72-pin boards and later on 72-pin/168-pin setups. Yeah, you could get them to run stable after some effort, but it was almost always at the cost of performance as well as a lower maximum memory capacity.
Since DDR2 will only have a performance advantage when we start scaling to higher bus speeds, and that is likely to be at least a year away, if I were to get a 915P motherboard, I would much rather have a 4xDDR1 than the 2x2 hybrid. You would need to upgrade to a new CPU to make use of DDR2 (because the CPU would have to support a higher bus speed), not to mention that at least right now, DDR2 is costing a TON more than DDR1.
Hybrids often sound like a good idea, but they're really marketing BS. When people actually get to the point where they're thinking about upgrading their system to the newer options on hybrid boards, they usually end up needing a new motherboard anyway. So you can buy a 2x2 915P and potentially run DDR2 RAM for no performance benefit, and in one year or so when P4 chips that run on a 266 or higher bus come out, you'll end up discovering that your motherboard isn't certified to handle those CPUs anyway.
retrospooty - Friday, February 27, 2004 - link
#3 , A 3ghz A64 would completely destroy a 4 ghz P4 w/ 64 bits. What are you even talking about ?Cygni - Friday, February 27, 2004 - link
The best selling retail motherboard of all time, the K7S5A, was a 2x2 solution. What does that tell ya? heh.KristopherKubicki - Friday, February 27, 2004 - link
I think #1 was being sarcastic :-pBlackHawk2k4 - Friday, February 27, 2004 - link
#1, "Why are you, so interested in DDR2 memory, when samsung already is avertising for DDR3 memory, with up to 51G Bandwith ..... !!!!!Let us hear about that !!!!!!!"
That is GDDR3, graphics memory, not system memory.
#3, "Just make sure you get the new LGA 775 socket with that, because this socket will take the best performing CPU's for years to come, including 4 Ghz 64 bit HT SSE3 CPU's, before any competing 64 bitters will be even close to only 3 Ghz."
You have been brainwashed by the "MHz is King" strategy of Intel. AMD and Intel processors do not work the same way and cannot be compared like that. An A64 2.2Ghz CPU is equal to a P4 3.4Ghz CPU, and in most cases surpasses it.
Do some reasearch and have an open mind to other solutions.
tfranzese - Friday, February 27, 2004 - link
"they are sexing up last years CPU's with P ratings to make them look new, without the matching performance"What the hell are you talking about T8000? Opterons I assume - but if you don't think the A64 has earned it's rating then you need new glasses. The processor clearly ousts Intel's best in the tasks that are most common. Not to mention you have 64-bit promise with more registers as well.
Icewind - Friday, February 27, 2004 - link
I'll believe it when I see it, but either way im still going for a Athlon 64 939 pin as Im not impressed with Intels future offersT8000 - Friday, February 27, 2004 - link
Due to the new interfaces, like DDR2 and PCI-E, I do not think i915 and i925 are going to be very populair in the upgrade market, but for new (OEM) systems, they are the way to go.Just make sure you get the new LGA 775 socket with that, because this socket will take the best performing CPU's for years to come, including 4 Ghz 64 bit HT SSE3 CPU's, before any competing 64 bitters will be even close to only 3 Ghz.
My reason for not buying AMD is that they are sexing up last years CPU's with P ratings to make them look new, without the matching performance. Whats yours?
sipc660 - Friday, February 27, 2004 - link
i think it is great that boardmakers are finaly taking peoples budgets into account. especially when initial performance of both standards is 'on par'. i think 2+2 is not going to hurt anyone. And whosoever has the money to upgrade to DDR2 and all banks probably wouldn't go for grantsdale anyhow.i'd still go amd anytime so it doesn't really concern me in the least what intel is going to do.
hey people forget what you've been brought up with. have your own opinion. the opinion is clearly amd.
so,
go amd
Town - Friday, February 27, 2004 - link
Why are you, so interested in DDR2 memory, when samsung already is avertising for DDR3 memory, with up to 51G Bandwith ..... !!!!!Let us hear about that !!!!!!!