What CPU Do You Use?

WyreTheWolf · Jun 9, 2003, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike2h
a lot of the things you say are very true. two things you got wrong though are dual channel - intel's 850 has been out for at least 2 years, & you can get hyperthreading for $175(with 800 bus)
outside of heat issues, wich is not the problem it used to be, the biggest problems with amd has been their lack of top quality chip support. amd, in the past, has had little or no control over the quality of the chipsets made for their cpu's. the k5, k62 & 3, athlon & first tbirds had very poor chip support. in fact it was so poor that amd was forced to make their own chipsets . which were good but had the downfall of being less available & a little pricier. some of the chipset issues carried through until very recentley. intel has had their share of problems but they are good at pr'ing them into non existence and/or fixing the problem very speedily. they have more money, better bigger production & tighter control over non intel chipsets. & again more money. this does translate into better real world overall quality. now do not get me wrong, i am very thanful that amd is around & makes cpu's as good as they do. for 3 reasons- 1) without amd we would be paying much higher prices for less performing cpus. 2) amd IS geat bang for the buck. 3) choice! choice is great, also lets us have these debates!

Competition with Nvidia's dual channel nForce2 for AMD forced Intel to produce a dual channel chipset of their own, Granite bay. Granite bay was released for the holiday rush as an interim solution while waiting for Canterwood. Granite bay has a flawed AGP implementation, but no recall was offered. If you want Dual Channel with AGP 8x, you buy an Nforce2 or wait until Canterwood.

Dual Channel DDR has only recently become available for Intel products... as they were under contract to produce RAMBUS boards.... (do you remember the huge stink over RDRAM?)

Huge potetial, too bad about the Latency........ DDRII will probably be an excellent match for Intel processors.

mike2h · Jun 9, 2003, 10:06 PM

did you not read my my post. get a grip. my very first words were "a lot of things you say are very true" . and your statement " premature release of all the intel products" is ludicrous. first he did not say that & 2nd it just is not true. why don't you give me a list of the many, many recalls problems over the last few years. people like me? what the hell does that mean? i overlook amd? where did you pull that from? no wait do not tell me because it might smell. i made some generalised observations that overall, intels quality is better than amds. that DOES NOT mean that amd is 'bad' or not a good buy. in fact i stated that "amd is great bang for the buck". so get of your fanboy platform, read my post, & get your facts together. fyi, until the advent of the asus p4p 800 dx, i was leaning towards a nfoce2 solution for my next upgrade. i, unlike some people am not locked into any brand . i buy what is best for my needs & requirements based on research & what i can afford.

Zardon · Jun 9, 2003, 10:10 PM

everyone chill

BWX · Jun 9, 2003, 10:12 PM

Alright, I just don't think there is a difference in quality at all.

mike2h · Jun 9, 2003, 10:22 PM

like i said intel had dual channel over 2 years ago. outside of the old bx chipset, the 850 is the longest running high performance chipset for p4. the whole rambus debate was ludicrous. 850 chipset boards have kicked the crap out of anything else based on the p4 except for the brand new 865/875. & can still break even with some of those. intel could have produced a dual channel ddr board anytime they wanted. there was no 'contract' with rambus preventing this. intel screwed up trying to force it down the m.m's throats.
granite bay was a sad joke.
ddr2 is still an if.
you can & have been able to buy 875 based boards for several weeks now. 865 for about the last week or so. so far 8x agp is a flop. that will probably change with ati & nvidia's next releases though.

mike2h · Jun 9, 2003, 10:25 PM

brrrr. i am chilled.

mike2h · Jun 9, 2003, 10:33 PM

okay, we wil let all that go. i do not know if it makes a diiference & wether you got that from my post, but most of my problems with the amd platform is not so much the cpus as it is with the amount of not so good chipsets(imo). anywat like i said, do not know if it makes a difference, does not matter, just trying to make my position clear. still chillin'

Stafford · Jun 9, 2003, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zardon
everyone chill

Ditto!

I liked the idea of the poll, for pure statistical interest.

Too bad these threads always ends up the same way.

JavaFox · Jun 10, 2003, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stafford
Ditto!

I liked the idea of the poll, for pure statistical interest.

That's why I conducted it. I think the last time this poll was taken, it was something like 90% AMD, 10% Intel, so it's interesting to see how things have shifted a little. Then again, that previous post was never front page news, so that may be a factor.

Not scientific, but interesting nonetheless.

Kgentatszu] · Jun 10, 2003, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stafford
Ditto!

I liked the idea of the poll, for pure statistical interest.

Too bad these threads always ends up the same way.

Yup, I'm OUTTA here!!!!! "Arios Amigos~"

~~serAph~~ · Jun 10, 2003, 09:33 AM

i dont think itll change for a while - both companies make great products...

Electroe · Jun 10, 2003, 12:05 PM

Both hands raised....
I've been using it since its 486DX4-133. Why? Because it's cheaper than Intel has to offer. And comparing on a clock to clock basis, it's darn fast. So, as long as I have to support a family, I'd choose AMD.
At last I don't have to have instant noodles 3 times a day.

~~serAph~~ · Jun 10, 2003, 05:39 PM

my 2400 overclocked to beat a 3.06 P4 +HT in PCMark02 with only 33Mhz increase in FSB speed (dropped the multiplier from 15 to 13 too)

and yes, it costs a toooon less

Zardon · Jun 10, 2003, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by serAph
my 2400 overclocked to beat a 3.06 P4 +HT in PCMark02 with only 33Mhz increase in FSB speed (dropped the multiplier from 15 to 13 too)

and yes, it costs a toooon less

the scores in your pcmark2002 compare are 6750/5060 with no HD score.

neither of those scores (even the higher marked ones you typed out CPU:6677 MEM:6452 HD:~1300) would beat a 3 gig P4

~~serAph~~ · Jun 10, 2003, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zardon
the scores in your pcmark2002 compare are 6750/5060 with no HD score.

neither of those scores (even the higher marked ones you typed out CPU:6677 MEM:6452 HD:~1300) would beat a 3 gig P4

oops - just a sec - need to update my siggy

and in a toms hardware review with a Barton 3200+ and a 533Mhz FSB 3.06P4, they scored ~6700 or so. I beat them by about 50 (negligable) points...

regardless, the emphasis is more on that Im even close to their speeds instead of me actually beating them...

oh, and I havent been able to run my HD tests since I installed the nVidia SW IDE driver. Not uncommon for my hardware. Its an ATA133 drive too...

~ Rory K

[:edit:]
there its changed, and btw: your pcmark scores... wow...

here is an older bench where my HDD score is ~1250 - thats on my leadtek tho - my NF7-S (r2) has S-ATA so it should be slightly faster.
[:/edit:]

Zardon · Jun 10, 2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by serAph
oh, and I havent been able to run my HD tests since I installed the nVidia SW IDE driver. Not uncommon for my hardware. Its an ATA133 drive too...

hardware/device manager/IDE ATA controllers.

rollback to the windows driver. Nvidia IDE driver sucks big time.

mike2h · Jun 10, 2003, 07:44 PM

got to love the intel app accel. hehe

~~serAph~~ · Jun 11, 2003, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike2h
got to love the intel app accel. hehe

or better yet - gotta love not needing one

nForces are fast

Zardon · Jun 11, 2003, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike2h
got to love the intel app accel. hehe

I have to say, I think nvidia drivers this year have been appalling and not installing the Nforce IDE driver gives no loss in performance, in fact quite the opposite. Nvidia state that installing their IDE driver lowers CPU load when copying files etc. It makes no difference, except you get generally worse performance.

And they say ATI drivers suck? amuses me greatly now when I hear this.

and btw in reference to your "intel app accel", I think ill stick with AMD, im getting pretty decent scores (much better than my 2.4 gig P4 anyway

~~serAph~~ · Jun 11, 2003, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zardon
I have to say, I think nvidia drivers this year have been appalling and not installing the Nforce IDE driver gives no loss in performance, in fact quite the opposite. Nvidia state that installing their IDE driver lowers CPU load when copying files etc. It makes no difference, except you get generally worse performance.

And they say ATI drivers suck? amuses me greatly now when I hear this.

and btw in reference to your "intel app accel", I think ill stick with AMD, im getting pretty decent scores (much better than my 2.4 gig P4 anyway

yes - this year has been atrocious for nVidia drivers, but they've only released 2 detonators and 1 nforce UDP. so thats 1 out of 3 releases that have been bad, and honestly, the IDE drivers are freaking AMAZING for my system. The SAME hard drive on 2 diff. MoBo's (asus A7S333 and leadtek K7NCR18G-Pro) benched soooo much faster on the nForce, and then faster again when I went to another nForce board (NF7-S). I find that they arent the best because they dont act the same on everyone's computers, but then thats what makes ATi's drivers "bad" - that they typically do do the same bad stuff on everyone's PCs. I only know 3 people with 9700's and they all have major issues with desktop lines and freezing in graphical apps and such...

maybe things will be different with the r4xx since it wont be their first good gpu...

~ Rory K

mike2h · Jun 11, 2003, 05:49 PM

what benchmarks do you favor & consider closest to 'real world'? i have never really bechmarked my computers. i use sisoft & 3dmark 2001 mostly to test my overclocks stability. i am getting a p4p800 in 2-3 weeks with a 2.4c. i am hoping to get some scores that will compete with some of the amd rigs on this forum. though my 3d scoress will suck compared to you guys because of my g4. i am going to have to hit the forums up for advice because i have never overclocked a ddr rig before(i am rambus & pc133). think it will be fun!

BWX · Jun 11, 2003, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by serAph
...................I find that they arent the best because they dont act the same on everyone's computers, but then thats what makes ATi's drivers "bad" - that they typically do do the same bad stuff on everyone's PCs. I only know 3 people with 9700's and they all have major issues with desktop lines and freezing in graphical apps and such...maybe things will be different with the r4xx since it wont be their first good gpu...~ Rory K

I smell an ATI hater-- ....

j/k --- but really, ATI isn't that bad man, the drivers work great for me. Even on my slow-@55 system.

OK, back to CPU discussion. AMD + ATI = fast & fun to crank AA and AF and watch the FPS soar for me.. Hmmm, now all I need is an Nforce 2 and 1700 Tbred that can increase it's default clock by 50% out of the box for 52 bucks!!! I can't wait.

Vampyromaniac · Jun 12, 2003, 05:52 AM

Currently: AMD
Next CPU: AMD

Intel's fastest chips may be the fastest overall, but only by a relatively small margin, and I don't need something that fast badly enough to spend that much money on it, anyway. I wouldn't mind having one, but I sure won't buy one. But then I would never spend $400 on a CPU that performs maybe 30% faster than a $100 CPU (but costs 300% more.) I just don't have that kind of money to throw around.

Then if you look at slightly slower CPU's, comparing the equivalents from Intel and AMD, the AMD's always cost less. If you were buying a car and you saw one with a 3-litre / 245bhp / 200ft-lbs torque V-6 for $32,000, and another with 2.8-litre / 240bhp / 210ft-lbs torque V-6 for $20,000 (the rest of the cars being equal,) which would you buy? Sure, that's not a direct comparison, but you probably understand where I'm coming from.

muirplayer57 · Jun 12, 2003, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Yeah. My 1700+ is humming along at a toasty 2900+ (2.33GHz) right now. Sweet.

isnt the overclockability of the JIUHB 1700+ just great...?

muirplayer57 · Jun 12, 2003, 06:11 AM

woa your 3dmark score kinda low...

peterosesbookie · Jun 12, 2003, 06:43 AM

I have been running Dual AMD for about 2 1/2 years with my Tyan Thunder K7, the first dual made before the chips, and still going strong til the end of the line. I was running dual 1900+'s, then one burned out, and I decided to upgrade to the lastest 2600+'s. At the point the receieved them from the FedEx man, AMD released the 2800's (upset at that time since I would lose $63 + the shipping them back). I waited for a while and then bought the 2800's (hopefully the last of the MP's). I do not have a great videocard so I really cannot join the fastest AMD rig and probably the programs are not dual threaded. So I am off to SiSoft Sandra my new puppies.

later

pete

mike2h · Jun 12, 2003, 09:39 AM

up front i would like to say again that amd is a very good value. that said, i would like to point out that amd top of the line xp 3200 is $39 MORE than intels p4 3.0 800. & is slower. now i, like most people here would never pay those prices even if i had the money. but the pricing is... interesting.
not sure what to compare it to, but i would be real interested to see a comparison between a p4 2.4 800 hp & what ever amd cpu matches up with it. at standard & 'stock' overclocked speeds. that p4 cpu can be had for $173. just not sure which amd cpu you would put up against it. it will be a few weeks before i get my new mthbrd/cpu/ram setup. can not believe how much high quality ddr is. oh well.

SQUACHY · Jun 13, 2003, 07:12 AM

INTEL WOOT!!!

all you naysayers DIE!!!!

BWX · Jun 13, 2003, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike2h
up front i would like to say again that amd is a very good value. that said, i would like to point out that amd top of the line xp 3200 is $39 MORE than intels p4 3.0 800. & is slower. now i, like most people here would never pay those prices even if i had the money. but the pricing is... interesting.
not sure what to compare it to, but i would be real interested to see a comparison between a p4 2.4 800 hp & what ever amd cpu matches up with it. at standard & 'stock' overclocked speeds. that p4 cpu can be had for $173. just not sure which amd cpu you would put up against it. it will be a few weeks before i get my new mthbrd/cpu/ram setup. can not believe how much high quality ddr is. oh well.

Exactly, but if you factor in the 1700 Tbred that will do a 50% oc- then you have the best value on the planet.

mike2h · Jun 13, 2003, 06:06 PM

which will what, make it almost as fast as a 2.4c. which has been reliably overclocked to 3gig +.
if i remeber correctly you can buy those tbred for sub $100. so that is a very good buy.

Jun 9, 2003, 10:06 PM	#122
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 89 System Specs	bwx232 did you not read my my post. get a grip. my very first words were "a lot of things you say are very true" . and your statement " premature release of all the intel products" is ludicrous. first he did not say that & 2nd it just is not true. why don't you give me a list of the many, many recalls problems over the last few years. people like me? what the hell does that mean? i overlook amd? where did you pull that from? no wait do not tell me because it might smell. i made some generalised observations that overall, intels quality is better than amds. that DOES NOT mean that amd is 'bad' or not a good buy. in fact i stated that "amd is great bang for the buck". so get of your fanboy platform, read my post, & get your facts together. fyi, until the advent of the asus p4p 800 dx, i was leaning towards a nfoce2 solution for my next upgrade. i, unlike some people am not locked into any brand . i buy what is best for my needs & requirements based on research & what i can afford. __________________

Jun 9, 2003, 10:22 PM	#125
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 89 System Specs	WyreTheWolf like i said intel had dual channel over 2 years ago. outside of the old bx chipset, the 850 is the longest running high performance chipset for p4. the whole rambus debate was ludicrous. 850 chipset boards have kicked the crap out of anything else based on the p4 except for the brand new 865/875. & can still break even with some of those. intel could have produced a dual channel ddr board anytime they wanted. there was no 'contract' with rambus preventing this. intel screwed up trying to force it down the m.m's throats. granite bay was a sad joke. ddr2 is still an if. you can & have been able to buy 875 based boards for several weeks now. 865 for about the last week or so. so far 8x agp is a flop. that will probably change with ati & nvidia's next releases though.

Jun 9, 2003, 10:25 PM	#126
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 89 System Specs	brrrr. i am chilled. __________________

Jun 9, 2003, 10:33 PM	#127
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 89 System Specs	BWX232 okay, we wil let all that go. i do not know if it makes a diiference & wether you got that from my post, but most of my problems with the amd platform is not so much the cpus as it is with the amount of not so good chipsets(imo). anywat like i said, do not know if it makes a difference, does not matter, just trying to make my position clear. still chillin' __________________

Jun 10, 2003, 12:05 PM	#132
Electroe DH wanderer Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: 20 min. to Computex Taipei Posts: 137 Rep Power: 0	AMD!! Both hands raised.... I've been using it since its 486DX4-133. Why? Because it's cheaper than Intel has to offer. And comparing on a clock to clock basis, it's darn fast. So, as long as I have to support a family, I'd choose AMD. At last I don't have to have instant noodles 3 times a day.

Jun 9, 2003, 10:10 PM	#123
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 177	everyone chill

Jun 9, 2003, 10:12 PM	#124
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,665 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	Alright, I just don't think there is a difference in quality at all.

Jun 10, 2003, 09:33 AM	#131
~~serAph~~ I want a 6800 ultra, PLEASE ! Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Nvidia HQ Posts: 29 Rep Power: 0	i dont think itll change for a while - both companies make great products...

Jun 10, 2003, 05:39 PM	#133
~~serAph~~ I want a 6800 ultra, PLEASE ! Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Nvidia HQ Posts: 29 Rep Power: 0	my 2400 overclocked to beat a 3.06 P4 +HT in PCMark02 with only 33Mhz increase in FSB speed (dropped the multiplier from 15 to 13 too) and yes, it costs a toooon less

Jun 10, 2003, 07:44 PM	#137
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 89 System Specs	zardon got to love the intel app accel. hehe

Jun 11, 2003, 05:49 PM	#141
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 89 System Specs	Zardon what benchmarks do you favor & consider closest to 'real world'? i have never really bechmarked my computers. i use sisoft & 3dmark 2001 mostly to test my overclocks stability. i am getting a p4p800 in 2-3 weeks with a 2.4c. i am hoping to get some scores that will compete with some of the amd rigs on this forum. though my 3d scoress will suck compared to you guys because of my g4. i am going to have to hit the forums up for advice because i have never overclocked a ddr rig before(i am rambus & pc133). think it will be fun! __________________

Jun 12, 2003, 05:52 AM	#143
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 74 System Specs	hi Currently: AMD Next CPU: AMD Intel's fastest chips may be the fastest overall, but only by a relatively small margin, and I don't need something that fast badly enough to spend that much money on it, anyway. I wouldn't mind having one, but I sure won't buy one. But then I would never spend $400 on a CPU that performs maybe 30% faster than a $100 CPU (but costs 300% more.) I just don't have that kind of money to throw around. Then if you look at slightly slower CPU's, comparing the equivalents from Intel and AMD, the AMD's always cost less. If you were buying a car and you saw one with a 3-litre / 245bhp / 200ft-lbs torque V-6 for $32,000, and another with 2.8-litre / 240bhp / 210ft-lbs torque V-6 for $20,000 (the rest of the cars being equal,) which would you buy? Sure, that's not a direct comparison, but you probably understand where I'm coming from. __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Jun 12, 2003, 06:11 AM	#145
muirplayer57 DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 23 Rep Power: 0	woa your 3dmark score kinda low... __________________ ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe \| XP2500+ @ 2200mhz \| 1gb geil pc3200 \| Flashed 5950u \| 120gb & 80gb WD HD \| Koolance Liquid Cooling Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro2 \| XP2600+ \| 1gb Kingston pc2700 \| gf4 ti4600 \| 2x20gb WD HD \| Swiftech Liquid Cooling Gigabyte GA-7VAXP \| XP2000+ \| 768mb mixed pc2100 \| TNT2 Model 64 \| Seagate 40gb HD \| Thermaltake Volcano 11

Jun 12, 2003, 06:43 AM	#146
peterosesbookie HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: OHIO Posts: 556 Rep Power: 0	I am running Dual AMD Athlon MP 2800+'s I have been running Dual AMD for about 2 1/2 years with my Tyan Thunder K7, the first dual made before the chips, and still going strong til the end of the line. I was running dual 1900+'s, then one burned out, and I decided to upgrade to the lastest 2600+'s. At the point the receieved them from the FedEx man, AMD released the 2800's (upset at that time since I would lose $63 + the shipping them back). I waited for a while and then bought the 2800's (hopefully the last of the MP's). I do not have a great videocard so I really cannot join the fastest AMD rig and probably the programs are not dual threaded. So I am off to SiSoft Sandra my new puppies. later pete __________________ A Cat almost always blinks when hit in the head with a ball peen hammer!

Jun 12, 2003, 09:39 AM	#147
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 89 System Specs	pricing up front i would like to say again that amd is a very good value. that said, i would like to point out that amd top of the line xp 3200 is $39 MORE than intels p4 3.0 800. & is slower. now i, like most people here would never pay those prices even if i had the money. but the pricing is... interesting. not sure what to compare it to, but i would be real interested to see a comparison between a p4 2.4 800 hp & what ever amd cpu matches up with it. at standard & 'stock' overclocked speeds. that p4 cpu can be had for $173. just not sure which amd cpu you would put up against it. it will be a few weeks before i get my new mthbrd/cpu/ram setup. can not believe how much high quality ddr is. oh well.

Jun 13, 2003, 07:12 AM	#148
SQUACHY I am GOD and you're all BS Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 158 Rep Power: 0	INTEL WOOT!!! all you naysayers DIE!!!! __________________ Say what you say that you spray for the day on the way, past the gay, through the ray, up the cray, off the hay all through May past the Jay drinking O.J., down the bay, cash the pay yay or nay something stays, ok?

Jun 13, 2003, 06:06 PM	#150
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 89 System Specs	which will what, make it almost as fast as a 2.4c. which has been reliably overclocked to 3gig +. if i remeber correctly you can buy those tbred for sub $100. so that is a very good buy. __________________