Intel P4 vs AMD 64 ??? Anyone done any comparisons?

Try google, theres lots.

Check here
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/...9116677,00.htm
There is a thorough benchmark review.

software isn't ready or is it

WINNER = P4 3.2 (2mb cache also refered to as the "extreme edition") but ONLY ON A 32bit OS

WINNER AMD64FX but ONLY ON A 64bit OS linux or newly released 2/3/04 Windows XP 64bit trial version (microsoft disclaimer use at your own risk)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/6...ds/upgrade.asp

AMD64 FXis 34% faster than P4 3.2 extreme on a 64bit OS.

Reference

http://www.poweroid-video-editing.co...benchmarks.asp

The Athlon has its mainmarket in mid-range laptops. Since it gives decent battery life (2.5 - 3 hours vs the P4's 1.5 hours) ans is almost as fast as the P4, we will most likely to see it in systems made to be used occasionally on the road and mostly at home (like the e-machines m6807 and Mitac, whawt is it?,.

I think you have that completely wrong regarding the 64 bit OS. A P4 cannot run a 64 bit OS, period. What the article says is the AMD 64 FX51 is 34% faster in 64 bit than it is in 32 bit. Which since its only slightly slower than the maxed out P4 3.2 EE (which costs ) means in a comparison between the FX in 64 bit and the P4 EE in 32 bit, the FX would stomp the EE. Not just beat it, stomp it. Like 45 seconds to do something with the AMD vs a minute with the Intel.

Now that M$ has released W64 and Intel has accepted the AMD 64 bit extensions, 64 bit is going to happen much faster than previoulsy thought. My really conservative guess is within a year, it will be the standard and within two years, 32 bit will be history.

I know that the P4 doesn't run 64 bit. What I meant was an Athlon 64 running a 64 bit OS and 32 bit applications is slower than an P4 or Athlon 64 running a 32 bit OS and 32 bit Apps. If your running the 64 bit apps, they are faster, but since their aren't really any 64 bir apps, 64 bit mode is slower for now.

Marquis.... I didn't say a 32bit P4 on a 64bit OS being faster ... lmao...


I can see how you read the 34% faster line that way but i didn't mean it that way which is why i said

....."P4 3.2 (2mb cache also refered to as the "extreme edition") but ONLY ON A 32bit OS"

And the amd64 in a 64bit OS beats the P4(32bit) in a 32bit OS by 34% and yes thats decisive or "stomping" lol

But for most who use a 32bit OS the AMD64 is Slower.

peace out

There are several tests from alot of sites.
Those that love the P4 can find sites that show the P4 can win some tests.
Those that love the AMD can find sites that show the AMD can win some tests.
The fact is that the AMD wins more of these tests then the P4. The problem with these tests is that they use CPU's none of us are interested in buying. The p4EE is not readily available and if you find one in stock, expect to pay 900.00 or more just for the chip. This is madness... Since it is nearly four times the cost of the chip it statisically ties (the AMD 64 3200+)(the P4EE might win against this lower end chip, but the margin of victory is smaller then the margin of error). The same arguement goes against the FX51. It is too expensive. It is twice as expensive as the AMD64 3400+ that it ties (750 vs. 400). Again the more expensive chip might win, but again the margin or victory would be smaller then the margin of error.

Do not buy any of the bleeding edge chips. They are less then 1% faster then the more reasonably priced ones.

The simple answer to the question is:
The p4 and AMD64 are basically the same speed (if both are running Windows XP32bit). The p4 Northwood is faster then the P4 prescott, so if you want a P4 get the older model.
The AMD is typically faster at playing games.
The P4 does better a some image processing tasks.

@Bjorn
If you only care how the CPUs score, yes the Athlon64 3200+ would beat the P4 3.2 HT in most benchmarks, except encoding.

But what you say to the chipsets?
Intel OWNZ VIA/SiS/NVIDIA chipsets and particularly if you compared the whole system perfomance with
CPU load at HDD activities (Intel 865PE 5% VIA K8M800 20%)
CPU load at 100/1000 LAN (Intel 865PE 3%/3% VIA 10-50%/not even possible - no HyperTransport LAN yet)
etc.
you will see a big difference between CPU score with synth benchmarks and REAL USAGE benchmarks.

When I let all things on my Clevo D510P (Sager 5680) run at the same time, like 1000LAN + WLAN108 + lots of HDD activity (Bittorrent hashing) + wathing Divx movie + listening mp3's ... you know what? My CPU wouldn't even run at 60%! An Athlon64 System would go at 100% with 1000LAN only!

This isn't due a technical better CPU, no it's cause Intel make better chipsets for the P4.

For all you may say, I think the real benefit from a CPU (CPU + chipset) does count more, than a higher CPU only score.

Don't take it amiss!

Conpain

You're quite right. No disagreement at all. For the P4, the best chipsets come from Intel. I do not know for a fact, but believe the same is true for Pentium-M CPU's.

But the chipsets for the AMD processors get their best chipsets from ALI, SIS, NVidia, ATI and VIA. I do not know why a similar (nearly identical) chipset preforms well on a AMD and badly on an INTEL.

I further agree that you are right that the best cpu in the world is worthless (or at least very limited) by a bad chipset. After all (to steal a line from the drag racers) it's not the horsepower under the hood that matters, but what you can put on the road.

The big difference is that these chipsets work very well for the AMD chips. The AMD64 chipsets are still a little immature, but pretty good. If I were to guess, it seems that they "Might" be designed for AMD and ported to Intel. I know I have an XBOX, and there is a significant difference in quality between games designed for it (which blow the PS2 away) and game which are ported from the PS2 (in which case the PS2 version of the same game is almost always better).

But since we weren't looking at chipsets specifically, it was still a fair question of the original poster to ask. I think (as you suggest) that the P4 is helped by use the Intel chipsets. But, as long as you look at the best current chipset for the AMD counter part, it's still a fair (or as fair as you can make it) comparison.

Here is a real world example of what you talked about:
I have a P4 and a AMD-XP (64bit part on order). The P4 went from a VIA chipset to a 875. Performance was noticably better at almost everything (same 2.8 CPU).
My AMD rig I went from a 2400+ to a 2700+, not too much difference to be honest. (with the upgrade to the Intel, it went from being slower then the 2400+ to faster then the 2700+). Then I upgrade the motherboard in the AMD from a VIA based KT333 to an NVidia based Nforce2. Night and day. The 2700+ was suddenly much faster (faster then the Intel at most tasks). I sold this to a buddy and replaced it with an Nforce2-400. Suddenly the AMD is faster still. So smooth, and now easy to overclock, etc...


All that said, I still think the difference between the p4 and AMD64 (both using their best chipset and on a 32bit os) is too close for the typical user to be able to tell a difference in anything. 2-3 seconds faster encoding (for the p4) or 2-3 frames per second for the AMD64.
In a laptop, the only real advantage I see for either is the longer battery life of the AMD64. Of course the Centrino/Pentium-M remains king in this area.

I can't say anything about benchmarks because I have never benchmarked my machine, and I don't really care about benchmarks anyway. I get two hours+ surfing and email and such stuff, you can get close to three if you turn the screen down and stuff. I don't game on the batt 'cause something the settings throttles back the proc a lot.

little offset article

Is there anyone had tasted the notbook that uses AMD atholon processor?
And would you share your taste with me?

3x a lot!

The only reviews of Athlon 64 in a laptop were done by Anantech reviewing the voodoPC envy M:855; and extremetech comparing the same envy 855 vs a rebadged sager 8890 (panther).

In both cases the Athlon 64 got a near sweep in the tests, being the lead more pronounced in gaming.

I guess that the person who said the A64 is "almost as fast as the P4" got it reversed.... the P4 is almost as fast.

Regarding chipsets, you forget that hypertransport in fact provides more bandwidht and reduces CPU usage. The figure provided by Compain about an Athlon64 working at 100% with gigabit LAN is wrong. Or if you can provide some data backing up the assumption it would be nice.

The chipset is less of a factor now that the memory controller is integrated into the CPU. That was the intention for the K8 architecture and it is working.


Alex

By the way, why don't all the owners here compile a thread of benchmark results. That way numbers speak for themselves.

It provide even more! New kind of connections between high bandwich devices and its even capable work in duplex mode at max bandwich. That all sound realy nice and let the old architecture look like crap. (BUS architecture)

Thera are no gigabit LAN modules for HyperTransport and because AMD will rise the HyperTransport clocking to 1GHz, it will takes even more time to gigabit LAN at HT.
The only other way is gigabit LAN over PCI BUS with some tricks. But the worst in this scenario is, that K8 architecture could only reach ~70MB/s at PCI (Chipset), which would be shorten by soundchips/IDE/SATA/USB/FW. Intel solved this problem with a "second" Northbridge for gigabit LAN only.
Its no inovation behind Intels solution, _but _it _works and even with little CPU usage.

At the moment, only for the memory (RAM) to CPU transfer. All other things hanging on the notorious non_AMD chipsets.

K8 architecture will be superior to Intels BUS/PCI-X/DDR2 upgrade if all manufacturer will support AMDs HT technology.

All current AMD systems depends on the non_AMD chipsets, we all know all the cover up bugs with those chipsets. Why should all this inferior chipset manufacturers be better now with the *NEW* K8 chipset than Intel with a proven flawless i865PE/i875?

Conpain

Thanks for the answer, but I don't think it proves the point.

Gigabit LAN runs (at least in theory) at 1000 Gb/sec (120 MB/sec). In real life, it is about 45% efficient (sorry if the figure is wrong, and a corrected figure is welcome), so we are talking about 60 MB/sec MAX. This is no much different than a humble ATA 100 hard drive. Even the old PCI architecture can handle that data rate without much loss of performance (533 MB/sec for PCI, correct?)

Now, I don't think that those 60 MB/sec need to be used by the CPU all the time, so the peripherials controller (southbridge) can distribute it to the CPU and the hard drive as needed. CPU usage should be no different than a winmodem or USB 2.0.

Regarding how reliable chipsets are, I don't deny the fact that Intel makes the most robuts, but it doesn't mean the others don't or that intel is always flawless. I am sure you can remember the i820 fiasco. Third party chipset makers also have done very good products, such as the SIS964 southbridge or the Nforce2.

Yes, only memory access is switched to the CPU from the third party chipset, but that is the most critical factor for performance. This in fact benefits the chipset makers as they can focus on what they domain: peripherials controllers.

AMD will use also PCI express (It is already using PCI-X for workstations and servers) and DDR2. However, at this time there is really not tangible advantage of switching to those. PCI express in fact wil leverage even more the power of Hypertransport.

I had a duron 700 with a KT133..... f***** piece of garbage, as it froze just by staring hard at it (VIA). It made me wary of VIA, but my M6805 shows the other face of VIA, as the VT8235 is very mature and stable.... I love my portable baby! Freezes? Yes, a few, but none of them atributable to the CPU / chipset, rather drivers or user mistakes.


Alex

By the way, is there any socket 754/socket 939 board that has gigabit LAN? Any user that could report CPU usage?

Theme afternoon with VIA

HD performance on AMD64 chipsets >20% CPU load
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/...hreadid=158255

The CPU load with Intel 875/865PE is ~1-2%

LAN performance & CPU load was another hot spot in this FAQ day.

Its really great to see the AMD Athlon64 in a superior position in synthetic benchmarks and on the other side, we all could see the nuisances in "real world" tests. :>

My recommendation is the Intel P4 with Intel chipsets. Flawless chipset with the best overall performance (CPU + chipset).

Conpain