Any major differences between Pentium/AMD nowadays?

[Durk]

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004060 ... 39-22.html

I don't wanna sound like a complete dick, but Tom's Hardware has a reputation of being a tad Intel-biased.

I wished he did some effect tests within Cool Edit Pro, or even better within Adobe Audition - which is the successor to Cool Edit Pro.

Also the Nuendo test setup isn't very clear; did he use VST plug-ins? I don't think so. Just a bunch of big waves which have always favoured the Pentium 4. As for me, using only plug-ins and samples, but no wave tracks, this test doesn't make much sense to me.

[DevonB]

My point is one does not look dramatically better than the other, Dirk.

Also, got any links that prove his numbers wrong? I keep hearing that they're 'Intel biased', but never any proof.

Devon

[Robert Randolph]

They're intel biased because most audio software is optimized for intel.... So that means in real performance, intel normally performs better.... AMD only manages to keep up because it's just faster in raw calculation... if you do straight raw processing tests AMD will slam intel everytime. Do tests in real software (that people actually use for heavy processing), and its always been even.

either way you do it, it's even. The only thing left to look for is price... well AMD and Intel's REASONABLY priced offerings are nearly identical in price...

So you look for other technology only available on that platform... well all intel's boards show much faster memory use than any of AMD's... so intel gets a plus there. AMD's partners offer a lot more "extra"s...

Stability, power usage and cooling... pretty even there. Intel is more stable, cooler but uses more power... and AMD partners offer more cooling options (because their processors run slightly warmer).

It's even completely in the end when you get down to using the processor. You just find a motherboard that suits you and just get to work.

One thing to mention of course is there's quite a few specialty apps and plugins that are intel only... I've never seen AMD only software....

[ohmegav]

price.

AMD all the way.

[jens]

you forgot to mention one big issue, Robert:

AMD processors have rarely any denormal-problems

[nuffink]

They're intel biased because most audio software is optimized for intel....

One thing to mention of course is there's quite a few specialty apps and plugins that are intel only... I've never seen AMD only software....

Interesting. Perhaps a few examples?

[mike.0]

So you look for other technology only available on that platform... well all intel's boards show much faster memory use than any of AMD's... so intel gets a plus there. AMD's partners offer a lot more "extra"s...

Stability, power usage and cooling... pretty even there. Intel is more stable, cooler but uses more power... and AMD partners offer more cooling options (because their processors run slightly warmer).

Well, in reality the new AMD 64 chips have much quicker memory access than the P4. The memory controller is built into the CPU, achieving far lower latency. Thats one of their primary advantages.
As for stability/heat.. well Intel is the only company out of the two that had to recall chips due to heat related crashes. That was the P3 1.133GHz. All the new generation chips are perfectly stable.

[Durk]

My point is one does not look dramatically better than the other, Dirk.

Okay, in that case we're on par; no dramatically differences.

But what did you say? Dirk? Most people in the Netherlands don't seem to understand that my name is spelled with a "u"... and now to hear this from an American makes me wonder even more.. What's wrong with my name! But... no hard feelings..

Also, got any links that prove his numbers wrong? I keep hearing that they're 'Intel biased', but never any proof.

Of course it's hard to proof, we can't just call Tom and ask if he's biased... The only way get it somewhat proven is looking to the test setup. Everybody knows that with a particular selection of tests you can make any processor look bad or look awesome. Ace's Hardware has proven this with LightWave I guess it was. Different scenes, different results. Often it seems that Tom's Hardware takes THAT selection of tests which makes Intel look a bit better than it did at other sites. But not only Tom's Hardware hands aren't clean, many other sites have discutable test setups. Partly due to ignorance. So each time reading a review you have to wonder what kind of things weren't tested and what kind of things are important to YOU.

Maybe it's wrong of me to call something biased forever, because they can change over time. Looking as this Tom's Hardware review, the tests seem to be all right. Only the audio tests and the LightWave test are a little too simple. I can't prove anything till I see more comprehensive testing of audio applications with the same hardware.

In the past I saw some really weird things at Tom's Hardware and that made me avoid his reviews. Okay, I quit calling Tom's Hardware Intel-biased. I'm realizing that it's better to attack a test specific than a site as a whole. So yes, I was acting like a dick!

Oh my... where does this story end? Well, let's conclude with: "complicated stuff, reviewing".

[Sam C Spacey]

Well the best chip for the money is XP2500 Barton, I run mine at XP3400 easily on an nforce 2 epox 8rda-3 board. Watercooled but you should be able to get XP3000 air cooled. Cheap as shit.

I had a p4 3.2 built for someone and my pc running at XP3200 to compare them. I have to say that the XP2500 running at XP3200 beat the crap out of the pentium sys and the pentium wouldn't work properly with the 2 x uad-1's installed. It cost nearly twice as much as the amd system. I must have built about 100 dws over the past few years and I allways go with amd.

[Durk]

So you look for other technology only available on that platform... well all intel's boards show much faster memory use than any of AMD's... so intel gets a plus there. AMD's partners offer a lot more "extra"s...

Stability, power usage and cooling... pretty even there. Intel is more stable, cooler but uses more power... and AMD partners offer more cooling options (because their processors run slightly warmer).

Well, in reality the new AMD 64 chips have much quicker memory access than the P4. The memory controller is built into the CPU, achieving far lower latency. Thats one of their primary advantages.
As for stability/heat.. well Intel is the only company out of the two that had to recall chips due to heat related crashes. That was the P3 1.133GHz. All the new generation chips are perfectly stable.

Exactly, AMD Athlon 64 chips consume less power than their Intel counterparts and THEREFORE exposing less heat.

You're also right about memory access and bandwidth, AMD is king in this area with their socket 939 chips. But do we care? No! We have to look at how this exhibits in real-life applications.

And I'm quitting to comment about fables like "Intel is more stable". Please be a little more constructive...

[DevonB]

But what did you say? Dirk? Most people in the Netherlands don't seem to understand that my name is spelled with a "u"... and now to hear this from an American makes me wonder even more.. What's wrong with my name! But... no hard feelings..

Dude, deep breath.... Look down at your keyboard. Where is the I? Where is the U? OMG! Right next to each other! They call them typos!

Ok, enough of this! Off to play with Vapor!

Devon

[Durk]

But what did you say? Dirk? Most people in the Netherlands don't seem to understand that my name is spelled with a "u"... and now to hear this from an American makes me wonder even more.. What's wrong with my name! But... no hard feelings..

Dude, deep breath.... Look down at your keyboard. Where is the I? Where is the U? OMG! Right next to each other! They call them typos!

Ok, enough of this! Off to play with Vapor!

Devon

Didn't know you were able to make typos!

Anyway, I could also have interpreted it as a Scotish kinda dagger..

Vapor? Looks good! Have fun!

[nuffink]

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200406 ... 39-22.html

It makes no difference whether they're intel biased or not. The test's are mp3/ogg encoding and normalisation. Hardly relevant to what we want from a processor.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[DevonB]

mate, those toms hardware benchmarks never seem to relate to raw plug in count. that's what i am talking about here. For example, tom's always said the 3.2 ghz P4 was faster overall than the athlonxp3200+.(this was when they were both the flagship cpu's).. I have had both, configured with top noth hardware. in audio, the athlon xp3200+ KICKED THE LIVING SHIT out of the p4 3.2 i had. in some plug in teste they were equal, eg waves reverbs, but the p4 never beat the athlon in one test. in most instruments, the p4 was pathetic in comparison.

Ya got something better than 'Kick the living shit out of it' for examples?

Devon