Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who's faster, Intel or AMD?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who's faster, Intel or AMD?

    Here's an interesting read of a review at HEXUS.net, as posted on the SETI@home home page.

    "News Septmber 23, 2003 Who's faster, Intel or AMD? Benchmarks of SETI@home on various current CPU chips are here."
    :-(

  • #2
    well done amd :thumb:

    Comment


    • #3
      quote:
      "Loading the work unit into cache is a tremendous help to overall performance"

      Then I wonder how the Intel EE would run seti.. :eek:

      Comment


      • #4
        From Tom's Hardware: The Intel v. AMD Performance War: You Lose. A column some may find interesting.

        "Is the enthusiast community being taken for a ride in this latest round of the CPU wars? Does AMD want enthusiasts to give it an interest free loan while they wait for 64-bit computing to go mainstream? Has Intel lost the PR battle before it has begun? Only a few hours remain before the launch of the Athlon 64 and the P4 EE, and we're wondering whether we got here for the right reasons. "
        :-(

        Comment


        • #5
          When I saw the post I thought this would be a flaming war from the word go, but those are some nice links you provided:thumb:

          Comment


          • #6
            Mmm. I assumed Hexus was using Intel's EE Pentium. But they didn't. That explains the gap between the FX en P4

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The__tweaker
              Then I wonder how the Intel EE would run seti..
              Can't wait to find out either. The L2/3 cashe definitely won't be a hindrance. The difference will come in their math processing capabilities.

              Originally posted by Nosferatu
              [B]Mmm. I assumed Hexus was using Intel's EE Pentium. But they didn't. That explains the gap between the FX en P4
              I'm sure they didn't have a sample in their hot little hands, otherwise they would have.
              :-(

              Comment


              • #8
                Ya's may like to check this review out then which this chart comes from.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks Wiggo. I've been wading through that review, but had not gotten to that chart yet. Looks like there is something there for both factions. Realistically, however, I think Intel has clinched the title in this arena.
                  :-(

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well while I was in Sydney I went to the PC Markets there and grabbed a 2.4C and ASUS P4P800Deluxe just to see if I could do better than the 2hr av. the XP2600+ @ 2.26GHz turns in but also it should be the 1st PC put together in the new PC workshop (I hope it does a hell of a lot better than the 2.4B did and I don't get it online b4 the workshop).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Wiggo
                      ...grabbed a 2.4C and ASUS P4P800Deluxe just to see if I could do better than the 2hr av. the XP2600+ @ 2.26GHz turns in...
                      It should do a little better, especially w/ a mild OC. By the chart, the 2.4C comes in at about 10 minutes faster, although with your setup, you've shaved off 36 minutes from the standard XP 2600+ time. That sounds like a lot with only a .13 GHz increase. If only the 2.4C would respond as well. Hope you can get it together soon. :)
                      :-(

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well the 2.4B did let me down some what badly a while back but I'm willin' to give 2.4C ago and see what happens. :D

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X