OSDev.org

Hey,
I was just wondering if it would be better to buy a computer with a Intel P4 3.4Ghz with 1 gig of ram or a AMD Athlon 64 3800+ with 1 gig of ram??

My main uses of this computer would be osdev, video editing, 3D moddelling and animation and gaming.

Thanks for any advice,

-Stephen

The ADM one's definitely more powerful than the Intel one, and not only because it's ADM, but because it's got 3,8GHz, while the Intel one's 3,4GHz. Easy choice, if you've got the money for it Well, that and if you really need 3GHz, but with 3D modeling and video'n animation stuff, high CPU and even moreso high Ram're important, so guess you're one of the few that can actually use that high amounts of GHz.

The Athlon 64 is one generation up (64bit), the PIV has Hyperthreading... both would be interesting to tinker with in OS dev'ing.

What OS would you run on the machine, what Software? If commercial software, do you already own licenses? Are they 64bit versions? Does the difference matter? Would updating the licenses matter?

I am currently running XP, but I would probably get XP 64bit if I got the AMD one. And I would probably put a linux partition on as well, running Ubuntu or Fedora Core 4. I am willing to spend about AU$2200 (US$1,662 or 1,345 Euros), which will get me a Athlon 64 3800+, a Asus motherboard (with nForce 4 chipset), very good nVidia Graphics card, sound card, speakers, case (basically everything execpt a moniter). The P4 I was originally going to get was about AU$2000 (US$1511 or 1,223 euros). But I will probably get the AMD one, as the performance would outweigh the cost!

-Stephen

P.S. Thanks for the quick reply

Kon-Tiki wrote: The ADM one's definitely more powerful than the Intel one, and not only because it's ADM, but because it's got 3,8GHz, while the Intel one's 3,4GHz. Easy choice, if you've got the money for it Well, that and if you really need 3GHz, but with 3D modeling and video'n animation stuff, high CPU and even moreso high Ram're important, so guess you're one of the few that can actually use that high amounts of GHz.

Actually, that AMD is 2,4 GHz, and it's only meant to run at 3,8 Ghz, compared to Intel, where CPUs are marked what they really run at. That's (almost) the same as using PMPO values with speakers, though I've noticed that AMD is really a lot faster compared to Intel at same clock rates.

Besides, while anyone could do that on a machine with half the frequency, extra power is always needed. If I weren't on a tight budget, I would get a better CPU, seeing as I would have the use for it.

As an Intel fan, I would still have to say AMD'd be my choice out of these two, as Solar already said, it is a generation up from the Intel one.

Eero R?nik wrote:

Kon-Tiki wrote: The ADM one's definitely more powerful than the Intel one, and not only because it's ADM, but because it's got 3,8GHz, while the Intel one's 3,4GHz. Easy choice, if you've got the money for it Well, that and if you really need 3GHz, but with 3D modeling and video'n animation stuff, high CPU and even moreso high Ram're important, so guess you're one of the few that can actually use that high amounts of GHz.

Actually, that AMD is 2,4 GHz, and it's only meant to run at 3,8 Ghz, compared to Intel, where CPUs are marked what they really run at. That's (almost) the same as using PMPO values with speakers, though I've noticed that AMD is really a lot faster compared to Intel at same clock rates.

The 3800 is compared to the performance of a 1000mhz Thunderbird athlon, which is kind of more fair.

Intel is selling their Pentium-M series as being better than a Pentium-4 (7xx series versus 5xx) whereas the Pentium-M doesn't get up to 2GHZ, but the P4 starts around that. Intels are slower than intels. How pointless.

As an Intel fan, I would still have to say AMD'd be my choice out of these two, as Solar already said, it is a generation up from the Intel one.

Why are you an intel fan and do you still tout GHZes as being determinative for speed? I can make a led blink at 5GHZ, does that make it better than a P4 at 3GHZ ?

Did you also know that there are P4's available with 64-bit extensions? That are very similar to AMD's extensions?

Candy wrote: Intel is selling their Pentium-M series as being better than a Pentium-4 (7xx series versus 5xx) whereas the Pentium-M doesn't get up to 2GHZ, but the P4 starts around that. Intels are slower than intels. How pointless.

The Pentium-M is supposed to do the same amount of work in a certain period of time with a lower clock frequency. So it's actually more powerful, even if it's clocked more slowly.

Candy wrote: Did you also know that there are P4's available with 64-bit extensions? That are very similar to AMD's extensions?

Actually they are built to be completely compatible, AFAIK. Intel adopted the amd64 architecture for their future processors - the funny thing is that they refuse to call them 'amd64' (So how could that be?? ).

cheers Joe

My GHz rant was actually meant to tell Kon-Tiki that frequencies the manufacturers say don't mean anything, and rereading my message, I didn't notice anything implying that they would matter at all.

The 3800 is compared to the performance of a 1000mhz Thunderbird athlon, which is kind of more fair.

Thanks for telling me that, it was something I didn't know, and what I would have checked, if I had meant to write something about it. Though, once again, you understood my message wrong. I was merely stating that Intel tells us the right clock rate right away, while AMD does not. Pentium M is only being marketed as better than PIV, which is a relative term, and can't be compared to numbers saying it is, or isn't.

Did you also know that there are P4's available with 64-bit extensions? That are very similar to AMD's extensions?

Reread my post. Do you notice the words "out of these two"? Enough said.

Why are you an intel fan

Because Intels have worked for me better, and have been more stable than AMDs. If you have different experiences with them, please consider that not everyone might have had the same experiences you did.

I can make a led blink at 5GHZ, does that make it better than a P4 at 3GHZ ?

No, it wouldn't be useful for me, I couldn't see the light. Actually, I'm not even sure it would be safe for me to watch. Leave frequencies like that for wireless communications.
Edit: Rereading your post, I noticed that this is not the frequency you meant. My opinion still does not change.

Sorry for my negative post, but I'm just answering yours. I don't know if you have something against me, but it's the second time you've been sure I'm wrong, without considering I might have meant something else, the first time being a while ago on programming board. I'm annoyed by it.

JoeKayzA wrote:

Candy wrote: Intel is selling their Pentium-M series as being better than a Pentium-4 (7xx series versus 5xx) whereas the Pentium-M doesn't get up to 2GHZ, but the P4 starts around that. Intels are slower than intels. How pointless.

The Pentium-M is supposed to do the same amount of work in a certain period of time with a lower clock frequency. So it's actually more powerful, even if it's clocked more slowly.

Candy wrote: Did you also know that there are P4's available with 64-bit extensions? That are very similar to AMD's extensions?

Actually they are built to be completely compatible, AFAIK. Intel adopted the amd64 architecture for their future processors - the funny thing is that they refuse to call them 'amd64' (So how could that be?? ).

Well... they're not completely compatible. There used to be a published list of 5 incompatibilities, one of which was AMD's refusal to support SYSENTER in 64-bit mode and Intel's refusal to support SYSCALL in 32-bit mode. This meant that you had to use SYSCALL for 64-bit mode (both supported that) and SYSENTER in 32-bit mode (both did that), which doesn't make sense. Must admit, having only 5 differences (and I've heard there are a few less now than back then) on such a big extension is awfully similar.
Oh wait, this isn't the OS dev board...

Eero R?nik wrote: My GHz rant was actually meant to tell Kon-Tiki that frequencies the manufacturers say don't mean anything, and rereading my message, I didn't notice anything implying that they would matter at all.

Thanks for telling me that, it was something I didn't know, and what I would have checked, if I had meant to write something about it. Though, once again, you understood my message wrong. I was merely stating that Intel tells us the right clock rate right away, while AMD does not. Pentium M is only being marketed as better than PIV, which is a relative term, and can't be compared to numbers saying it is, or isn't.

I can make a led blink at 5GHZ, does that make it better than a P4 at 3GHZ ?

No, it wouldn't be useful for me, I couldn't see the light. Actually, I'm not even sure it would be safe for me to watch. Leave frequencies like that for wireless communications.

Here I must disagree. There are benchmarks for numerous kinds of applications, and on identical clockspeed the PM won each time. There is something to be said for that. The only advantage the P4 has is that it's better at getting up to a high clock speed. Your post indicated to me that you still seemed to think that the clock speed was an indication of processing speed. Hence the example of the LED, which would gain a higher clock speed but can't do much (if any) processing.

Did you also know that there are P4's available with 64-bit extensions? That are very similar to AMD's extensions?

Reread my post. Do you notice the words "out of these two"? Enough said.

:-[... ok, I missed that.

Why are you an intel fan

Because Intels have worked for me better, and have been more stable than AMDs. If you have different experiences with them, please consider that not everyone might have had the same experiences you did.

Sorry for my negative post, but I'm just answering yours. I don't know if you have something against me, but it's the second time you've been sure I'm wrong, without considering I might have meant something else, the first time being a while ago on programming board. I'm annoyed by it.

I'm not sure you're wrong, I just thought "he might not know this or have evidence otherwise, if he didn't know it he would probably like to know, if he did and has evidence, I'd sure like to know". Hoping to spark a harmless discussion about it, I tried to reply. I'll keep the rest of my possible replies to myself then, if that is less likely to annoy you. I didn't intend to.

Stephen wrote: I was just wondering if it would be better to buy a computer with a Intel P4 3.4Ghz with 1 gig of ram or a AMD Athlon 64 3800+ with 1 gig of ram??

My main uses of this computer would be osdev, video editing, 3D moddelling and animation and gaming.

well I reckon you should go for the p4. probably a pentium D. The reason is that pentiums seem to be more popular amongst users doing the same kinda stuff as you(video editing etc.) video editing and 3d modelling will benefit greatly from a dual core processor. if you are more of a gamer, I would recommend an AMD X2 (dual core). once again, dual core could become the future of gaming(take a look at UT2007), and AMD always wins when it comes to gaming benchmarks.

ps. candy, after reading all of the posts above and getting extremely frustrated with people saying stuff they dont know anything about, it was good to read that you actually know what you're talking about.

Candy wrote:I'm not sure you're wrong, I just thought "he might not know this or have evidence otherwise, if he didn't know it he would probably like to know, if he did and has evidence, I'd sure like to know". Hoping to spark a harmless discussion about it, I tried to reply. I'll keep the rest of my possible replies to myself then, if that is less likely to annoy you. I didn't intend to.

No, I'd love to have some comments about my posts, but yours just seemed negatively toned. Sorry. Guess this is what happens when two foreigners have to use a third language to communicate.

Candy wrote: Well... they're not completely compatible. There used to be a published list of 5 incompatibilities, one of which was AMD's refusal to support SYSENTER in 64-bit mode and Intel's refusal to support SYSCALL in 32-bit mode.

OK, I admit that I didn't look at the docs for Intel's EM64T so much, it was a false assumption that they would build a completely compatible pendant to amd's architecture. :-X

Candy wrote: Here I must disagree. There are benchmarks for numerous kinds of applications, and on identical clockspeed the PM won each time. There is something to be said for that.

That's quite exactly what I wanted to state above, I'm afraid it didn't come across correctly however. About the MHz manics: There are people that believe that 1 MHz actually means 1 Million instructions per second . That's probably the point where the 'more MHz is more power' impression comes from - not considering that instructions can take a different amount of cycles on different machines, depending on the hardware implementation.

cheers Joe

The AMD's and the Pentium M (I think the Dothan does run at 2GHz stock) are built for as many instructions at a time as they can (Instructions Per Clock).

The Netburst architechture was mainly a marketing led design to play on the Joe Public's "A 2GHz processor must be faster than a 1GHz processor". A buyproduct of this is that things like video encoding runs well on it (depending on the encoder you use) but other things, like games and compilers for example suck. In order to make them run quicker you need to crank the clock speed up. That was all well and good untill Intel hit a wall and can't produce a chip at 4GHz (the oc'ers have done it and beyond, but not for production chips).

There are some differences between AMD64 and EM64T such as the Intel chip lacks an IOMMU which means that DMA operations cannot be done over 4GB AFAIK.

A lot of this 'MHz Myth' came from the MHz wars between the PIII and the athlon. Plus for years the MHz number was one of the main visible refereces for the speed of a PC. The trouble comes from when not everyone is using the same CPU architechture. Then all chips were based on Intel's 486, a 33MHz chip was faster than a 25MHz one. But now then we have some chips optimised for clock speed and others for Intructions per clock so it doesn't work any more.

Appart from an old 486 laptop and an old Dual P133 (and my Amiga of course) all my PCs use AMD CPUs and I don't use Intel. I've had computers for about 13 years and I've never ever bought a new Intel CPU.

srg

OK, I had a look at the superscalar architecture (at wikipedia), and I didn't believe that they already implemented this in current processors (but they did). Multiple instructions at one clock cycle is possible, yes, but only for a set of compatible ones, when they use seperate units and can be queued in parallel. Well, it's never too late to learn

cheers Joe

Another question regadring this topic: Do you think that it would be better to go for the Athlon 3800+ X2 (dual core), or just go with the cheaper Athlon 3800+? I am willing to put in the extra cash.

This is the kind of computer I would be looking at buying:

AMD Athlon 3800+ Dual Core CPU
Asus A8N_SLI nForce 4 Socket 939 Motherboard
2GB GeIL PC3200 400MHz Dual Channel Ram (2 x 1024MB)
Maxtor 120GB Hard Drive
Maxtor 250GB Hard Drive
Creative Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS Sound Card
Logitech Z-2300 THX 2.1 Speakers
Pioneer A09XLA 16x Dual Layer DVD Re-Writer
LG 16x DVD-Rom Drive
Asus Extreme 6600GT+
Sidewinder Silver Case with Window
Keyboard
Mouse

This costs about AU$2346. It would only cost about AU$2200 with a single core processor. Is it worth it?

-Stephen