Approx price difference between Intel & AMD systems

Come on, man............ google that


"Franklin" wrote in message
...
Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
between
an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
(I don't think memory depends on processor type)

Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more
than an
equivalent AMD system"?










'

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc Franklin wrote:
Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
(I don't think memory depends on processor type)

Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
equivalent AMD system"?

Last time I did this, AMD was about 100 Euro cheaper than Intel for the
same power. That was Athlon XPs 2800+ end of last year.

The figures depend strongly on what CPU you want, what mainboard _and_
what kind of memory.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

"Franklin" wrote in message
...
Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
between
an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
(I don't think memory depends on processor type)

Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
equivalent AMD system"?




Considering JUST mainboard and processor: At the high end, there is no
difference. In the mid-range (say about 3 - 3.2G or 3000 - 3200+), there is
no significant difference.

HOWEVER, as recently as last month, Athlon 64 mainboards were (on average)
starting around thirty bucks more for name-brand boards with the same
features as similar name-brand boards for Intel P4 chips.

As all other components (RAM, power supply, video card, hard drives, optical
drives, etc.) is identical, you are looking at really NO cost difference to
build either way. And you are looking at really NO performance difference,
either. There are a few gaming benchmarks where the Athlon 64 chips are a
little faster than similarly priced P4 chips. But overall, the majority of
benchmarks slightly favor the P4 chips. But even that's misleading, as the
difference is trivial.

You will get the same "power" either way, for about the same TOTAL PRICE TO
BUILD. However, if you are a bargain hunter, there are some really nice P4
motherboards out right now that are high quality, name-brand and CHEAP. So
if you shop smartly, you might get slightly better bang for buck building P4
at the moment. -Dave

Franklin wrote:

Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
(I don't think memory depends on processor type)

Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
equivalent AMD system"?

Depends on what you look at. Socket 939 Athlon 64 and FX CPU's are
pretty expensive. Socket 754 chips are not so pricey. Athlon XP chips
are a serious bargain compared to Prescotts.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:36:22 -0400, "Dave C." wrote:


"Franklin" wrote in message
...
Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
between
an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
(I don't think memory depends on processor type)

Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
equivalent AMD system"?




Considering JUST mainboard and processor: At the high end, there is no
difference. In the mid-range (say about 3 - 3.2G or 3000 - 3200+), there is
no significant difference.

HOWEVER, as recently as last month, Athlon 64 mainboards were (on average)
starting around thirty bucks more for name-brand boards with the same
features as similar name-brand boards for Intel P4 chips.

As all other components (RAM, power supply, video card, hard drives, optical
drives, etc.) is identical, you are looking at really NO cost difference to
build either way. And you are looking at really NO performance difference,
either. There are a few gaming benchmarks where the Athlon 64 chips are a
little faster than similarly priced P4 chips. But overall, the majority of
benchmarks slightly favor the P4 chips. But even that's misleading, as the
difference is trivial.

You will get the same "power" either way, for about the same TOTAL PRICE TO
BUILD. However, if you are a bargain hunter, there are some really nice P4
motherboards out right now that are high quality, name-brand and CHEAP. So
if you shop smartly, you might get slightly better bang for buck building P4
at the moment. -Dave

XP2700 £65
AMD64 2800 £82
Intel 2.8 £97


XP3000 £90
AMD64 3000 £93
Intel 3.0 £104


XP3200 £105
AMD64 3200 £120
Intel 3.2 £130



AMD are always cheaper

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...on64-3000.html

AMD has my vote

Harry

"Dave C." wrote:

"Franklin" wrote in message
...
Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
between
an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
(I don't think memory depends on processor type)

Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
equivalent AMD system"?




Considering JUST mainboard and processor: At the high end, there is no
difference. In the mid-range (say about 3 - 3.2G or 3000 - 3200+), there is
no significant difference.

Not quite. When chips that benchmark similarly are considered, there might be
huge differences. For example, for Doom 3, an Athlon 64 3500+($330)
outperforms an Intel Pentium 4 3.4 ghz EE at $990 by a large margin.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7

For Business Winstone 2004, an Athlon 64 3200+($183) beats a
Pentium 4 3.4 ghz EE($990). an Athlon XP3000+($95) also beats
a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz($220).

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6




HOWEVER, as recently as last month, Athlon 64 mainboards were (on average)
starting around thirty bucks more for name-brand boards with the same
features as similar name-brand boards for Intel P4 chips.

Socket 939 motherboards will get less expensive as the demand increases.
The new 90 nm Athlon 64 chips need a socket 939 motherboard.



As all other components (RAM, power supply, video card, hard drives, optical
drives, etc.) is identical, you are looking at really NO cost difference to
build either way. And you are looking at really NO performance difference,
either.

Not quite.

There are a few gaming benchmarks where the Athlon 64 chips are a
little faster

A little faster?

than similarly priced P4 chips.

For some games it takes a Pentium 4 at triple the price to come close in
performance.

But overall, the majority of
benchmarks slightly favor the P4 chips.

LOL! The majority of pc usage is for business applications, not video
editing.

But even that's misleading, as the
difference is trivial.

Trivial? If you compare the performance of a $95 Athlon XP3000+ running
business applications and a Celeron 2.7 ghz which is close in price, the
performance diferrence will not be trivial. If you compare the performance
difference of an Athlon 64 3000+($145) to a $151 Pentium 4 2.6 C
running business software, you will see a very large difference.



You will get the same "power" either way, for about the same TOTAL PRICE TO
BUILD.

Not quite. Of course if you average in video editing benchmarks and Dragon
Naturally Speaking benchmarks into the mix, then it will help the P4 look
better, however for the huge number of people who never run those applications,
it doesn't make much sense.

However, if you are a bargain hunter, there are some really nice P4
motherboards out right now that are high quality, name-brand and CHEAP.

Motherboards for an Athlon XP are probably even cheaper. The vast majority
of computer usage is for running business applications.

So
if you shop smartly, you might get slightly better bang for buck building P4
at the moment.

LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the games
they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64. Spending
so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard is
silly.


-Dave

" LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the
games
they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64.
Spending
so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard
is
silly.

I've repeatedly proven you wrong in the past, but it looks like you need to
be spanked again. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will use your favorite
web site to prove you wrong. If you look at one or two specific benchmarks,
you can state with absolute certainty that an Athlon64 chip of equal cost
will be slightly faster than an P4 chip for that specific benchmark. But if
you look at ALL the benchmarks, and have half a brain, you will conclude
that AMD and Intel are evenly matched.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=1956&p=17
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=1956&p=18

Now go dream up some more lies to slander Intel with, as nobody's buying
your old ones. -Dave

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:45:08 -0400, "Dave C."
wrote:


" LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the
games
they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64.
Spending
so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard
is
silly.

I've repeatedly proven you wrong in the past, but it looks like you need to
be spanked again. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will use your favorite
web site to prove you wrong. If you look at one or two specific benchmarks,
you can state with absolute certainty that an Athlon64 chip of equal cost
will be slightly faster than an P4 chip for that specific benchmark. But if
you look at ALL the benchmarks, and have half a brain, you will conclude
that AMD and Intel are evenly matched.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=1956&p=17
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=1956&p=18

Now go dream up some more lies to slander Intel with, as nobody's buying
your old ones. -Dave




Nope, the P4 depends on the most current versions of
applications for it's performance points, while practically
nothing has been optimized for A64 yet. Indeed, an XP3000
handily beats a P4 3.2GHz at most software running today.

In other words, to get the performance from a P4, you're not
buying just a P4, you're buying hundreds of $$$ worth of
software too.

"Dave C." wrote:

" LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the
games
they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64.
Spending
so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard
is
silly.

I've repeatedly proven you wrong in the past, but it looks like you need to
be spanked again. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will use your favorite
web site to prove you wrong. If you look at one or two specific benchmarks,
you can state with absolute certainty that an Athlon64 chip of equal cost
will be slightly faster

More than slightly. It might take a Pentium 4 at double or triple the price
to equal it.

than an P4 chip for that specific benchmark. But if
you look at ALL the benchmarks,

Why should someone do that? Who runs all types of software? A business
user who runs only business software doesn't care how fast a processor
is at video editing.

and have half a brain, you will conclude
that AMD and Intel are evenly matched.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=1956&p=17
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=1956&p=18

Now go dream up some more lies to slander Intel with, as nobody's buying
your old ones. -Dave

Don't be an automoton and just "think" that intel is on par with amd
when it comes to a gaming machine. I will use the site you just
quoted that compares intels best (that cost 100's of dollars more)
with amds best and mid levels running Doom 3. If you have half a
brain (which you probably don't since you'll obviously spend 100's
more for a brand with inferior performance) you'll see that amd athlon
64 3400+ has better performance than intel's p4 3.4 extreme edition.
By the way the athlon 64 3400+ can be bought for around $275 on
pricewatch the intel p4 3.4 ee for $989.00 on pricewatch. Also you'll
be able to run 64 bit programs when they come out, instead having to
upgrade like you will with intel. I'm all about performance compared
to cost and right now intel is getting their ass handed to them by
amd.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7

"Dave C." wrote in message ...
" LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the
games
they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64.
Spending
so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard
is
silly.

I've repeatedly proven you wrong in the past, but it looks like you need to
be spanked again. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will use your favorite
web site to prove you wrong. If you look at one or two specific benchmarks,
you can state with absolute certainty that an Athlon64 chip of equal cost
will be slightly faster than an P4 chip for that specific benchmark. But if
you look at ALL the benchmarks, and have half a brain, you will conclude
that AMD and Intel are evenly matched.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=1956&p=17
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=1956&p=18

Now go dream up some more lies to slander Intel with, as nobody's buying
your old ones. -Dave