I was playing around with the thought of building the ultimate systems. One is AMD based, the other is Intel Based. Check out the specs below, which do you think would win the most benchmarks?


AMD:

Motherboard - Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
CPU - AMD Athlon64 FX-55
RAM - 4 GB DDR400 - 2 x Corsair "TWINX2048-3200C2PT"
Video Cards (SLI) - Asus EN6800 Ultra PCI-E
Sound Card - Audigy 4 Pro
Hard Drives - 4 x Seagate Cheetah 73 GB (292 GB) ST373453LC Ultra320 SCSI 15K RPM 3.6 ms 8 MB Cache


Intel:

Motherboard - Asus PSAD2-E Premium
CPU - 3.73 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition w/ 1066 MHz FSB, 2 MB L2 Cache
RAM - 4 GB DDR2-700 - 2 x Patriot "PDC22G4200+XBLK"
Video Card - ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum
Sound Card - Audigy 4 Pro
Hard Drives - 4 x Seagate Cheetah 73 GB (292 GB) ST373453LC Ultra320 SCSI 15K RPM 3.6 ms 8 MB Cache



Let the speculation begin.

What exactly is the Audigy 4?!? None of the MAJOR review sites posted articles like they did for the Audigy 2 and Audigy. And the specs seem exactly the same as the Audigy 2 ZS and possibly even regular Audigy 2.

This could go on all day... lol...

Are you trying to compare Intel Vs. AMD? You should have kept the systems more similar then. Like, Same video card, same ram, etc. So the benchmarks would be more accurate.

Then again, this is just a "dream".

IMO, I would rather have the AMD system. Not because I'm a fanboy either...

EDIT: Actually, I would have to learn more about Intel's new platform to make a decision.

no doubt..the AMD pwns all..

Well, I thought about keeping the vid cards and RAM the same and whatnot. But, we all know that the P4 doesn't have a chance against the FX-55. And seeing that the P4 can handle much higher clocked speeds with both the chip itself, mobo, and RAM and whatnot, I figured I would give Intel all of the extra things that the AMD chip couldn't handle. However, on the other side of things, the AMD setup exclusively boasts SLI thanks to the board's from Asus. I'm unaware of an Intel chipset that supports SLI. . And why did I not give the P4 system a 6800 Ultra? Because from what I understand, the X850 takes victory over the 6800. If ATI were doing the SLI thing too, I would have put 2 X850's in the AMD system instead.

The idea was more "which ultra-system would win." LIke, when each CPU is equipped with all of its best stuff, which setup can outperform the other. Perhaps, which CPU has the most potential. The individual power of the CPUs alone doesnt really matter, if they each have different potential for supporting components. The idea of this post is to gather opinions about which system would outperform the other, given all of the bells and whistles.

And, the Audigy 4 is just the Audigy 2's successor. I think there is a higher SNR and some other little things and whatnot. And to be honest, I really only mentioned the sound cards in the systems for good measure. I mean, I don't think that they would have that much of an impact on the overall performance.

Quote: Originally Posted by superduperman Well, I thought about keeping the vid cards and RAM the same and whatnot. But, we all know that the P4 doesn't have a chance against the FX-55. And seeing that the P4 can handle much higher clocked speeds with both the chip itself, mobo, and RAM and whatnot, I figured I would give Intel all of the extra things that the AMD chip couldn't handle. However, on the other side of things, the AMD setup exclusively boasts SLI thanks to the board's from Asus. I'm unaware of an Intel chipset that supports SLI. . And why did I not give the P4 system a 6800 Ultra? Because from what I understand, the X850 takes victory over the 6800. If ATI were doing the SLI thing too, I would have put 2 X850's in the AMD system instead. The idea was more "which ultra-system would win." LIke, when each CPU is equipped with all of its best stuff, which setup can outperform the other. The individual power of the CPUs alone doesnt really matter, if they each have different potential for supporting components. The idea of this post is to gather opinions about which system would outperform the other, given all of the bells and whistles. And, the Audigy 4 is just the Audigy 2's successor. I think there is a higher SNR and some other little things and whatnot. And to be honest, I really only mentioned the sound cards in the systems for good measure. I mean, I don't think that they would have that much of an impact on the overall performance.

Hmmm, I catch your drift now . I would love both. Intel's new platform looks pretty damn sweet. As for the SLI thing, Look at this waterblock . Now that is just sweet looking.


*sighs* So much new technology, so little money.

For the AMD rig I'd suggest a X800XT PE as well, but in the new DFI NF4 Ultra D for the single vid card & G Skill PC4800 RAM 2 X 512 or if you could get it some Mushkin Black Lvl 2 PC3500 and then use the NF4 4v vdimm to clock it to the max.

I'd suggest the G Skill PC4800 for sure for the Intel.

Rest looked sweet, nice sound card & very fast hard drives.

Beats me which would win, both would be crazy fast. I'd guess the A 64 set up should be the faster, but I've not yet read up much on that latest top Intel chip the 3.73....so don't know.

Anyone with say 10K to spare while we sort this out? .

Do we have another lurker turned poster??????

Looks as if so eh? Welcome to Pimprig.....er um, nevermind.

Currently the fastest sytem in 3DMARK 05 is Shamino's AMD64 at 3.1GHZ with a pair of NVIDIA 6800's in SLI mode with a score of over 12k

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=466765

He is also top in 3DMARK 03 just shy of 29K

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3574849

OPPAINTER is the winner on 3DMARK 01 with 43k using AMD64 at over 3.4ghz and with a single ATI X-850

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8389863

In PCMARK 04 INTEL finally wins with 3.8GHZ and a single ATI X-850

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2779377


Now you guys can argue over that!

Quote: Originally Posted by $SOLID$ Necro Currently the fastest sytem in 3DMARK 05 is Shamino's AMD64 at 3.1GHZ with a pair of NVIDIA 6800's in SLI mode with a score of over 12k http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=466765 He is also top in 3DMARK 03 just shy of 29K http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3574849 OPPAINTER is the winner on 3DMARK 01 with 43k using AMD64 at over 3.4ghz and with a single ATI X-850 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8389863 In PCMARK 04 INTEL finally wins with 3.8GHZ and a single ATI X-850 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2779377 Now you guys can argue over that!

Nice! Those are some hella scores!

AMD.... gaming, some editing, and I like to see small companies competing.

Intel...any sort of editing, rendering...Intel takes the stronghold on.

Overall AMD is my personal choice...cheap, efficient, and forward thinking.

Im a gammer, I use AMD. Cheap as hell too.

Quote: Originally Posted by TYCOON Im a gammer, I use AMD. Cheap as hell too.

Mr Gammer could use some grammer...........

R8X0 is doing better in 01SE & 05, 6800 is doing better in 03 & Doom 3.

Much has been made of HL2 and ATI being the favorite, I can tell you my 6800 Ultra does the damn game 16x12, everything maxxed, 8x4x filtering, ATI might be something like 16x6x filtering but I doubt it's that much, 4x2x to 8x4x didn't let me see much more...

For the AMD rig, 4gb of XMS-3200 is a no-no.

1gb of RAM allows for the best OC'ing (2x512mb) and the PC-4800 LE g.skill is doing DDR640 2.5-3-3-7, DDR700 3-5-5-8... alternate being XMS 4400C2 (DDR600 2.5-3-3-7) or OCZ VX (with DDR Booster) DDR520 2-2-2-6.
Max I'd do is 2gb of RAM, 4x512mb all TCCD w Brainpower PCB, probably XMS4400C2 but the g.skill is also legit, seeing as the xtra ram hurts the OC'ing they should both do about the same.

Same deal for Intel, 1gb DIMM"s just don't OC well at all save a few good ones.

As for the AMD vs. Intel as far as ub3r benchmarks go it comes down to cooling.
On air look for 2.75ghz AMD, 3.9ghz Intel, AMD wins
On water look for 2.9ghz AMD and 4.2ghz Intel, AMD wins
On low end phase look for 3.2ghz AMD, 4.5ghz Intel, AMD wins
On Cascade cooling look for 3.5ghz AMD, 5.1ghz Intel, Intel wins

Next, why go for SCSI? with nForce 4 and i925XE SATA goes up to 1/5bg/s to 3gb/s or in short, no real issues passing SCSI. Also with PCI-E boards PCI slots are scarce, I'd rather have a sound card (maybe not with Intel's kickarse onboard sound, which DFI is slapping on their nForce 4's I think) but figure 1 PCI for Sound, 1 PCI for Video capture and depending on the board you might be out of PCI slots! whereas most modern boards have 8 FRICKIN SATA PORTS!!! use the damn things!

For AMD video card get a pair of 6800 ultra Extreme's, sure they aren't out yet anywhere but neither are X850XT PE's cept for a few that people have managed to sell on forums and crap.

Audigy 4 is legit, it's king, end of story...

Intel does not have anything that can touch AMDÂ’s 64. especially an FX-55 running in a dual channel mode. Intel is already phasing out the EEÂ’s. I think you meant P5AD2-E Premium as the mobo for the Intel. The boardÂ’s nice & it does support DDR2, which will be the s#!t in about a year, when they drop the CL down to comparable speeds of DDR.

As far as the benchmarks, I believe the AMD will be the victor.

Quote: Originally Posted by shusa Intel does not have anything that can touch AMDÂ’s 64. especially an FX-55 running in a dual channel mode.

What about the Dothan? It holds it own aganst the FX-55 and overclocks by a gigahert from windows using clockgen with no vcore adjustment.

Quote: Originally Posted by elitelilnoyd What about the Dothan? It holds it own aganst the FX-55 and overclocks by a gigahert from windows using clockgen with no vcore adjustment.

I don't believe I've seen a single benchmark where a Centrino, Dothan Core or otherwise even holds a candle to an FX-55. Can you provide linkies?

Quote: Originally Posted by elitelilnoyd What about the Dothan?

I think IÂ’m missing something here.
IsnÂ’t the Dothan a mobile processor, the first one using Intel's 90nm process? I believe the Prescott is its desktop counter part.

HereÂ’s a link I found with benchmarks between the Prescott and AMD 64. (not the FX and not OC)



http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/...45079-4,00.htm

Quote: Originally Posted by shusa I think IÂ’m missing something here. IsnÂ’t the Dothan a mobile processor, the first one using Intel's 90nm process? I believe the Prescott is its desktop counter part. HereÂ’s a link I found with benchmarks between the Prescott and AMD 64. (not the FX and not OC) http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/...45079-4,00.htm

The dothan is NOT a prescott. Its a totally different chip not related its based actually on a P3 architechture.

Lemme find the link to the thread to xtremesystems where macci from Akiba PC talk about the dothan.

EDIT: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=47052 That link has probably all you could possibly know about the dothan and how it overclocks and performs.