True performance comparison between AMD and Intel processors

[siriusb]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html

It's finally here - a true performance comparison between AMD and Intel processors. This will allow ambitious users as well as OEM partners and especially dealers to compare their systems with our reference values. What's special about this is a feature that it lets you directly compare two different CPUs of your choice. Simply select the desired models and a benchmark, and the appropriate chart appears. The two CPUs are displayed in the diagrams as specially marked red bars. Shown at the very bottom is also some important additional information: the absolute and relative difference between the two models. If you click on any of the bars on the chart, a pop-up window appears with data about that particular test configuration we used.

[abhijit_reddevil]

Wow...cool, now I can tell my non-techie friends and then no one will challenge me.
To be precise...the intel P4 fans, thanks sirius!!!

edit:techno -please use the Edit button next time

[AlienTech]

Still not good enough. basically what is says is if you have something which uses a lot of repetitive math the Intel is faster, if it access memory a lot then AMD is faster.. Hence games work faster on AMD and something like ray tracing works faster on Intel. Since games read and write a lot of new data for each frame while for ray tracing you read and write the same data modified each frame.

hence on something like PCmark 2004 it shows a 3.8GHZ P4 with 5922 and Athelon64 FX 55 @ 2.6GHZ with a score of 4863.

So before buying you have to decide what you want to use the computer for.

there is no one i guess who is going to buy an Intel PC for Workstation work & AMD PC for gaming, everyone will use a single PC for both the works

This comparision is missing a lot of things like Pentium D, Athlon64 X2, Athlon64 venice core etc

if compared overall, there is really low difference between Intel & AMD in workstation tasks now, when Venice & Manchester cores are used, which run at a very low temprature compared to Intel offering of the same rate

Like in Mainconcept MPEG Encoding, the difference between 3200+ venice & 3.2 GHz prescott is only 7 seconds, Intel wins here

while in 3D rendering, Prescott 3.2 Ghz due to HT gives a difference of about 1 mins, intl wins again

but in Far cry, the difference is 20 FPS, AMD Wins

right now, it's better to go for AMD insted of Intel, not due to performance, but due to reliability & temprature, only if U R getting the venice core, as it supports all the the things Intel Architecture support (SSE3,SSE2)

or better yet, a Athlon 64 3800+X2, is good but it's giving problem in application, including games, as i heard on anandtech

Right now the best & most efficient CPU I find is the Athlon 64 3200+ Venice core, it can be distinguished by the part numbar written on the CPU, which can be seen from the CPU Pack itself without even opening it

AP = C0 Clawhammer, s754
AR = CG Clawhammer, s754
AS = CG Clawhammer, s939
AX = CG Newcastle, s754
AW = CG Newcastle, s939
BI = D0 Winchester, s939
BP = E3 Venice, s939
BN = E4 San Diego, s939
BU = E5 Newark, s754
LD = E0 Lancaster, s754
BV = E6, Manchester, s939
CD = E6, Toledo, s939

the model numbar will be written like

A64 3200+xxxx BVxxxx for venice core,