AMD versus Intel

spitfier

On performance, who makes the best chips?

Gilgamesh

please, close this thread.
it's just not worth it

Rattlehead_ie

god this could be a long thread.
In my opinion the AMD 64bit Socket 939 processors are prob the best around for value and performance, u'd have to pay through the nose for a 64bit Intel chip.

AlienGav

spitfier wrote:

On performance, who makes the best chips?

Gilgamesh wrote:

please, close this thread.
it's just not worth it

Hehe! Welcome to Boards.ie Spitfier

po0k

AMD. Without a doubt.

Intel really dropped the ball on all fronts but the mobile sector in the last generation or so.
Performance per watt, per clock or per unit cost is pretty bad compared to AMDs.
And there's that annoying Intel ding-ding-DING on Dell ads.

spitfier

Why thankyou And I know it's a touchy subject with some people but from what I've heard you get more for your buck with AMD. I'm building my dream system someday soon when I receive my college grant. I'm going to put 2/3K into the machine

magick

On performance, who makes the best chips?

omg sooo old

well if ur playing sonic the hedgehog when hes running down a hill , the amd fx57 is teh the best

however playing super mario wolrd when he has yoshi then the intel extreme edition is ur friend

xbox sux , playstation is teh the best and so on and so fourth

the real quesiton is strawberries vs oranges which one is better and faster?!

Joeface

this might help some bit or maybe make it worse

http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html?modelx=33&model1=62&model2=115&chart=26

SouperComputer

they are both great, with the exception of celeron

Inquitus

I'd pick the Pentium M as the best out there on a single core, and no doubt the AMD dualcores

masteroftherealm

Inquitus wrote:

I'd pick the Pentium M as the best out there on a single core, and no doubt the AMD dualcores

Yup agree totally. Dothan is the best single core chip out there ATM and Opterons in particular are the best dual core chips!
All that being said my next system is going to be S754(",) Cause I can build a 754system for half the price and get 90%of the performance anyway!

sionnach

Depends on what it'll be used for but as a general rule AMD ftw

Plankmonkey

AMD....no no wait Intel.......no no wait AMD.....no no its Intel......no AMD....no no Intel...AMD....no no wait Intel.......no wait AMD.....no no its Intel......no AMD....no no Intel...AMD....no no wait Intel.......no no wait AMD.....no no its Intel......no AMD....no no Intel...AMD....no no wait Intel.......no no wait AMD.....no no its Intel......no AMD....no no Intel...AMD....no no wait Intel.......no no wait AMD.....no no its Intel......no AMD....no no Intel...AMD....no no wait Intel.......no no wait AMD.....no no its Intel......no AMD....no no Intel...AMD....no no wait Intel.......no no wait AMD.....no no its Intel......no AMD....no no Intel...AMD....no no wait Intel.......no no wait AMD.....no no its Intel......no AMD....no no Intel...

WizZard

Cyrix tbh

masteroftherealm

Ooo transmeta with x86translation ;p

ConnD3mned

magick wrote:

the real quesiton is strawberries vs oranges which one is better and faster?!

Strawberries are so much faster than oranges. Even the thought of comparing them on speed is ridiculous.

po0k

WizZard wrote:

Cyrix tbh

VIA C7 + Padlock whips the píss out of hi-end P4s on AES cipher tasks, so - dependent on application - they are better :v:

Gilgamesh

SyxPak wrote:

VIA C7 + Padlock whips the píss out of hi-end P4s on AES cipher tasks, so - dependent on application - they are better :v:

especially if you go all nostalgic and want to play Need for Speed 2, which doesn't work on my Pentium D 840 Rig, schnief schnief

gline

ah this thread has been done many a time over. It all depends what u wana do.

answer is - google it

spitfier

sionnach wrote:

Depends on what it'll be used for but as a general rule AMD ftw

I want to use it for high-end gaming, alot of DVD shrinking, ripping and burning and converting DivX to DVD-R. I also would like to be able to download multiple torrents without making my system creep.

DemonOfTheFall

If you want to do a lot of DivXing / MPEGing / Ripping and playing games at the same time there is no option other than the X2, to be honest. If you get the X2 3800+ or 4200+ I'd say youd be very happy with gaming and multitasking performance.

As for the torrent thing, if you're using Azureus and it slows your system down like mad, it's because azureus is absolute crap bloatware. Use uTorrent, every useful feature that azureus has and about 1/10 as much resource usage.

Plankmonkey

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

As for the torrent thing, if you're using Azureus and it slows your system down like mad, it's because azureus is absolute crap bloatware. Use uTorrent, every useful feature that azureus has and about 1/10 as much resource usage.

If azureus slows your system down it means you don't have it configured properly. Having said that Azureus went to pants about 3 releases ago, haven't tried uTorrent I'll give that a gander...

spitfier

I'll give uTorrent a try when I build my new rig. Komplett have a nice AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.2GHz Socket 939, 2MB, BOXED w/fan going at €530 here.

DemonOfTheFall

I have got it set up right Plankmonkey, it's just notorious for it's ridiculously high RAM and Processor usage. It's grand on my PC, but if it wasnt grand on a 2.3ghz processor with a gig of RAM I'd be worried. Blame it on Java tbh.

po0k

Saying Java's great because it runs on multiple latforms is like saying anal sex is great because it works on both sexes.

DemonOfTheFall

LOL, that is one excellent analogy for Java. I hate the POS with a passion. Sun should be strung up for ever conceiving it.

Gilgamesh

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

If you want to do a lot of DivXing / MPEGing / Ripping and playing games at the same time there is no option other than the X2, to be honest. If you get the X2 3800+ or 4200+ I'd say youd be very happy with gaming and multitasking performance.

okay, now I probably am going to pick a fight.
In gaming the AMDs are defo the superior.
but if you have an AMD X2 processor, could you tell me how long it takes you to shrink a DVD, using DVDShrink 4.2 and including a deep Analysis.

it takes my Rig 27 minutes run run the whole thing, and the DVD is not cached on the HDD, but is been ripped from the DVD.

Capt'n Midnight

Just wait a wee while and the SUN x86 compatible chips will be along.

masteroftherealm

gline wrote:

ah this thread has been done many a time over. It all depends what u wana do.

answer is - google it

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=AMD&word2=Intel

Never trust google :v: :v:

conzy

AMD
athlon 64 3000+ = Best processer ever:D

Best value

Best performance

Best support

Best Forum forums.amd.com

---

look at this benchie of a overclocked athlon 64 3000, with overclocked OCZ platinium Rev 2, as you can see it beats a high end P4 system, a rake of P4s and a fx 51

spitfier

Gilgamesh wrote:

it takes my Rig 27 minutes run run the whole thing, and the DVD is not cached on the HDD, but is been ripped from the DVD.

I think it makes a difference how big the DVD that your shrinking is?

masteroftherealm

Hes just stressing the fact that p4's are by far phenomonly(sp) the best at video ripping and encoding in general due to the length of their pipeline

Gilgamesh

masteroftherealm wrote:

Hes just stressing the fact that p4's are by far phenomonly(sp) the best at video ripping and encoding in general due to the length of their pipeline

ahhh.... longer Pipeline means bigger C*ck size, LOL

any DVD movie will do, DVD-9 is DVD-9
but to make an arguement short, try it with, let's say.... Starwars 3?


I just couldn't resist to bring this up after Demonofthefall said the AMD s were the kings here.
it just isn't true, not even ripping to DIVX.

tbh, I took the Intel for two reasons.
first of all, I am loyal to Intel due to the fact, that I have NEVER had any problems whatsoever with their processors and I have had a good few in the past.

secondly, most of the performance for games still comes from the Graphicscard (with a few exceptions lile UT of course) so if I want to get a high on Benchmark scores, I would and will opt for a Highend card, and I will be getting the X1800XT shortly.

Also, as mentioned, you can practically see no difference in how smooth a game is running after 60fps so what's the point of discussing that point.
I have a 19" TFT screen with a native resolution of 1280x1024, so why on earth would I really need a card that can run 24 million frames a second at 1600x1200 when I don't use that res?

this topic should stay with your own personal preference as it has been chewed through so many a time in here.

DemonOfTheFall

Sorry Gilgamesh, didn't mean to say that the X2 would own at video compression, just that it would own at video compression *while* gaming. Didn't make the too clear.

Yeah, a similarly priced P4 should do a lot better than the X2 at video encoding. However, if the application is multithreaded I think it swings back around the other way, with the X2 beating the P4. As for the Pentium D, im not sure how that would fare at video encoding compared to hte X2, but they make so much heat and suck so bad at games that I don't think theyre really up for comparison in anything.

About the whole dismissing AMD as only for being people who want eleventy gajillion bungholio marks to brag about their e-penis, I'm not so sure. I'd always gone with the GFX card makes the biggest difference line aswell, before I got my current rig.

If I keep my 3000+ at stock it's a pretty good combo with my 6800gt, CS:S and HL2 playable at 1280x1024, everything turned up. However, some levels like office and port will drag it to it's knees, being way too slow to call playable ina big fire fight online. Bump it up from 1.8ghz to 2.3ghz and it'll be smooth as butter in those situations.

So I'd have to say that processor performance definitely has a large impact in some games. (This may only be CS and HL2, havent tried comparing in anything else).

po0k

Why are ye worried about transcoding between Divx and DVD? They don't really matter any more. You should be worried about whether or not your machine will be able to decode 1080p HDTV

Gilgamesh

just out of curiosity Syxpak, but are there any Apps do try that out yet?
am getting two new HD LCD TVs in the next two weeks and woudl be interested in trying it out

astrofool

Gilgamesh wrote:

just out of curiosity Syxpak, but are there any Apps do try that out yet?
am getting two new HD LCD TVs in the next two weeks and woudl be interested in trying it out

last benchmarks I looked at had the x2's fairly even with the p4's encoding wise.

Anyway, loyalty to any company is stupid. AMD right now provide faster chips, that run cooler, and use less power. Intel knows this, they even published figures lately for their server market showing how bad THEIR OWN chips were compared to their new chips in 6-9 months time (the pentium-m based chips). They know they suck right now, but they also know that if they can keep prices low, and ride out the next 6-9 months, that they will finally be competitive in performance terms again.

DemonOfTheFall

Gilgamesh, try seeing if your PC can decode these clips with no dropped frames. I know that mine can't! It's not too bad decoding onto my monitor, but if I drag the window across to my second desktop (HDTV) it becomes a particularly slow slide-show.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/

Unfortunately I think you need Apple's quicktime for this, quickalt won't do.

masteroftherealm

I dont know any PC that can play decent video on the secondary monitor but I think thats more graphics card related than anything else..

po0k

Gilgamesh wrote:

just out of curiosity Syxpak, but are there any Apps do try that out yet?
am getting two new HD LCD TVs in the next two weeks and woudl be interested in trying it out

Download some HD j-pop or j-rock videos. They are insane quality. Don't know of any formal benchmarking, bar grabbing whatever HD media you can find and logging frame-drops, cpu load etc. etc.

Gilgamesh

cool stuff, thanks for that, will give it a try tonight when I get home.

@ astrofool, I am not looking for benchmark test, I am more interested in people's own experiences at this point.

I currently have a X800XL in my rig, and for th HD stuff I am hoping that the X1800XT will bring a nice boost

spitfier

Is there any point getting a dual core processor if they're not supported by most programs yet? If i'm going to upgrade in the next year or two would I be better off going with a single core chip?

Gilgamesh

I think that if you are upgrading in a year or to, you shoudl wait and see if the dual core support has come along by then.
at the moment I think it is really a matter of what exactly you want to be doing.
Gaming and stuff, a normal single core woudl do fine.
Rendering videos, animation, and such, most of the new versions actually do even support the dual cores and bring a huge advantage.

btw, to my previous thing with redering HD videos.
the ones from the Apple Site worked without dropping a frame, using quicktime 7 Pro

DemonOfTheFall

Was that a 1080i video or a 720p ? There's a big difference. They show recommended minimum spec of dual core 3ghz P4 to be able to play 1080i. You got a Pentium D ?

po0k

In the style of a Barbershop Quartet:

Multicore, Multicore, Multicore!

Gilgamesh

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

Was that a 1080i video or a 720p ? There's a big difference. They show recommended minimum spec of dual core 3ghz P4 to be able to play 1080i. You got a Pentium D ?

1080i, and I have a Pentium D 840, so..... errr..... yes, I do.

was quite interesting to watch the CPU usage on the second run, too.
it was constant at about 47% per Core

DemonOfTheFall

Very nice, very nice. Oh all the divxing that could be done with that bad boy! Did you get much of an overclock out of it? Any special cooling ?

Gilgamesh

never really OC'd it, tbh, don't see any reason why.

astrofool

AMD annihilates Intel in dual core benchmark tests

can't make easy reading for the Intel fanboys...

gline

astrofool wrote:

AMD annihilates Intel in dual core benchmark tests

can't make easy reading for the Intel fanboys...

WOW intel were annihilated :eek:

Cuddlesworth

Not sure why you would be suprized, considering that amd designed the a64 chips to be dual cores from the start.