Intel vs. AMD

Carlimited

So, I am pretty sure that THIS debate has raged on these boards already, but since I am a new member (kinda), I ain't looking for 'em! When Vista comes out, I am going to be buy a new machine (actually probably next summer, since the bugs should be out by then). I am doing some research now, however. I am NOT a techno-peasant, but the really DEEP stuff overwhelms me LOL. Please keep it simple, and please do NOT put links to pages that only geeks can understand! Which processor is better: Intel Dual core, or AMD 64 bit? The AMD chips usually run at slower speeds than the Intel chips - and yet they are supposed to be better? I have also heard that the AMD chips run hotter than Intel. I usually purchase my computers from a brand-name manufacturer (building one is NOT an option, nor is it a desire!). I have always leaned towards Intel, but some people have told me that AMD is the better chip for gaming. The machine will be for gaming, as well as everyday stuff. OK - BEGIN!!!

conzy

Ok, As we speak the Athlon 64 is the best processer on the market, it runs cooler than Intel processers, it consumes less power than Intel processers and the low end Athlon 64 X2 processers outperform the "extreme edition" Intel processer that cost nearly 3 times more.

If you are buying soon Athlon 64 is the way to go.

However, Intel released some benchmarks recently showing their new Processers (conroe) beating AMD by around 30% in most games, Alot of people (including myself) are a bit sceptical about the benchmarks, and we wont know how good they will be until they are released.

So, if you want a system now, get an Athlon 64 S939 system, they are great performers and great value.

If you are waiting ~6months, wait and see how the New intel chips and the new AMD chips (Am2) will perform

WizZard

If "next summer" means 2006 then wait til June/July and ask again.
If it means 2007 then wait til April 2007 and ask again.

kaimera

As been said, either an AMD FX-60 if money is no object or else an x2.

By the time Vista is released, the new Intel chips could be close to release if not already and judging by preview benchmarks, are very very good. Less power usage and more power than the FX-60.

Quad core anyone?

Up to yerself really.

DemonOfTheFall

Carlimited wrote:

Intel Dual core, or AMD 64 bit?

Both of the manufacturer's chips are 64 bit.

They both make single core and dual core chips aswell.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

Intel 5xx and 6xx = Single Core
AMD without X2 in the name = single core

Intel 8xx and 9xx = Dual Core
AMD X2 = Dual core.

christophicus

^^^As far as i know the AMD 64 FX60 is dual core so that summery is not entirely correct.the FX57 is clocked at the same speed,with the same cache as the FX60 but the FX60 is dual core whereas the FX57 is not.

conzy

christophicus wrote:

^^^As far as i know the AMD 64 FX60 is dual core so that summery is not entirely correct.the FX57 is clocked at the same speed,with the same cache as the FX60 but the FX60 is dual core whereas the FX57 is not.

Nope,

The FX-57 is single core and clocked at 2.8ghz with 1mb of L2 cache

The FX-60 is dual core and clocked at 2.6ghz with 1 mb L2 cache per core

christophicus

I do appoligise .you are more then likely correct.

DemonOfTheFall

I left the FX chips out of that little summary because it ain't too likely he'll be buying one, seen as they cost as much as a decent computer by themselves. They're really only for people looking for a way to relieve themselves of a lot of money very quickly...

SouperComputer

Amd Ftw

SouperComputer

Intel FTW

Malafus

SouperComputer wrote:

Amd Ftw

SouperComputer wrote:

Intel FTW

Well, which is it?

AMD gets my vote... for now. We'll see what happens when Conroe comes out.

conzy

christophicus wrote:

I do appoligise .you are more then likely correct.

No need to appoligise:D

And I am correct:D

AMD FTW, if buying soon

magick

i prefer Pepsi

Carlimited

So, a SINGLE core processor may be clocked faster, but in reality, a DOUBLE core processor is faster because ???

Carlimited

Conroe is a new chip from Intel?

Carlimited

"ftw"??? Wtf? Lol!

Carlimited

It means 2007 - I would like to wait and see what Vista is like (and be a little de-bugged by then). I guess I probably asked too soon since there are so many changes (I didn't know about) with respect to Intel chips etc. Damn things are outdated as soon as you take them out of the box.

tom_ass19

magick wrote:

i prefer Pepsi

haha...good lad....imagine using of using water cooling, using pepsi cooling for the chip...haha, how daycent would that be...

Airblazer

here you go..read all about it..intel's plans for 2006/2007

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/13/idf_spring_2006/

Khannie

Carlimited wrote:

So, a SINGLE core processor may be clocked faster, but in reality, a DOUBLE core processor is faster because ???

It has more total processing power available to it.

2 x 3200 > 1 x 5000.

Take it easy with the spamming.

conzy

Take it easy with the spamming.

Carlimited is the first ever person i saw to quadruple post:D

Anyway for games at the minute, The fastest Single core processers are the best.

There is no point in having 2X 3000s when the game can only utilize one of them.

There are patches available for games to "dual core enable" them, but their is tiny increases in framerates.

Until games are written natively for Dual-core they wont be used to their full capability.

The only advantage i see at the minute, is being able to encoded DVDs or animation while playing a game, but the game will still take a performance hit, as they are using the same memory controler and the same ram

DemonOfTheFall

conzymaher wrote:

There are patches available for games to "dual core enable" them, but their is tiny increases in framerates.

I wouldn't say so

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/images/amd800.gif
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/images/amd1280.gif

33% increase at 1280x1024 ?
64% increase at 640x480 ?

conzy

Well of course it will help at lower resolutions, once you reach 1600*1200 there will be very little performance gains.

Anywhooooo, all I am trying to say is a single core at 2.8ghz is better at gaming than a dual core at 1.8ghz

Carlimited

Spamming??? Just answering different responses! Sorry, didn't know the rules and regulations I guess.

Khannie

That's ok carlimited. The general way to respond to four messages is with one message, possibly quoting relevant parts (check the quote button for examples of how to to that). It's not illegal or anything to multipost. Hell....I do it myself sometimes....just that four posts is pretty unusual.

conzymaher wrote:

Anywhooooo, all I am trying to say is a single core at 2.8ghz is better at gaming than a dual core at 1.8ghz

This is true. But only for the short term. As a medium term investment, the dual cores offer much better bang for buck. Most mid-range dual core PC's can handle todays games on a single core anyway.

I have a 3800+ x2 running at 2100MHz and I sold a 3700+ to get it. The performance difference for video encoding (xvid supports smp now) is pretty astounding. I'm looking at a >= 33% drop in encode time. It's also nice to be able to multi-task.

SouperComputer

Malafus wrote:

Well, which is it?

AMD gets my vote... for now. We'll see what happens when Conroe comes out.

Both are great. TBH its a pointless discussion until you are actually ready to buy.

Even then it might be a pointless one!

They both make good processors, regardless of what the fanboy's say. Generally, per € AMD gives more performance.

smeggle

Allways found AMD to be hopeless for decent Audio reproduction so would have to go for Intel myself...

SouperComputer

smeggle wrote:

Allways found AMD to be hopeless for decent Audio reproduction so would have to go for Intel myself...

out of interest Smeggle, what kind of issues did you have?

conzy

smeggle wrote:

Allways found AMD to be hopeless for decent Audio reproduction so would have to go for Intel myself...

What do you mean for decent audio reproduction? a processer cannot effect the sound of a recording

If you are talking about speed, look here:

http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm

AMD beats its Intel equivelant, in every benchmark.

Back in the Athlon XP days the Pentium4s had the advantage, but the Athlon 64 is on top now

DemonOfTheFall

Khannie wrote:

I have a 3800+ x2 running at 2100MHz and I sold a 3700+ to get it. The performance difference for video encoding (xvid supports smp now) is pretty astounding. I'm looking at a >= 33% drop in encode time. It's also nice to be able to multi-task.

SWEET! I hate waiting for video encodes. This is some damn good news Khannie.

Now i really can't wait to get my X2 in a week or 2. If only damn komplett ever had opterons in stock...

SouperComputer

a processer cannot effect the sound of a recording

One might think that, but ive had two people complain of unexplained "saturation" issues with the Sct A XP's. Different chipsets and different soundcards.

Carlimited

Well, I think I have learned as much as I can. I am starting to see all the techies come out now, and I am quickly getting lost! Better bail out now! Have fun! LOL

conzy

One might think that, but ive had two people complain of unexplained "saturation" issues with the Sct A XP's. Different chipsets and different soundcards.

Wow, It must have happened during the original recording, The processer shouldnt alter the sound.

Anyway the S939 system seem to have no problems.....

And a opteron 170 is my next upgrade:)

Khannie

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

SWEET! I hate waiting for video encodes. This is some damn good news Khannie.

Now i really can't wait to get my X2 in a week or 2. If only damn komplett ever had opterons in stock...

Glad to be of service.

The latest version of AutoGK (2.27 as of writing) includes an installer for the SMP version of xvid.

SouperComputer

Wow, It must have happened during the original recording, The processer shouldnt alter the sound.

Nope, various sources, various samples and differing software. The only common thing was the processOr.

I thought it was impossible too until I saw it and used it for myself! I cant think of why, but anyway, there you go.

nadir

I got an AMD 64 4200, 2.2ghz there last week, and it's damn fast, well compared to my old intel P4 2.4 Ghz anyway. I know thats an unfair comparison, I'm just happy that it compiles stuff really quickly, like a massive fat kernel compile takes about 10 Mins. Compared to say 25Mins on the old intel.

Khannie

SouperComputer wrote:

One might think that

I can't think of a good reason that a processor would affect sound recording.

Noise interference from the motherboard or some other source could affect an analogue signal, but a digital signal should be identical regardless of processor (unless there's a bug in the hardware implementation).

nadir

Noise interference from the processor can interfere with the analogue input and mess things up.
I have a dual P3 at home, and the electromagnetic shielding is woeful. For output at least, when you put on headphones, you cna her the processor, if you start compiling something you get a load screech in the headphones, its kinda cool being able to listen to the processor woking away, but it's sore on the ears.
edit: but obviously if its a digital input, then that makes no sense at all.

MrFitt

I did say this over a year ago but got flamed here on the boards for suggesting that Quadcores would be out soonish..;)

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/19/intel_core_2_quadro_roadmap/

AMD have their equivalent but no sign of it soon.

Go Intel.....for now.....

Mutant_Fruit

I remember laughing loudly at the thought of quadcores at christmas I thought quadcores wouldn't come out until dualcores came as standard in every computer (desktop/server/laptop).