AMD VS. Intel

gamedude2005

Which is better?
AMD or Intel...
Most people will say intel but I think AMD is the best at the moment because they are the only company producing 64bit proccessors for home users.
I have an AMD 64 3400+.
PURE POWER!!!!!!
Also they are cheap...
But I think I was ripped off in Peats because they charged me 450.
You can get it online so much cheaper.
AMD into the future!!!
Open to crictism.

jesus_thats_gre

gamedude2005 wrote:

But I think I was ripped off in Peats because they charged me 450.

That really sums you up doesn't it

Gilgamesh

dorry, but this thing has been discussed sooooo many times here.
May aswell ask, which is better, Mercedes or BMW?
Ati or Nvidia?
could go on for days

Creamy Goodness

there's a tougher a vs b debate.

daddy or chips?

Gilgamesh

Cremo wrote:

there's a tougher a vs b debate.

daddy or chips?

Man, how could I forget that one, the one question above all others (banging own head against table corner)

Stark

Most people will say intel but I think AMD is the best at the moment because they are the only company producing 64bit proccessors for home users.

The benefits of 64-bit extensions are questionable for home users. At the moment both Pentium 4 and Athlon64 seem to be neck and neck. By the time Microsoft comes out with 64-bit Windows XP (in order for home users to see any advantages of x86-64 technology), Intel will likely have their EMT64 version of the Pentium 4 out (it'll be in the Pentium 4 6xx series).

Gilgamesh

What about ketchup or Mayo?

Mutant_Fruit

Nah, you're all missing the big question here: Which is the correct pronunciation of tomato?

A) Toe-may-toe
Toe-ma-toe

Thats what i ask. The answer to this question could rock the very foundations of our civilisation!

As for the more mundane question of AMD VS Intel, i think its fair to sum up the difference as follows:

If you're a gamer, go AMD. If you're a film encoder (using divx)/editor, or audio/image editor, Intel is the way for you. General usage, probably AMD cos they have better value budget chips.

tuxy

gamedude2005 wrote:

Which is better?
AMD or Intel...
Most people will say intel but I think AMD is the best at the moment because

what makes you think most people will say intel?
from my experiance most people will say AMD

they are the only company producing 64bit proccessors for home users.

where is the 64 bit software? linux i guess but thats about it

PURE POWER!!!!!!

in gaming maybe what about video editing AMD is better at some things intel at others
im not realy sure what you mean by pure power

Also they are cheap...

a p4 3.4 and 64 3500+ are about €280 ,price between them isnt much of a factor anymore

RicardoSmith

gamedude2005 wrote:

Which is better?
....

Better at what?

Which is better a circle or a square. A hammer or a screwdriver...

Dempsey

A hammer of course

Gilgamesh

a square.

mmmm.....love those sqaures.....drool!!!!.

okay, what do you want to do with your computer except replace it in 6, no, 4 errr no 2 months, when it is obsolete?

Stark

A circle, noone likes a square

jessy

A poor Question.

Neither chip out performs the other by a significant amount, but have there strong points, Amd Games, Intel, audio,video. Intel supports DDR2. Other than that it’s down to personal preference as almost everyone has already stated.

What are you going to do with the 64bit chip that you can’t do with a 32bit at the minute?

jessy

gamedude2005 wrote:

Also they are cheap...

Try buying an FX55!!

gline

AMD = the best, obviously, LOL (check sig )

RicardoSmith

gline wrote:

AMD = the best, obviously, LOL (check sig )

FX and a Celeron....?

ViperVenoM

jessy wrote:

What are you going to do with the 64bit chip that you can’t do with a 32bit at the minute?

that question bugs meh!

people always say why buy a 64 bit cpu when u cant take advantage of it

well what else do us "AMD Fanboys" buy when we want something faster than an xp3200+ :rolleyes:

we have to move up to the next ones..which just so happen to be 64 bit :rolleyes:

suits me anyway ive got a 3.06 intel in my laptop and it fecking sucks amd all the way!

Dempsey

I'd say the Celeron upstages the FX, LOL. How did ya manage to have a Celeron?

gline

hmm, i'll ignore that , hahahah, definitly AMD, i find them great and i used to own intel and have built 2 recently.


Just personal preference really, i PREFER AMD, doesnt mean they are better, i dont think there is noticeable preformance increases in choosing 1 over the other, even price is pretty even at this stage, its all down to preference

gline

Dempsey wrote:

I'd say the Celeron upstages the FX, LOL. How did ya manage to have a Celeron?

Im just using the celeron for an ftp server.


"What are you going to do with the 64bit chip that you can’t do with a 32bit at the minute?"


thats crap, it is prepared for the future of 64bit computing. 64bit computing will be the future so if you buy a 64bit cpu , u are prepared for the future

RicardoSmith

You can never prepare for the future in computing.

Dempsey

gline wrote:

thats crap, it is prepared for the future of 64bit computing. 64bit computing will be the future so if you buy a 64bit cpu , u are prepared for the future

Errr, not necessarily. 64-bit chip development is mainly to beat the 4Gb RAM Limit. The performance increase isnt as significant. 64-bit computing has been around for ages, just that pc desktops havent arrived at that milestone till now. By the time 64-bit software takes off, you'll probably half way to building a new system anyways

jessy

gline wrote:

thats crap, it is prepared for the future of 64bit computing. 64bit computing will be the future so if you buy a 64bit cpu , u are prepared for the future

I’m afraid Not mate, You cant future proof, when the conversion of 64bit is finally finished and im not just talking about the OS (the os has to run programs) you current chip will be pure dirt.

I got a 64bit chip myself, but i aint fooling my self in thinking its going to last into the 64bit furture.

Stark

Well I wouldn't say that exactly. When CPUs went over 500MHz they pretty much became more than adequate for most things with the exception of the traditional CPU guzzlers - video encoding, gaming etc. (I know many people who still use this class of CPU without problems). The time has come where other PC components - memory, graphics card, hard drives etc. are considered more important than the CPU. For example Pentium 3s are ancient at this stage but they're still fine for most people. I'm typing this as we speak on a Mobile Athlon 4 1.2GHz laptop which I consider more than adequate, though I wouldn't go playing the latest games on it. If anything it's the onboard graphics that let me down.

StRiKeR

it doesnt bother me which is the best, I got a 3.4 prescott and a A64 3000 systems, hehehe!

jessy

Stark wrote:

Well I wouldn't say that exactly. When CPUs went over 500MHz they pretty much became more than adequate for most things with the exception of the traditional CPU guzzlers - video encoding, gaming etc. (I know many people who still use this class of CPU without problems). The time has come where other PC components - memory, graphics card, hard drives etc. are considered more important than the CPU. For example Pentium 3s are ancient at this stage but they're still fine for most people. I'm typing this as we speak on a Mobile Athlon 4 1.2GHz laptop which I consider more than adequate, though I wouldn't go playing the latest games on it. If anything it's the onboard graphics that let me down.

I couldn’t agree more, (if your not a gamer) but I don’t think the hardware vendors are ever going to stop pushing new technology onto the market, which will eventually force us to upgrade (take for example AGP and PCI-E, AGP is perfect for most people but yet it is being cut out, soon it will be out of production and Not supported hence anyone on AGP who wants to upgrade the Graphics card will automatically have to upgrade the chip because the new motherboard will almost definitely be a new socket, the RAM will probable Be DDR2 its forced on us we cant do anything about it).

RicardoSmith

You're talking about a different market. Anyone who has a a64 now, is a gamer and a constant upgrader. DIfferent people. They'll never be happy. Since computers have been invented they've been improved constantly. The kind of people who were happy doing WP on an old machine now want to edit digital photos, and videos. Etc. You ain't going to enjoy that on a 500mhz cpu. Min for movie DVD, DIVX encoding and playback is a PIII 800.

gline

jessy wrote:

I’m afraid Not mate, You cant future proof, when the conversion of 64bit is finally finished and im not just talking about the OS (the os has to run programs) you current chip will be pure dirt.

I got a 64bit chip myself, but i aint fooling my self in thinking its going to last into the 64bit furture.

I know you cant be fully future proofed, but with a 64bit chip it will last u ages, up till a year ago i was running an athlon 1.2ghz and it was great for nearly all games out. Its not the cpu that makes the whole pc, gaming is more depending on GPU nowadays. I reckon my pc will see me till this time next year and beyond, sure it wont be anywhere near the new pc's of the time but in a years time im sure it will still be able to run new games and programs

FuzzyWuzzyWazza

Yep! I gotta agree, seems like cutting edge gamers are in to AMD, and as far as I can tell most always have been. I am running a PIII 800 at home and have no problems with it, well that was after i got myself a mediocre graphics card (64bit) and some more RAM, turned it in to a completly new machine!
I also run a 3.6Ghz Mobile P4 in my laptop, and as far as speed goes I have absolutly no complaints, but I wont be using it for gameing. As of now I have had no issues with audio/vidio playback and manupilation, works great.

RicardoSmith

Thats about the same as its always been. Especially since 3DFX and before that VESA local bus cards. I don't see any difference, in the rate of obsolesence. Its more like you feel the cost more as YOU get older.

StRiKeR

the only difference is that things didnt move as fast as they do these days, VESA and PCI bus was being use longer before AGP came out compare to the leight of time AGP's been around then PCI-E! new hardwares are being introduce all the time in computing now days!

FuzzyWuzzyWazza

Just a quick one, I am thinking of upgrading my desktop,there is a set on komplett for €332, it's
Processor -=- AMD Athlon 64 2800+ 1.8 GHz OEM,
Mainboard -=- MSI K8N NEO Platinum Edition,
RAM -=- 512MB corsair pc3200 DDR
and a Cooler Master CPU-Cooler Socket 754/940, copper (21-41db) heatsink
does this sound good for the price? I have heard that the Prescott version of the P4 is muck, any ideas??

StRiKeR

I take it thats the 754 socket you be getting with that kit! you better off go for the 939 or 940 socket as the 754 will be drop out shortly!!! or have they drop the production on it already yet?! correct me if I'm wrong!

Dempsey's right about 64bit computing, it has been around for ages! just like watercooling is getting so big these days, but that has actually been use since years ago! but you dont hear anybody talking about it thats just because end users haven't come across or being introduce these things untill now!

FuzzyWuzzyWazza

Yep it's a 754, it would cost ~ €100 for a 939 setup of similar spec. whats the main differances?

RicardoSmith

StRiKeR wrote:

the only difference is that things didnt move as fast as they do these days, VESA and PCI bus was being use longer before AGP came out compare to the leight of time AGP's been around then PCI-E! new hardwares are being introduce all the time in computing now days!

AGP has changed a lot too. Every 1-2 yrs the slot changed. Not all AGP cards work in all the slots! VESA was only around about a year. We had propietery locla bus, then Vesa. We had also had MCA ISA, EISA then PCI. How long where Pentium P60's and P66's around? ABout a week! Lots of stuff changed so fast. The era of the BX board was the longest stable time I reckon. Which is why theres still tons of those around. PIII's and 370's are a lot less common. Socket A was there for ages too!

StRiKeR

I suppose but we didnt really care about them as much back then really!

oh I remember them BX, they were very good and very popular, I was waiting and got one as soon as they came out on the market!

FuzzyWuzzyWazza wrote:

Yep it's a 754, it would cost ~ €100 for a 939 setup of similar spec. whats the main differances?

socket 939 produces less heat than the 754 an they have 1MB cache rather than 512k on the 754!

Dempsey

StRiKeR wrote:

it doesnt bother me which is the best, I got a 3.4 prescott and a A64 3000 systems, hehehe!

Ahhh **** off

Hardware has quickly changed in recent years before/on time as it was needed. This transition has dragged itself out in comparison. People are fustrated by it.

FuzzyWuzzyWazza ,that spec need 1Gb of RAM and its very good value. Prescotts arent muck, they were disappointing for o/cing(heat) but at higher clock speeds they show they're promise(in testbenches), all compared to their Northwood equivalents

gline

StRiKeR wrote:

I take it thats the 754 socket you be getting with that kit! you better off go for the 939 or 940 socket as the 754 will be drop out shortly!!! or have they drop the production on it already yet?! correct me if I'm wrong!

Dempsey's right about 64bit computing, it has been around for ages! just like watercooling is getting so big these days, but that has actually been use since years ago! but you dont hear anybody talking about it thats just because end users haven't come across or being introduce these things untill now!

Socket 940's are only for opterons and FX chips and was also replaced by Socket 939. 939 is the way to go.

gline

RicardoSmith wrote:

AGP has changed a lot too. Every 1-2 yrs the slot changed. Not all AGP cards work in all the slots! VESA was only around about a year. We had propietery locla bus, then Vesa. We had also had MCA ISA, EISA then PCI. How long where Pentium P60's and P66's around? ABout a week! Lots of stuff changed so fast. The era of the BX board was the longest stable time I reckon. Which is why theres still tons of those around. PIII's and 370's are a lot less common. Socket A was there for ages too!

This is true, PC hardware has always changed rapidly

TacT

StRiKeR wrote:

socket 939 produces less heat than the 754 an they have 1MB cache rather than 512k on the 754!

That's news to me. Why is my s939 processor 512k cache and the 3400+ S754 cpu 1MB of cache then?

jessy

he might be talking about the new core producing less heat and he worng about the other thing.

astrofool

because in AMD's naming system they equate dual channel memory to worth another 300+ compared to another 512k cache which is worth 200+ (if that kinda makes sense).

A 3500+ is the same as a 3200+(with 512k cache), except it has dual channel memory. A 3400+ is the same except it has larger cache.

ALSO, they equate 200mhz to being worth another 200+, so a 3400+ with 512 cache would run at 200mhz faster than a 3200+ with 512k, and 200mhz faster than a 3500+. you can also get a 3200+ that runs 200mhz slower (2ghz instead of 2.2ghz), but has 1 meg of cache.

Confused yet ?

gline

astrofool wrote:

because in AMD's naming system they equate dual channel memory to worth another 300+ compared to another 512k cache which is worth 200+ (if that kinda makes sense).

A 3500+ is the same as a 3200+(with 512k cache), except it has dual channel memory. A 3400+ is the same except it has larger cache.

ALSO, they equate 200mhz to being worth another 200+, so a 3400+ with 512 cache would run at 200mhz faster than a 3200+ with 512k, and 200mhz faster than a 3500+. you can also get a 3200+ that runs 200mhz slower (2ghz instead of 2.2ghz), but has 1 meg of cache.

Confused yet ?

???? ???? LOL

CyberGhost

Monica Bellucci or Cindy Crowford?

tuxy

cindy

StRiKeR

oops yep too confusing theres so many of them with different spec, just looked at my CPU list again that I got form tomshardware! sorry, but mine has 1MB cache!

was playing with the P4 laterly, haven't looket at my A64 for weeks!

Cindy, Defenately Cindy, oh yea!