Amd Vs. pentium

Patricide · 05-07-2005 01:07AM #1

Hey i recently was told that pentium processors are total **** when compared to amd processors espectially in the gaming department even when they have fewer GHZ can someone please explain this to me cuz im confusted on this issiue.also (going off topic ,again!) what is the meaning of overclocking a pc and what are the pros and cons of doing this?

Vikings · 05-07-2005 01:21AM

Quick hint: If you have to ask about overclocking then dont do it.

Yes, in gaming amd64's are better than pentiums4's. If all your going to be doing on your computer is gaming, then go with amd.

steveland? · 05-07-2005 01:24AM

Actually this is probably a good thread to ask this...

I'm going to be building a pc soon because I'm getting paid weekly and I'm going to buy the bits one by one... when I go looking for a motherboard should I look for one that'll take a P4 or an AMD considering what I want to use it for:

I don't play games so I odn't need a good gaming one
I'll be watching/encoding DVDs
Playing/encoding MP3s

That's about it... I'd also be probably going for the cheapest processor

Suggestions as to which to get so I can know when I go looking for my mobo?

Creamy Goodness · 05-07-2005 01:28AM

pentiums have been long known for their ability to encode dvd's better than AMD's, i don't know the technicalities on the subject but i remember reading it on here before.

steveland? · 05-07-2005 01:39AM

Deadly, thankin you Cremo...

Now if only they did them cheap...

unklerosco · 05-07-2005 02:05AM

IncredibleBulk wrote:

Quick hint: If you have to ask about overclocking then dont do it.

Well how is he going to learn????

Old overclocking guide.. explains pros n cons. Basics of overclocking r still the same..
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Guides/OCguide/

Took below from another forum
AMD

Pros:

Fastest Overall Performance
Lower Thermal Output
Lower Power Requirements
64 bit Ready
Uses Less Expensive DDR technology

Cons:

No PCI Express Support

Intel

Pros:

Better Multi-tasking
Hyperthreading
Faster at Encoding Tasks
PCI Express Support

Cons:

Higher Price
High Thermal Output
High Power Requirements

bennyx_o · 05-07-2005 02:18AM

Isn't the PCI Express the other way round? I thought Intel had no PCI Express support.

unklerosco · 05-07-2005 02:21AM

Yep, ur man had them the wrong way round.. forgot to fix it..

Vikings · 05-07-2005 02:36AM

unklerosco wrote:

Well how is he going to learn????

I was going off the op, especially the "what is the meaning of overclocking a pc" line. I said don't do it, not don't ask how

red_ice · 05-07-2005 02:59AM

i have a short fuse for this topic of conversation. Buy AMD or else you are a reject!

I have a p4 2.4 (it was a presant!!) its crap. i also have a 1200 t-bird which kicks the be-jesus out of the p4. I have a 2600+ and a 3500+. P4 clockcycles are useless compared to AMD. p4's use alot more power (think AMD 64s use rougly the same as a p4).

Not only are AMDs pritty much better in almost every aspect you would need to use a pc for, they are a fraction of the cost of a p4.What reject thought up hyperthreading? Lets use the bulk of the processor to make another virtual processor to do what one processor can do on its own? People ask for p4 because they think thats all there is to a computer, if its not p4, its not a good machine. Also, you can save yourself an aditional 150 odd quid and get an even faster 64bit processor because windows are testing windows 64bit and its free to DL atm off of ms.com. gl runnign that on your useless p4.

BUY AMD! DOWN WITH THE SYSTEM, INTEL SUCK DONKEY <insert word>..

Im about a year out of hands on experience with processors and hardware, but not much has changed in intel.. untill they come out with that new processor which is ment to be the daddy - p4 will always suck

Martyr · 05-07-2005 04:09AM

I done some benchmarks with an amd 64 3000+ 2.0 Ghz and it was twice faster than intel celeron 2.6 Ghz for 64-bit code.mmx stuff.

In the amd 64-bit architecture, you have 16 128 bit registers, p4 only has 8, amd has 16 64-bit general purpose registers, p4 only has 8 32-bit general purpose..so amd64 is better than p4 i think.

and is ready for win64

also..

amd technology, as far as i know is based on intels, so they
usually learn by mistakes (if any) made by intel.

someone told me amd 64 is like 2 p4s clamped together but with 64-bit capability..amd are better value for money.

DemonOfTheFall · 05-07-2005 09:03AM

Both AMD and Intel have PCI-Express motherboards. All new intel boards have been PCI-Express for aaaaages. AMD motherboards have been PCI-Express as standard for months too.

Red_ice, the new P4s are all 64-bit compatible as far as I know. All the 600 series are 64-bit chips, whether or not the 64-bit feature is enabled, im not sure. I think your fanboy hatred for intel goes a bit far, you just sound like a raving soccer supporter. Both AMD and intel have their good points.

AMD - Incredible overclocking on their cheap chips, Excellent gaming performance, Dont need DDR2, Very fast single-tasking experience. Prices are good for low end, atrocious once you go above it. (560 euro for a 4200+ ?!?!?!? F*** off amd).

Intel - Some good bargains to be had ( Eg dual core 2.8ghz chip only 285 euros ), Some decent overclocking chips, Hyperthreading for silky smooth multitasking.

Anyone who says that either manufacturer have no merits is just a dumbass, since they clearly both do. Just try doing two CPU intensive things at once on an AMD chip then tell me that Intel are worthless. Go on, try it red_ice. Record a video and try to use your pc as normal at the same time, just doesnt work. And for intel fanboys, just try to get better frame rates in any game than an athlon 64 based PC built for the same money.

Khannie · 05-07-2005 09:11AM

Have to agree with demon of the fall there.....I'm privvy to using both processor manufacturers all the time. Xeon, A64 FX and Athlon. I can safely say that for multitasking, the Xeons absolutely OWN the A64, but for single app, the A64 is amazingly fast.

Both manufacturers have their upsides....and I currently wouldn't buy Intel for at home (i.e. gaming), but that could change (though I've looked at AMD as better bang for buck for so long now, that it'd be hard to change that perception).

jor el · 05-07-2005 10:40AM

I have to fairly much agree with red_ice on this one. I use a P4 2.26GHz at work and now have an AMD64, skt 754, at home. I used to have an Athlon XP 1900+ at home and even that beat the pants off the P4 for video encoding. I could uses DVD shrink or DVD2One to transcode a DVD in about 20-25 minutes on the Athlon whereas it takes over an hour on the P4. Now I know there are some differences in motherboard etc, but the RAM in both was DDR266 and both had ATA100 IDE disks which makes them fairly similar.

On the home PC, for multi-tasking, I never had any problems. I could capture video to mpeg2 or xvid using a USB2 capture device at the same time as transcoding without much problem. On the P4 at work it's a different story all together. Minimise Firefox for half an hour or so and it takes up to two minutes to restore the window (usually about 1 minute though to be fair).

The P4 is a Dell by the way which I hate with a passion, but I'll not let that bias my opinion in this case

All in all, both systems have their strong and weak points but in terms of price for performance I'd go with AMD. Maybe the Xeons are better than the AMD64s, I've never used one so I can't say, but for the price you pay they'd want to be.

TerrorFirmer · 05-07-2005 10:44AM

I use a p4 3.4 for gaming....

Never bothered buying an AMD chip, just got the parents to buy straight from Dell.

However, might build a new pc soon, so guess I'll have to look into AMD this time....

Peteee · 05-07-2005 11:22AM

AMD all the way.

Also Intel use extremely dodgy business practises as well.

Pentium M is all Intel have going for them. AMD blows everything else away

Khannie · 05-07-2005 12:09PM

jor el wrote:

Minimise Firefox for half an hour or so and it takes up to two minutes to restore the window (usually about 1 minute though to be fair).

That's a sign of low system ram. Firefox is probably being swapped out to the hard drive.

jor el wrote:

Maybe the Xeons are better than the AMD64s, I've never used one so I can't say, but for the price you pay they'd want to be.

HAHA. Corporate purchase.....wouldn't touch them myself. Also wouldn't pay the money for the A64-FX's either tbh.

DemonOfTheFall · 05-07-2005 12:58PM

People are comparing 2.26 ghz P4s to 3000+ athlons..... Ever heard of a fair comparison anyone ?

Mutant_Fruit · 05-07-2005 01:17PM

jor el wrote:

I used to have an Athlon XP 1900+ at home and even that beat the pants off the P4 for video encoding. I could uses DVD shrink or DVD2One to transcode a DVD in about 20-25 minutes on the Athlon whereas it takes over an hour on the P4.

Really? Because Intels are generally faster than AMD's when it comes to video encoding performance. And since the Intel is a 2.2ghz, and the AMD is rated at 1900+ theres not a chance in hell the AMD could be faster. Unless of course you have a REALLY badly set up intel system.

Generally, intels are better at multitasking, AMD's are better at single tasking. Get the right horse for the right job. Of course, the AMD X2's are a different kettle altogether, and currently beat the living bejaysus out of all intel chips. But their pricing reflects that

jozi · 05-07-2005 01:19PM

The only difference i have ever noticed between our dell (2ghz p4) and my then curent system (athlon 2500+) was that the dell was slower but only because it had far less ram than my own (256mb vs 1gig).

The reason you buy pentium or amd is because they suite your needs better, not because some fanboy told you X is better than Y

Ozzy · 05-07-2005 01:23PM

The people recommending AMD are the same kind of scum who swear by Linux and love iRiver...

Intel forevahhh! They are more corporate so they must be better.

Mutant_Fruit · 05-07-2005 01:35PM

Ozzy wrote:

The people recommending AMD are the same kind of scum who swear by Linux and love iRiver...

Intel forevahhh! They are more corporate so they must be better.

I'm choosing to assume that youre just talking the piss. Otherwise things might go bad for you

*obtains fanboi beating stick*

Sam Vimes · 05-07-2005 01:54PM

IncredibleBulk wrote:

Quick hint: If you have to ask about overclocking then dont do it.

so you were born with the knowledge of overclocking imprinted in your mind?

everyone had to ask someone at some stage

DemonOfTheFall · 05-07-2005 01:57PM

I'd probably be buying a shiny Pentium D 2.8ghz right now if it wasn't for Intel's incredibly questionable business practices. If theres one thing I hate it's monopoly.
eg. Dell, Intel, Microsoft, Eircom, and such.

Monopoly just ruins markets. I would really resent buying a dell since id be giving money to intel and m$ aswell. Hard not to consider these things when they suit your needs though.

Stark · 05-07-2005 02:05PM

Cremo wrote:

pentiums have been long known for their ability to encode dvd's better than AMD's, i don't know the technicalities on the subject but i remember reading it on here before.

For DivX and not for XviD though. Intel and Divx liase to make a DivX highly Pentium-optimized.

Amd Cons:

No PCI Express Support

Wrong. Intel were the first to support PCI Express but both processors have supported it for a quite a while now.

On the dual core front, it's been reported that AMD are way more expensive for their dual core processors. However this is because Intel produce more lower-performance dual core processors than AMD. Comparisons between the Athlon X2-4200 (€560 off Komplett) and the Intel Pentium D 840 (€585 off Komplett) show the AMD chip to be the superior chip in practically everything including encoding.

So with dual core, you're still getting more power per euro with AMD. However, if you don't have €560 and you really want dual core, there are cheaper Intel dual core processors available. Of course, you could be better off just getting a standard Athlon64 in that price range.

Pentium M is all Intel have going for them. AMD blows everything else away

Of course, AMD now have the "Turion". Drool....

The thing that bugs me with the Pentium M is it's a modified Pentium 3 architecture so it'll be a LONG time before it goes x86-64 (later Pentium 4s and Pentium Ds are all 64-bit now). It's the kind of thing to hold back 64-bit compatible software adoption for ages because Centrino is currently so popular. I saw "compatible" because of course not all software benefits from being fully 64-bit. But I'd love to be able to install Windows XP 64-bit or a 64-bit version of Linux on my laptop just for the coolness of it

DemonOfTheFall · 05-07-2005 02:26PM

Well they bolted 64-bit extensions onto the p4 fairly easily so I dont see why they couldnt do it to the P-M. It'll be interesting to see the Dothan dual core chip next year, seems fairly identical to A64 X2s, heat/clockspeed/advantages/disadvantages wise. Have AMD got any new interesting architectures coming out or are they just gradually improving on their current designs ?

They seem to have hit a wall around 2.4 ghz, after that power consumption skyrockets and the chips become as hot as P4s. Always good to see what the latest and greatest is...

the_syco · 05-07-2005 02:44PM

I'll be proberly going along the AMD route, then, as I'll be needing it only for one task (either just games, or just encoding [golf/holiday] movies).

One question, tho: can someone tell me why AMD call their chips 3000+, when it may only be 2 point something Ghz?

I ask as when I go for a new rig, I want to get the fastest beast possible, for the lowest amount of money (ie: not over €300).

jozi · 05-07-2005 03:04PM

The amd 3200+ not meant to perform on par with a 3.2ghz pentium performance wise? Is that not how they rate their chips?
I'd actually like to know how it works to, how the amd ghz compare to intel ghz etc

Stark · 05-07-2005 03:06PM

the_syco wrote:

One question, tho: can someone tell me why AMD call their chips 3000+, when it may only be 2 point something Ghz?

Marketing. The average user cares nothing about benchmarks, and are only able to distinguish chips based on clock frequency. If AMD stuck to GHz rating then it would be a case of "This AMD chip is 2.2GHz, this Pentium 4 is 3GHz, let's buy the Pentium 4, it's faster".

The scheme started with the Athlon-XP. Athlon-XP 1400+ meant an Athlon-XP that ran with the performance of a 1.4GHz standard Athlon. The Athlon64 still uses the "Athlon-equivalent" rating.

unklerosco · 05-07-2005 03:09PM

jozi wrote:

The amd 3200+ not meant to perform on par with a 3.2ghz pentium performance wise? Is that not how they rate their chips?
I'd actually like to know how it works to, how the amd ghz compare to intel ghz etc

Thats the way they used to do it... not sure if its still the way it works.

Stark · 05-07-2005 03:18PM

unklerosco wrote:

jozi wrote:

The amd 3200+ not meant to perform on par with a 3.2ghz pentium performance wise? Is that not how they rate their chips?
I'd actually like to know how it works to, how the amd ghz compare to intel ghz etc

Thats the way they used to do it... not sure if its still the way it works.

Nope, both the Athlon64 and the AthlonXP use the "Athlon-equivalent performance" scale. The Cyrix chips used to use the "Pentium equivalent" rating back in their day.

Amd Vs. pentium

Comments