wich cpu

[wickedquig]

should i get a intel based setup or a amd setup thanks

[DampCold]

I like Intel based setups, however since I haven't used and AMD I can't really say it is better. I haven't heard much from AMD recently so I wonder if they are starting to fall behind Intel.

[nasrules]

Starting to fall behind? You're kidding, right?! Heard of the Athlon 64 range?

I'd go AMD. The Athlon XPs are incredibly cheap and the Athlon 64s are a similar price to the P4s but offer 64-bit future compatability.

[DampCold]

http://www.passmark.com/cpureview/

I would imagine some Intels are better then some AMDs and vice versus.
Intel has always had superior floating point performance, however most instructions are non-floating point. In addition, from the graphs, it looks like the AMD has superior MMX speeds.

[hawkburn]

Personally I just built a new system based on an Intel P4 3.2 ghz, but I'm feeling regretful, as I am a hardcore-gamer and I've been told the Athlon 64 bit high-end chips are equivelent to the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (something I cannot afford) but at a much lower price.

So I said AMD

[DampCold]

So far the situation in the market looks as follows. Intel’s new CPU copes better than its AMD rival with streaming data processing and multimedia files encoding. Also, it appears quite efficient for multi-threading tasks, such as 3ds max or Photoshop. The newcomer from AMD, however, proved really fast in scientific tasks and office. If we make some additional allowances, we will be able to state its leadership over the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition even in contemporary 3D games.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx51.html

[ferrarimodena360]

intel = brute force, games office applications, anything.........

i had amd, dont like it with games, sorry bad bad thang

[mcovey]

I voted intel because they dont try to disguise their real speed (like AMD calls a 1GHz processor a 1600+ and say, well its as fast as intel's 1.6GHz).

But the way things are going, with wintel trying to bar the competition, and their new wintel bios, I may have to use amd to continue using linux.

[nasrules]

intel = brute force, games office applications, anything.........

i had amd, dont like it with games, sorry bad bad thang

Actually, it's commonly accepted that AMDs are better at gaming while Pentiums tend to be better for operations such as video-encoding.

I voted intel because they dont try to disguise their real speed (like AMD calls a 1GHz processor a 1600+ and say, well its as fast as intel's 1.6GHz).

But the way things are going, with wintel trying to bar the competition, and their new wintel bios, I may have to use amd to continue using linux.

There is actually a reason for AMD's product naming policy. The Athlon does more work per cycle than a Pentium 4, so even at lower clock speeds it can do the same amount of work. The only one which there is a bit of a con with is the 3200 - it can't compete with a P4 3.2.

It may interest you to know that Intel are actually copying AMD now - they're not going to release any more processors with a clock-speed-based name due to the fact that it's getting harder and harder to increase the clock speed of a processor, so manufacturers are looking at other ways of increasing the speed such as HyperThreading and - yep, you guessed it - getting the CPU to do more per cycle, a la AMD!

[cpugeniusmv]

i have one of each...the only reason i have the P4 is because it was a gift. they're both fine processors, but if i were buying i would go AMD. why? they're cheaper. i'm not made out of money.

[MegaMog]

amd xp if you want a good cpu for dirt cheap. Or if you got the cash the AMD Athlon™ 64 FX-53 flagship with the biggest cache (far more important then gighertz)

http://img43.photobucket.com/albums/v133/MegaMog/miscscreens/chart.png
here is a chart to help inform you better.

[Miniver]

amd...............by far

[CCSDUDE]

I voted intel because they dont try to disguise their real speed (like AMD calls a 1GHz processor a 1600+ and say, well its as fast as intel's 1.6GHz).

But the way things are going, with wintel trying to bar the competition, and their new wintel bios, I may have to use amd to continue using linux.

Actually you've got it bassackwards... Intel caused the tiff by going out of ISO standards on operations per clock cycle. Intel P4's do much less per cycle then AMD's...

AMD has thankfully stuck to the ISO standard, those odd ball numbers are just their attempt at keeping the PC moron market by saying exactly what they should...

An Intel chip at 3ghz gets it's ass kicked by an AMD in the 2ghz range....

Also choosing is very simple..just depends on what you're looking for and how much time you wish to put into cooling.

Office Apps/Overclocking/Budget systems and techie fun ...go AMD

Good on the fly DivX/Xvid/ect encoding, nice slow down heat safety features built into the chip and a damn decent past history (...lol they proved they suck by cheating people with the P4s though) ....go Intel

[maynoth]

AMD produces a far surperior product. In terms of price to performance ratio AMD takes the crown over intel every time. You can pay more for a name and get an inferior product, but WHY? For $80.00 you can get an AMD Barton 2500+ which is really a remarked 3200+. all you ahve to do is change the FSB from 166mhz (333mhz ddr) to 200Mhz (400mhz ddr) and presto you have an $80 3200+ which owns the intel pentium 4 3.2Ghz in almost ever test for about $200 less!!! Just make sure you have a good cooling solution like a CoolerMaster JET 7 "ACB-V83", and motherboard like the ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe, and some decent PC3200 (ddr400) sdram like GEIL or Crucial or Corsair... There is absolutely no reason to waste your money on intel unless you need the name brand recognition

[Omyn]

AMD for life.

Pentium processors are locked down peices of garbage.

Everyone knows its all about your motherboards bus speed anyway, without a high FSB you might as well throw that thing in the garbage. :]

"I voted intel because they dont try to disguise their real speed (like AMD calls a 1GHz processor a 1600+ and say, well its as fast as intel's 1.6GHz)."

Its not a number for speed, it's a series number.

[MegaMog]

hyper transport owns on the amd 64 line

[maynoth]

AMD remarks there CPU's because they are sooo much faster than intels. An AMD 2.2Ghz Barton (3200+) is faster (in the vast majority of tests) than a 3.2Ghz P4 NO JOKE!!! So a 3200+ equates to a 3.2Ghz Intel P4.

[MegaMog]

amds nameing system is pretty acureate at compareing amds cpus preformance to to intels gighertz(which is only higher cause the chips have more layers which makes the chip slower cause it has to shuffle the data back and forth more)

[maynoth]

MegaMog,

AMD's engineers developed the hyper-transport bus NOT INTEL. I think what you meant to say was hyper-threading I agree its a good idea but it does not work unless the programs are specifically designed for it, and even then the preformance gains are not all they are cracked up to be. hyperthreading may give a slight increase in real world applications but AMD STILL 0WNS INTELS ARSE!!! AMD's engineers developed 3DNOW!which Intel cloned and made SSE and SSE2. AMD's engineers made the AMD64 X86 64Bit instruction set and processors which Intel is copying for their upcoming 64Bit Prescott, Intel is calling it iAMD64 and passing it off as their own (cheap if you ask me). AMD's engineers have done nothing short of 0WN Intel's ARSE since the Original Athlon.

[maynoth]

Also Intel designed the Pentium for to perform worse than the Pentium III but in exchange they could clock it faster. The 1.4Ghz Pentium III's devastated the 1.4Ghz Pentium 4's The Pentium 4 is designed to perform like crap but in exchange can be clocked higher. Intel did this to play on people's ignorance. The more Ghz the better, Intel has a good PR dept, and they are not stupid. Sure Intel may be able to reach 4Ghz but what’s the point when a 2.5Ghz AMD CPU woops its arse, well the answer is marketing. Everyone knows that the more Ghz the better... LOL.. its marketing and it obviously works. The Opteron is technically more advanced than the p4 will ever be.

[MegaMog]

i said hyper trasnport owns on the amd 64s cause it is far better then stupid hyper threading technolgy made by intel. I know amds chips are far better then intels. And as for intel copying amds 64 bit tech

"My understanding, based on the licensing agreement, is that Intel has access to AMD's patents so patent protection should not be a problem," said Richard Belgard, a noted patent consultant.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,39146227,00.htm


Under the terms of the settlement, both companies gained free access to each other's patents in a cross-licensing agreement. AMD agreed to pay Intel royalties for making chips based on the x86 architecture, said Mulloy, who worked for AMD when the settlement was drafted. Royalties, he added, only go one way. AMD does get to collect royalties from Intel for any patents Intel might adopt.


AMD also agreed not to make any clones of Intel chips, but nothing bars Intel from doing a clone of an AMD chip, Mulloy added.


While the terms may seem one-sided, AMD has benefited from the agreement as well. Without the clean and enforceable right to make x86 chips granted by the agreement, AMD would not have been able to produce the K6, K6 II, K6III, Athlon, Duron, Athlon 64 or Opteron chips without fear of incurring a lawsuit.

[maynoth]

Oh my bad... lol i thought you were saying hyperthreading beat amd lol i had to go read it again. sry

[dubstylee]

I use AMD in some of my desktop systems for gaming, but being a sysadmin for 4+ years, I will NEVER use an AMD processor in a production environment. Period.

[MegaMog]

still you get more bang for your buck with amd

[maynoth]

I use an AMD Barton 3200+ at my business, running with an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe motherboard. It has been solid as a rock now since I put it about a year ago. I have had MANY AMD/Nforce setups which have been just as stable as Pentium-4 machines. I see no valid reason to not use AMD in a business environment assuming adequate cooling precautions are taken.

[MegaMog]

amd is a much better cost effective solution then getting a celeron computer :D

[Xperience]

Yep. AMD 0WnZ iNTEL! I was an intel fanboy but my pc has an amd duron 800Mhz and it boots faster than p3s and my friends Athlon XP 1600+ which shouldnt be right. my pc boots in like 10-15 secs from the time i hit the power button.(if this thread were like 4/5 years ago evryone would say intel cause PII`s were kick ass!)


*********************************** M M EEEEEEE ! !
* a m m ddddd * M M M M E ! !
* a a m m m m d d * M M M E ! !
* a a m m m d d * M M EEEEEEE ! !
* aaaaa m m d d * M M E ! !
* a a m m d d * M M E !
*a a m m ddddd * M M EEEEEEE 0000
********************************** 0000

[MegaMog]

i hear that my 700 amd boots up in little under 6 secs beating my friends athlon xp (running XP) by atleast a min and a half

[Xperience]

well mine boots in like 7 secs but i put 10-15 cause i thought ppl would say i was bull shitting

[MegaMog]

amd with an older OS boot uber fast

[maynoth]

I have an AMD Duron 850Mhz OC to 1.1Ghz (133mhz FSB) running Win2k for a download manager... it is very fast for what it does...

[Xperience]

Yep AMDs rock!

[seraph]

May vote also goes to AMD. I have the athlon xp 3000+ and haven't had any problems yet, while my friends who almost all own an intel cpu, have only had trouble!

[so_i_stand]

lol, the biggest argument since the pepsi vs. coke. I personally have had better luck overclocking amd's intel locks there chips up so you cant do anything. intel overclocks there processors anyway, thats why there so damn fast, not like the average user is going to use that power anyway, most ppl wouldnt notice the difference. just like most ppl cant tell the difference if there given pepsi and told its coke, or vice versa. who cares??!!

[so_i_stand]

lol on the poles amd is red intel is blue

[Disaster Man]

I would would get the best AMD cpu you can afford. If the "moron" naming is right then you get the performance of a Pentium Extreme Edition for less money.

Hey you callin' me a moron CCSDude? I look at those numbers and like them.

What you need are some benchmarks there a few sites listed here by DampCold (he's the one to take shopping with you) that might help you. Visit thoughs and make your own mind up.

[WE_DELIVER]

I'm kinda an intel fanboy....but recently I dont really care.
They seem to perform about equal, although P4s are a bit more expensive.
I have a P4 machine at home and it runs great!
Whatever the choice though...I think it is essential to have a virtual or real dual cpu setup...

Here at work I just built myself a Dual AMD Opteron 250 system....and it runs awesome as well.
Although some apps dont use HyperThreading/Dual CPU's this system works for 3dsMax, Photoshop, AfterEffects, etc. which is what I use most anyway...

[cpugeniusmv]

did i vote in this thread? if i did, i'm sure i voted AMD...well, i'm changing to pepsi now.

bye. :D

[CCSDUDE]

I would would get the best AMD cpu you can afford. If the "moron" naming is right then you get the performance of a Pentium Extreme Edition for less money.

Hey you callin' me a moron CCSDude? I look at those numbers and like them.

What you need are some benchmarks there a few sites listed here by DampCold (he's the one to take shopping with you) that might help you. Visit thoughs and make your own mind up.

Idiots like big shiny numbers...if you like big shiny numbers you can answer your own question. :)