|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
What is better? AMD or Intel
What company do you think makes better processors?
AMD or Intel?
AMD or Intel?
I would say the AMD.
AMD's use underclocking techniques to lower temperatures and save battery power. Most machine manufacturers take advantage of this and it enables them to use smaller cases for the computer.
Another reason, is that AMD's dedicated more processing power to the currently running program, or the program which is selected from the task bar, whereas Pentium's are built to multi-task (i think), therefore sharing processing power between programs equally as they are queued on the taskbar.
AMD > INTEL
AMD's use underclocking techniques to lower temperatures and save battery power. Most machine manufacturers take advantage of this and it enables them to use smaller cases for the computer.
Another reason, is that AMD's dedicated more processing power to the currently running program, or the program which is selected from the task bar, whereas Pentium's are built to multi-task (i think), therefore sharing processing power between programs equally as they are queued on the taskbar.
AMD > INTEL
Just from using both I think AMD. I don't know why, but AMD always seems to run faster for me.
For me, my general assumption is that :
For gamers : AMD
For processing : P4
If the multutasking you're talking about is the HyperThreading technology, then it's just a gimmick for the most part, as one processor can only load one process, Windows only gives an illusion of multi tasking by switching to different processes one by one.
And I think your poll is a little unfair, an AMD 3800+ is just faster in all aspects than a P4 3.4 because the AMD 3800 is newer..... It would be more fair if you used a 3400+ Rating processor as well. >.>
However, the 64 Bit processors are a different story.
For gamers : AMD
For processing : P4
If the multutasking you're talking about is the HyperThreading technology, then it's just a gimmick for the most part, as one processor can only load one process, Windows only gives an illusion of multi tasking by switching to different processes one by one.
And I think your poll is a little unfair, an AMD 3800+ is just faster in all aspects than a P4 3.4 because the AMD 3800 is newer..... It would be more fair if you used a 3400+ Rating processor as well. >.>
However, the 64 Bit processors are a different story.
I agree that AMD > Intel in a lot of cases. I don't agree with Sephz0r's point in that both AMD and Intel have their own algorithms for parallel processing or multi-threading within the CPU. Windows is not using special instructions to schedule processes based on CPU type. Whether one program in the task bar gets executed, it is determined by the OS not the CPU.
In many cases, CPU is not that crucial. Memory is more important to your speed if you are using Windows.
In many cases, CPU is not that crucial. Memory is more important to your speed if you are using Windows.
I would have to say AMD. but just my opinion which every one has one. but would suggest staying away from the new 64 bit processors till they get more support for it. a friend of mine has one and cannot get most things to work on it yet such as some webcams and printers.
simply, i think the difference that matters for most users is that:
1. amd is just as good but is cheaper then intel
2. for very high performance applications, intel may have offerings that amd cannot match (but this changes from year to year).
1. amd is just as good but is cheaper then intel
2. for very high performance applications, intel may have offerings that amd cannot match (but this changes from year to year).
Right now AMD processors are performing better than their Intel counterparts.
AMD are better processors for a few reasons:
Price - AMD chips are significantly cheaper than Intel in most cases.
Power Consumption - AMD processors tend to use much less power than an Intel equivalent.
Temperature - AMD chips often run cooler than Intel, so you don't have to use such large fans. This means the computer might run quieter too.
There are a couple of disadvantages though. For instance, Intel's HT (Hyperthreading Technology) is supposed to be excellent. This HT makes the processor act as though it is two processors, making multiple-thread calculations possible and increasing performance under certain conditions. The new Intel Dual-Core processors have two processing units inside on chip - they have also included HT in these, making the computer "appear" to have 4 processors. I've obviously not tested these chips, but if they're good, they will most likely blow the AMDs away.
... Unless AMD come up with an HT equivalent and implement it on their chips. Then we'd have to see test results to make a comparison!
Price - AMD chips are significantly cheaper than Intel in most cases.
Power Consumption - AMD processors tend to use much less power than an Intel equivalent.
Temperature - AMD chips often run cooler than Intel, so you don't have to use such large fans. This means the computer might run quieter too.
There are a couple of disadvantages though. For instance, Intel's HT (Hyperthreading Technology) is supposed to be excellent. This HT makes the processor act as though it is two processors, making multiple-thread calculations possible and increasing performance under certain conditions. The new Intel Dual-Core processors have two processing units inside on chip - they have also included HT in these, making the computer "appear" to have 4 processors. I've obviously not tested these chips, but if they're good, they will most likely blow the AMDs away.
... Unless AMD come up with an HT equivalent and implement it on their chips. Then we'd have to see test results to make a comparison!
| Animal wrote: |
| AMD are better processors for a few reasons:
Price - AMD chips are significantly cheaper than Intel in most cases. Power Consumption - AMD processors tend to use much less power than an Intel equivalent. Temperature - AMD chips often run cooler than Intel, so you don't have to use such large fans. This means the computer might run quieter too. |
I outlined this in my post, and this is true, due to the fact AMD processors underclock themselves when the full power is not needed.
| Animal wrote: |
|
There are a couple of disadvantages though. For instance, Intel's HT (Hyperthreading Technology) is supposed to be excellent. This HT makes the processor act as though it is two processors, making multiple-thread calculations possible and increasing performance under certain conditions. The new Intel Dual-Core processors have two processing units inside on chip - they have also included HT in these, making the computer "appear" to have 4 processors. I've obviously not tested these chips, but if they're good, they will most likely blow the AMDs away. ... Unless AMD come up with an HT equivalent and implement it on their chips. Then we'd have to see test results to make a comparison! |
I thought AMD had implemented their new HyperTransport system?
As far as I know, HyperTransport makes it so the processor doesnt have to act like two single processors, but still be as fast as the Hyperthreading system.
| Sephz0r wrote: |
| ... AMD processors underclock themselves when the full power is not needed. |
Yeah - the Pentium M series of processors do this, and these are widely regarded to be amongst the best processors available. Some companies (particularly those making small form factor PCs) are using mobile chips on desktop computers.
| Sephz0r wrote: |
| I thought AMD had implemented their new HyperTransport system? |
You may be right - I've not used an AMD HyperTransport system though, so couldn't comment. A few sites I've read have suggested that Intel's HT is the next best thing to dual core, but I've not heard anything about AMD's technologies. This doesn't mean it's any worse though - it might just be that Intel got there first.
Not sure, but I think I read somewhere that AMD's HyperTransport had something to do with increasing the bus speed, not the processor speed. And I would say AMD if for no other reason than their price. Intel has yet to equal the Sempron; There is a notable difference between their P4 and equivalent Celeron, but I've noticed no such difference between the Athlon and Sempron. Plus AMD's all over them in 64 bit...
I have used both Intel and AMD processors and I have found both to be 100% reliable so I would say buy on price alone. AMD usually wins here but not always.
I always Vote for AMD bcoz of its performance and price. while comparing to Intel 3.4 Ghz AMD 3800+ bcoz AMD + nforce chipset motherboard is working very fine. At the same the while comparing to intel it is 1/3 cheaper too. So my vote is for AMD
I vote AMD.Because now amd is a performance is better and cheapest processer
AMD, even though it runs hotter than intel, its sitll better, and much easier to overclock!
that comparison is really obvious. Amd use PR as a counter to Intel marketing strategy. That means Amd 3800+ is better than Intel P4 3.4 Ghz. Amd 3800+ = Intel 3.8 Ghz and so on. And one more thing, Intel processor is hot, very hot even in idle.
| takercena wrote: |
| that comparison is really obvious. Amd use PR as a counter to Intel marketing strategy. That means Amd 3800+ is better than Intel P4 3.4 Ghz. Amd 3800+ = Intel 3.8 Ghz and so on. And one more thing, Intel processor is hot, very hot even in idle. |
amd is quite hot too..on a stock fan i was getting 50c
I would go with Intel. It seems that Intel is easier to determine how fast the processor is. With AMD, first-time buyers don't know the actual speed of the processor. I mean I've been around computers pretty much all my life (which is about 13 years). I still don't understand how exactly the AMD processors rank and if the actual processor speed in Ghz is the same as the number with the model of the processor. For example, is an AMD Sempron 2800+ mean that the computer has a 2.8 Ghz processor? It makes no sense. Intel is much easier to understand and I think is better overall.
AMD:far the best!FROM ALL INTEL CPUs!!!Evenfor multitasking and all...FAR the best, their is no discussiion about it...The only CPU, that AMD can't equal YET at least, is the iNTEL XEON series...They are a lot better, but they are used only for servers, and proffetional reasons...So amd is the best for personal computers, either for games, or for other aplications...( i believe that amd will soon launch a series of CPUs for servers, and beat the XEON series...)
INTEL is better.
amd is better
although intel manages to stuff more clokc cycles (ghz) in their cpus; amds make up for their slower speed with a lot more cache, a faster fsb and a better designed architecture
although intel manages to stuff more clokc cycles (ghz) in their cpus; amds make up for their slower speed with a lot more cache, a faster fsb and a better designed architecture
Although right now I'm running an Intel, I do believe that AMD's processors are better at this time. AMD and Intel just seem to be playing leap-frog; one releases something better than the other, and the other releases something better than what the other did...on and on just trying to get ahead of each other. AMD beat Intel to 64-bit processors, so Intel has some catching up to do, especially since Windows Vista comes out this year (unless Microsofts sets it back AGAIN)...
This is not a Computer Problem. I'm 100% confident of that.
-close-
-close-
True 
I'll move it to the right forum
-moved-
-opened-
I'll move it to the right forum
-moved-
-opened-
Check the CPU charts at:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/
It DOES depend on what you are doing with your computer. Intel WAXES AMD when doing multimedia apps, like 3d studio max, simply because of its hyperthreading technology and such. But for games, AMD is the way to go for now. I myself have an Intel because i use 3ds max and stuff...
The AMD 3800+ processor is the more efficient processor because it is the equivalent of an Intel P4 3.8 GHz. AMD does not give you a definite clock speed because it uses a special architecture that allows it to use less cycles to perform more processes. This special architecture does not incorporate the idea of overclocking, so when using overclocking, AMD and Intel gain equivalent values in processing speed. The AMD processors may not be as popular as Intel, but they are better, and especially in terms of advancements in technology. AMD came out with the Athlon 64 at least 2 years before Intel, and by then AMD had come out with it's Athlon FX processor which could process up to 5.7 GHz, which was unheard of at the time. This lapse in advancements in the timeline of Intel shows that they should not be as successful as AMD, but marketing is the basis of popularity. I had never seen an AMD processor until four years ago, and from that point on, I believed that the AMD processor was the better. People may have their opinions, but I would give my opinion with reason that AMD makes the better processor.
Intel is better for me simply because I can't stand a hot and/or noisy computer.....
I have an intel, but I wish I had an AMD 
I use intel because in my case it was turning out to be cheaper then amd. 
In the past, AMD has usually come out on top for reliability and speed for the cost. When I purchased my current processor, that was still the case. I'll find out again when I upgrade next.
AMD rocks! I have been using Athlon 64 for sorts of things n it simply works!!!
I vote for amd coz I use it. I never used Intel 3.4.
But in my place there is rare availability of AMD processors and esp good motherboards for it. I had to wait whole one month for the Asus mobo to arrive. Well, now things have changed in a rapid way. AMD is everywhere. It is popular coz of its ultimate gaming performance.
I vote for amd coz I use it. I never used Intel 3.4.
But in my place there is rare availability of AMD processors and esp good motherboards for it. I had to wait whole one month for the Asus mobo to arrive. Well, now things have changed in a rapid way. AMD is everywhere. It is popular coz of its ultimate gaming performance.
I more perfer AMD because is cheapest .
Both my Processors are AMD
1. They're cheaper
2. They're cooler
3. They're faster (imho!)
Greetz, Arno
1. They're cheaper
2. They're cooler
3. They're faster (imho!)
Greetz, Arno
Yeh,
When some people look for a cpu they look for the speed they don't look at other features of the cpu. AMD's might have a lower core speed but they are much more efficent then intels so they don't useally need that extra speed intel does to run that fast.
Not to mention because intel needs all that speed they will usally have heat issues.
Another think AMD's have that intel doesn't is the on chip virus protection. AMD's will not compute virus coding helping you keep your computer safe from viruses.
When some people look for a cpu they look for the speed they don't look at other features of the cpu. AMD's might have a lower core speed but they are much more efficent then intels so they don't useally need that extra speed intel does to run that fast.
Not to mention because intel needs all that speed they will usally have heat issues.
Another think AMD's have that intel doesn't is the on chip virus protection. AMD's will not compute virus coding helping you keep your computer safe from viruses.
| bicefalus wrote: |
| What do you think is a better processor?
AMD 3800+ or Intel 3.4 GHz |
Amd for gamers and Intel for others.
I work with CPU AMD because they are but stable in the games - these I use them in cibers - also Wendish and when they request information to me I propose AMD to them since I do not want to disappoint the clients
Lol whoever said AMD is cooler is pretty sick.. Stop the CPU Fan for like 30 seconds. You could easily cook some eggs on there.... just melts away like butter in a cookingpan. Intel wont get quick to a 100 degrees in lots more time.
These Dual core Cpu's from AMD overrule the ones from Intel. Intel probably get a new Dual technology on the market. Cuz their Dualcore's pretty much stink. Own my cpu though (Intel P4 2.4@2.6ghz).
You want the best, get an AMD!
And by the way. My cpu is 30 degrees in idle. 45 when gaming. Its an intel P4 standart coolerfan. And I clocked it a bit. Can do more. From 2.4Gh to 2.6.... Not the best cpu but its fast enough to game with. Only need more Memory and new vga.
cya
These Dual core Cpu's from AMD overrule the ones from Intel. Intel probably get a new Dual technology on the market. Cuz their Dualcore's pretty much stink. Own my cpu though (Intel P4 2.4@2.6ghz).
You want the best, get an AMD!
And by the way. My cpu is 30 degrees in idle. 45 when gaming. Its an intel P4 standart coolerfan. And I clocked it a bit. Can do more. From 2.4Gh to 2.6.... Not the best cpu but its fast enough to game with. Only need more Memory and new vga.
cya
| Helios wrote: |
| Next time, use the edit button or get a warning for spam. |
From what I've heard, you can OverClock AMD chips much farther than many Intel chips. The world will cringe in fear behing my dual-cpu Athlon 64 FX server I'm gonna build underneath my floor. Does anyone know of a mobo that supports two of these bad boys?
-Aquastrike
-Aquastrike
But for using in notebooks, Intel is much more efective, since AMD is warming very fast.
I have an Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego and I <3 it. It's got a 1mb L2 Cache, and a 1GHz FSB. That, along with 2GB of Dual Channel DDR400 and a 6800GS = dopeness
INTEL is better for me but it only depends on the user.
AMD is cheaper than P4, and runs great video editing programs, for me AMD is a great option also I'm a gamer and the AMD performance is very good, the Sunday I played Quake 4 on full graphics options with Battlefield 2 full graphics open and nothing happened, is great performer, great price and great compatibility.
I already have the AMD 3700+ 64bits procesor
Great.
I already have the AMD 3700+ 64bits procesor
Great.I have been around intel processors all of my life. At school, Home and my laptop are all intel processors and I havnt had any problems so i would still stay with intel core
im going with amd. not just because i like it, its because there are so many ways to overclock it. I don't know about u overclockers out there but i took my amd athlon 3200 from 2.2ghz to 2.6ghz and its probably possible to make it go higher (water cooling might be required). On the other hand, intel, i think is more for those who run a business. you don't really need to overclock ur processor to run microsoft word, do u? Its usually gamers that push their comps to the limit. Any way, thats what i think.
| garionw wrote: |
| I have been around intel processors all of my life. At school, Home and my laptop are all intel processors and I havnt had any problems so i would still stay with intel core |
Nobody here is saying there are problems with Intel chips. They are very good solid performers and that goes for AMD too.
The way I see it is this:
AMD keep Intel honest by keeping prices down
Intel would slow development if AMD were not pushing the performance envelope. (AMD 64 put pressure on Intel to deliver 64 bit architecture, previously Intel dragged their heels on 32 bit architecture)
Intel produced the Celeron to compete with AMD, and the Celeron is an absolute joke of a processor. Without AMD, Intel would have got away with that horses ass.
I have used both Intel and AMD processors for years, as well as Cyrix/IBM. The first processor I worked with was an Intel 8088, then a NEC V20. I have switched to AMD because they are cheaper, they do not reuqire you to buy expensive Mobos and they are faster buck for buck.
I would go with an AMD Athlon 64 if your looking for something wuick and good.
I use one in one of my machines. Runs better than my friends P4 3.0Ghz(with hyper-threading).
AMD has always been a better processor than Intel. Most of the time. Athlons are the way to go.
Intel has speed, but with the way they are built, they don't seem to run very fast. AMD Athlon 64 2.0GHz runs faster and more stable than P4 3.0GHz. It is sad, but very true.
I use one in one of my machines. Runs better than my friends P4 3.0Ghz(with hyper-threading).
AMD has always been a better processor than Intel. Most of the time. Athlons are the way to go.
Intel has speed, but with the way they are built, they don't seem to run very fast. AMD Athlon 64 2.0GHz runs faster and more stable than P4 3.0GHz. It is sad, but very true.
| DarkAkira wrote: |
| AMD has always been a better processor than Intel. Most of the time. Athlons are the way to go. |
I'm glad you qualified that! The AMD K4/K5 series were dogs, I've seen a lot of them die in front of my very eyes. Literally (in my experience) you had to buy two to be sure of one working out of the box. They got it right with the K6 series, but I was very wary of going back to them after my experiences with the previous generation(s)
this disuccussion is uselees, because isnt about the last processors...
Lets talk about the INTEL D VS THE AMD FX X2?
64 bits, dual core technology and that.
where AMD cpus are not cheaper that Intels
Lets talk about the INTEL D VS THE AMD FX X2?
64 bits, dual core technology and that.
where AMD cpus are not cheaper that Intels
| anticitizen1 wrote: |
| this disuccussion is uselees, because isnt about the last processors...
Lets talk about the INTEL D VS THE AMD FX X2? 64 bits, dual core technology and that. where AMD cpus are not cheaper that Intels |
Indeed, the most expensive AMD CPU costs more then the most expensive Intel CPU.
Though any AMD CPU that is in the same pricerange as it's Intel competitor, will beat it.
X2 is way more powerful than anything intel has on the market right now.
Me and my friend have been looking for upgrades. He does Intel, I do AMD.
Even he admits my AMD will kick his intels ass.
Me and my friend have been looking for upgrades. He does Intel, I do AMD.
Even he admits my AMD will kick his intels ass.
I have intel 3.2 & I tried the AMD 3500 & I think that Intel is better than AMD in many facts , intel faster than AMD , dunno but I heard some info about the AMD 4000 & it seems to be good
AMD all the way. Gaming or digital content creation.
Intel, I guess, for legacy lovers and loyal folks.
I use an A64 3000+ which pretty much fulfils my need for speed and doesn't cause any quakes at all. Intel Pentium M and Intel Celeron are especially pathetic (dunno about core duo) when it comes to anything more than web browsing (I have a Compaq [1.6G Pentium M] laptop).
Dunno about the top end but AMD's pieces are fine all the way down to 3000+. An FX60 is not unwelcome, though
And the only place I don't mind an intel inside... is inside a Mac (can't do much about it anyway) :p
Cheers
Intel, I guess, for legacy lovers and loyal folks.
I use an A64 3000+ which pretty much fulfils my need for speed and doesn't cause any quakes at all. Intel Pentium M and Intel Celeron are especially pathetic (dunno about core duo) when it comes to anything more than web browsing (I have a Compaq [1.6G Pentium M] laptop).
Dunno about the top end but AMD's pieces are fine all the way down to 3000+. An FX60 is not unwelcome, though
And the only place I don't mind an intel inside... is inside a Mac (can't do much about it anyway) :p
Cheers
One word, AMD. AMD has shown that it can, indeed, beat Intel. AMD is a gamer's dream come true. Intel is overpriced, and noisy. Though, in some cases, AMD runs hotter. AMD beats Intel everywhere, from the desktop to the laptop, and from the multimedia PC to an ultimate gaming PC. The one problem with AMD is that it doesn't come in many computers. Though, I prefer to build, AMD should replace Intel in many computer companies, especially Dell. In conclusion, AMD is far better than Intel will ever be.
AMD has really been one step ahead of Intel for the last 2 years for the most part. x64, Gaming, Speed, Power comsp., and price. If you do heavy app cpu work like audio or graphics, than Intel is for you. I wonder what most people actually use their computers for, I got the impression that less than 10% do heavy video editing and such, Tell me if I'm wrong. 
I think it is interesting that soon Intel will be droping the P4 line in favor of the old P3s for the base CPU of the future. The P4s take to much power, and are way to hot. So must for the last few years of research. My old AMD 3700+ beats any P4 3.8 for gaming and thats what matters for me. Well duel core and cell tech should be interesting. We will see if AMD can keep going strong.
I think AMD By far cant wait till amd socket to comes out!!
AMD has slowly won the hearts of the overall consumer, i too love AMD the main attraction to me is the overclocking ability, power consumptions and heat. Especially for people that leaves their computer on for days, it will be difficult if it sttracts more heat and cost more on your monthly bill ^^
it's depends how would you use your PC, for games it's AMD and for applecatians like FL studio or CUBASE it's INTEL
I think Intel 3.4 Ghz is more good. comparison is really obvious. Amd use PR as a counter to Intel marketing strategy. That means Amd 3800+ is better than Intel P4 3.4 Ghz. Amd 3800+ = Intel 3.8 Ghz and so on. And one more thing, Intel processor is hot.
Amd's products also cheaper than Intel's products.The server of AMD is very good.You can accept their good servers when you buy their products.I use it now,it's very good.You can try it .It's really good one!
Amd's products also cheaper than Intel's products.The server of AMD is very good.You can accept their good servers when you buy their products.I use it now,it's very good.You can try it .It's really good one!
i used intel for the past five years but last year i got an AMD pc, with was roughly 200mhz clock speed lower
and i have found that it is much faster and more reliable than my intel had ever been...even when i brought it
and i have found that it is much faster and more reliable than my intel had ever been...even when i brought it
AMD of course 
AMD wil always be the best. But we will see, because Intel is going to release very good Conroe processor. I saw some tests of it. The Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8 GHz had no chance with conroe 2.66 Ghz. And conroe 2.66 will not be high-end processor, but mid-end... But I'm waiting for K9 and I believe that this processor will be better than Conroe.. I hope
AMD wil always be the best. But we will see, because Intel is going to release very good Conroe processor. I saw some tests of it. The Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8 GHz had no chance with conroe 2.66 Ghz. And conroe 2.66 will not be high-end processor, but mid-end... But I'm waiting for K9 and I believe that this processor will be better than Conroe.. I hope
Amd AMD Amd ...............
Amd is cheap and steabil I m using No problem
Amd is cheap and steabil I m using No problem
it was a very hard decision, but i chose AMD, they are my initials btw. is it possible to run an amd and an intel on the same motherboard? that would be the ultimate system
| The_Gamer294 wrote: |
| it was a very hard decision, but i chose AMD, they are my initials btw. is it possible to run an amd and an intel on the same motherboard? that would be the ultimate system |
It's impossible because AMD's processors require other types of socket than Penitum 4. Athlon 64 is to Socket 754, 939, 940 or AM2. Pentium 4 Prescott, Extreme Edition, Presler and Cedar Mill are to Socket T (LGA 775)
AMD was, it is and will be the best!!!!
AMD was, it is and will be the best. You compare AMD and Intel notice that AMD is cheaper!!!
AMD was, it is and will be the best. You compare AMD and Intel notice that AMD is cheaper!!!
I think intel A ton of computers have them but some are hard to overclock and heat is an issue
i vote amd because their speed is far beyond the intel processor
AMD i use it coz low price but hight power
AMD is way better (sometimes by price too)
but, running Folding@Home (folding.stanford.edu) runs slower on AMD machines.
I might still be tempted to buy Intels because I got no money to build one and HP is the only one that has AMDs
but, running Folding@Home (folding.stanford.edu) runs slower on AMD machines.
I might still be tempted to buy Intels because I got no money to build one and HP is the only one that has AMDs
i like intel better for now. i'm planning to upgrade my desktop and found out amd's dual core processors are by far expensive than intel's. intel's recent 0.65u processor has 2M internal L2 cache and i'm guessing that it'll give better performance over amd's 1M cache architecture.
Vote Intel - I always trust it, very reliable thing!
amd is better than intel except for the games
AMD
That's what I'll take for my new computer
Look at this article:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav
That's what I'll take for my new computer
Look at this article:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav
| Quote: |
| After reading the round-by-round account of our dual-core desktop CPU prizefight, it should come as no shock that AMD's Athlon 64 X2 chips are the runaway victors here, laying out the Intel Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition 840 chips pins up. If we had to call out one chip, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4400+ is an outstanding bargain given the competition, but as our results show, any AMD dual-core CPU will serve you better than its similarly priced Intel equivalent.
If you're wondering why there's such a striking performance difference between the two companies' processors, it likely has something to do with the memory controller. Among the technological differences between the two, AMD's memory controller--the component that sends information back and forth between your system's CPU and the memory--is an integrated part of the Athlon 64 X2's chip architecture. Intel's memory controller, however, exists as a separate piece of silicon on the motherboard. The additional distance between the CPU and the memory controller adds to the processing lag time and likely plays a part in Intel's lower scores. Whatever Intel's strategy, it doesn't seem to have held up. We're very interested to see what happens when the next generation of chips and chipsets hits the market starting in January. But until then, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 should be your dual-core processor of choice. |
| Animal wrote: |
| Use Quote tags as per the forum rules. If you don't you may get a warning for spam. |
AMD forever!!!! I hosted a game server on Intel because i thought it would be faster for single applications, but i had to switch computer because it was burning hot. I changed from Intel 3.0ghz overclocked to 3.6ghz to AMD 3200+ 2.2ghz overclocked to 2.8ghz
The difference is noticable for my 100 players But after awhile, i had to switch again so i can play my own games on my own computer
My CPU Stats Atm:
AMD 3200+ Newcastle 2.2ghz overclocked to 2.83ghz
Voltage: 1.575-1.600
RAM Timings: 2-3-2-5 (If i loosen it, my CPU will be super fast but some programs might lose some performance)
Temperature:
Stock: 29degree celsius IDLE -> 35degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
Overclocked: 33degree celsius IDLE -> 43degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
------------------------
Intel Temperature:
Stock: 35degree celsius IDLE -> 41degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
Overclocked: 38degree celsius IDLE -> 46degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
-----------------------
Peformance comparison: (Vsync is enabled)
AMD Stock: 25-75FPS
AMD Overclocked: 33-75FPS
Intel Stock: 18-75FPS
Intel Overclocked: 24-75FPS
To sum it up, AMD pwns Intel in every case! The price is better, speed is better, temperature is cooler, overclocking is more easy to do and ...more!
The difference is noticable for my 100 players
But after awhile, i had to switch again so i can play my own games on my own computer
My CPU Stats Atm:
AMD 3200+ Newcastle 2.2ghz overclocked to 2.83ghz
Voltage: 1.575-1.600
RAM Timings: 2-3-2-5 (If i loosen it, my CPU will be super fast but some programs might lose some performance)
Temperature:
Stock: 29degree celsius IDLE -> 35degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
Overclocked: 33degree celsius IDLE -> 43degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
------------------------
Intel Temperature:
Stock: 35degree celsius IDLE -> 41degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
Overclocked: 38degree celsius IDLE -> 46degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
-----------------------
Peformance comparison: (Vsync is enabled)
AMD Stock: 25-75FPS
AMD Overclocked: 33-75FPS
Intel Stock: 18-75FPS
Intel Overclocked: 24-75FPS
To sum it up, AMD pwns Intel in every case! The price is better, speed is better, temperature is cooler, overclocking is more easy to do and ...more!
Amd Amd AMD
2 reason
Performance
Prize
2 reason
Performance
PrizeAMD because of its new 64- bit processor.
I prefer AMD.
AMD is more geared towards gaming.
And Intel is more of a multi-tasking processor
AMD is more geared towards gaming.
And Intel is more of a multi-tasking processor
| thuganomics wrote: |
| AMD forever!!!! I hosted a game server on Intel because i thought it would be faster for single applications, but i had to switch computer because it was burning hot. I changed from Intel 3.0ghz overclocked to 3.6ghz to AMD 3200+ 2.2ghz overclocked to 2.8ghz
The difference is noticable for my 100 players But after awhile, i had to switch again so i can play my own games on my own computer
My CPU Stats Atm: AMD 3200+ Newcastle 2.2ghz overclocked to 2.83ghz Voltage: 1.575-1.600 RAM Timings: 2-3-2-5 (If i loosen it, my CPU will be super fast but some programs might lose some performance) Temperature: Stock: 29degree celsius IDLE -> 35degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2 Overclocked: 33degree celsius IDLE -> 43degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2 ------------------------ Intel Temperature: Stock: 35degree celsius IDLE -> 41degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2 Overclocked: 38degree celsius IDLE -> 46degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2 ----------------------- Peformance comparison: (Vsync is enabled) AMD Stock: 25-75FPS AMD Overclocked: 33-75FPS Intel Stock: 18-75FPS Intel Overclocked: 24-75FPS To sum it up, AMD pwns Intel in every case! The price is better, speed is better, temperature is cooler, overclocking is more easy to do and ...more! |
why overclock ?? do u actually notice a difference when playing games? or does it turn u on to see higher numbers on the benchmark?
I've had both started with an amd athlon xp3200 great cpu, then upgraded to a p4 3.6 ghz even though theres a giant leap in price difference at least £250 the bigger pricetab isnt justified and i couldnt see a great difference between the two but obviously if monbey isnt an object itsthe intel if not amddo a great job and arent much further behind for a lot less money.
Hello
Go for the AMD 3800+, my friend has a AMD 3200+ and it beats alot of the Intel processors that cost up to 200+ more.
The main advantages of the AMD Processor compared to Intel is that they have a 2000Mhz FSB speed. Even with the lesser processor speed they haven't got nearly the bottle neck problem that Intel processors have with their 800Mhz FSB.
Also they run at a lower wattage which means less heat problems which means the ability to overclock is greatly increased.
Hope it has helped, go AMD because they are better, and cheaper.
britto
Go for the AMD 3800+, my friend has a AMD 3200+ and it beats alot of the Intel processors that cost up to 200+ more.
The main advantages of the AMD Processor compared to Intel is that they have a 2000Mhz FSB speed. Even with the lesser processor speed they haven't got nearly the bottle neck problem that Intel processors have with their 800Mhz FSB.
Also they run at a lower wattage which means less heat problems which means the ability to overclock is greatly increased.
Hope it has helped, go AMD because they are better, and cheaper.
britto
I am currently using a Pentium not used AMD b4. But reading all the above posts can one summarize that AMD is more suited for gamers ? I am a graphic designer and hope to buy a new one soon. What would u suggest 4 me ?
I have a Intel Dual Core and I like it.
I vote Intel.
I vote Intel.
I dont understand why people still argue about this,
every forum i ve entered there is a topic like that
and the winner is AMD.
Amd is the best, this is just my opinion.
I dont work for AMD : )
every forum i ve entered there is a topic like that
and the winner is AMD.
Amd is the best, this is just my opinion.
I dont work for AMD : )
Amd my 3700 goes to 2.8 on air @ 1.4
AMD all the way.
1. It's cooler
2. It's faster
3. They don't have f'ed up Heat Sink to motherboard connection
1. It's cooler
2. It's faster
3. They don't have f'ed up Heat Sink to motherboard connection
I think that AMD 3800+ is better. AMD is very good PC company, and quality of PC`s who was made by AMD - don't brake so fast
I have used both, and AMD has always come out on top for me. I have noticed that AMD has always run at a lower temp, allowing me to run it harder. In the long run, lower temperature allows igher overclocking makeing the AMD come out on top starting from the same stock speed as the Intel
Personally I have used both AMD and Intel and I found that they both have their up sides and their down sides.
The Good:
Intel - Better at switching between tasks and have higher solicited clock speeds that some games and apps ask you for.
AMD - Good for overclocking thanks to unlocked multipliers, runs cool, runs games more efficiently, can run at same speeds as intel can with a lower clock speed. Faster FSB speeds.
The Bad:
Intel - The tend to run rather hot so you need more extensive cooling, they have locked multipliers so thats bad for overclocking. slower FSB speeds.
AMD - I have had problems since my processor is only rated at 2.2Ghz running programs that require 2.5Ghz or sometimes even 2Ghz even though they are just as fast as the higher clocked intels. Right now AMD chips are a little more expensive than the newer intel Pentium D processors. Right now it doesnt support DDR2. (though AM2 will change that.)
Overall i have had very similar experiences with both my intel P4 that i used to have and my Opteron 148 that i just got. They seem to run basically the same, or atleast the difference is un-noticable to me. The only major thing I have really noticed is a drop in overall temp of my system. My old P4 was running at about 50C on average and my new Opteron is running close to that but i know it should be closer to 40C...i just have to figure out why, but once that is fixed, i will have a cooler machine. I have also noticed a difference in programs like PSCS where with the P4 i had a good deal of lag when using certain brushes but now i dont have it as bad, though that could be because of the upgraded video card...
If i had to pick one though it would definatly be the AMD processors because I personally like to overclock and AMD allows me to do that, plus it is better in gaming and has lower temps.
We'll see where my choice is when things change when Conroe comes out though
The Good:
Intel - Better at switching between tasks and have higher solicited clock speeds that some games and apps ask you for.
AMD - Good for overclocking thanks to unlocked multipliers, runs cool, runs games more efficiently, can run at same speeds as intel can with a lower clock speed. Faster FSB speeds.
The Bad:
Intel - The tend to run rather hot so you need more extensive cooling, they have locked multipliers so thats bad for overclocking. slower FSB speeds.
AMD - I have had problems since my processor is only rated at 2.2Ghz running programs that require 2.5Ghz or sometimes even 2Ghz even though they are just as fast as the higher clocked intels. Right now AMD chips are a little more expensive than the newer intel Pentium D processors. Right now it doesnt support DDR2. (though AM2 will change that.)
Overall i have had very similar experiences with both my intel P4 that i used to have and my Opteron 148 that i just got. They seem to run basically the same, or atleast the difference is un-noticable to me. The only major thing I have really noticed is a drop in overall temp of my system. My old P4 was running at about 50C on average and my new Opteron is running close to that but i know it should be closer to 40C...i just have to figure out why, but once that is fixed, i will have a cooler machine. I have also noticed a difference in programs like PSCS where with the P4 i had a good deal of lag when using certain brushes but now i dont have it as bad, though that could be because of the upgraded video card...
If i had to pick one though it would definatly be the AMD processors because I personally like to overclock and AMD allows me to do that, plus it is better in gaming and has lower temps.
We'll see where my choice is when things change when Conroe comes out though
AMD of course ^^
AMD is best today, at least to conroe comes
AMD is best today, at least to conroe comes
AMD IS WAY BETTER !....
i know Intel is planning to launch the Conroe (Core 2 Duo)... after seeing the initial test i have to admitt,.... thats some pretty big nos.. but I am not worrying about it... AMD Has their new 4x4 (Quad Core---it has FOUR cores) processor to be released in 2007... i mean intel is just settlin into their high performance dual core designs... and AMD already has Four cores...
AMD HAS ALREADY STARTED WORK ON 22 NM PROCESSORS ....
i really hope that they work with IBM to bring out Cell like processors for mainstream market....
i know Intel is planning to launch the Conroe (Core 2 Duo)... after seeing the initial test i have to admitt,.... thats some pretty big nos.. but I am not worrying about it... AMD Has their new 4x4 (Quad Core---it has FOUR cores) processor to be released in 2007... i mean intel is just settlin into their high performance dual core designs... and AMD already has Four cores...
AMD HAS ALREADY STARTED WORK ON 22 NM PROCESSORS ....
i really hope that they work with IBM to bring out Cell like processors for mainstream market....
| Quote: |
|
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) will ship four-core processors for servers, workstations and high-end desktops by mid-2007, company Chief Technology Officer Phil Hester said Thursday. The company will also launch a new dual-core design for mainstream desktops around that time. All four new processors will use AMD's new 65-nanometer process chip architecture, he told a room full of analysts at the company's annual Technology Day in Sunnyvale, California. AMD has led Intel in the move to dual-core processors, but Intel is set to raise the ante by shipping four-core chips in mid-2007. AMD's announcement will allow it to match that bid. In addition to building chips with more processing cores and smaller components, AMD also wants to build more efficient products. On Thursday the company also revealed plans to build a highly efficient dual-core notebook processor, set for release in the second half of 2007. Power efficiency is a major theme in the company's constant battle with Intel. AMD often claims superior power efficiency, expressed as performance-per-watt. The new family of chips will continue that theme by implementing a system that changes the frequency in each core to match its workload, Hester said. Compared to today's Opteron processor-powered servers, that approach will boost efficiency by 60 percent in 2007, and 150 percent in 2008. Likewise, AMD will use a similar approach to control power drain in the next-generation mobile processor. That dual-core chip will switch the power on or off in its cores, using only enough power to match the demands of its workload. At the analyst event, AMD also disclosed plans to open up its chip design to third-party developers, an effort the company has code-named "Torrenza." AMD hopes the effort will help it gain more partners among PC vendors in its effort to chisel market share away from giant Intel. Under the Torrenza plan, AMD will share the company's chip design with third-party developers, allowing them to develop application-specific co-processors to work alongside AMD chips in a multisocket system. The company also shared new market strategies to cut costs for enterprise IT managers by delivering a security bundle and by promoting thin-client computing. AMD will offer software tools to its OEM (original equipment manufacturer) partners, allowing them to reduce IT costs for commercial client and server platforms by linking three features -- security, virtualization and manageability. These open business models could spell success for AMD in its efforts to enlist more partners, analysts said. "If Torrenza will play up to their Direct Connect architecture, that means they will be pushing that architecture in general. That is an excellent opportunity to leverage openness and cultivate the entire ecosystem," said Kelly Quinn, an analyst with IDC. AMD also shed a little light on its roadmap for shrinking the wires and gates on its microprocessors. AMD's is already making processors using a 90 nanometer (nm) process but by the end of the year it expects to be producing 65-nm process chips. It will move to a 45-nm process by 2008 and shrink to 32 nm by 2010. AMD is even working on 22 nm technology today, in a joint research arrangement with IBM Corp. |
or heres the link....
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/06/01/78869_HNamdquad_1.html
Come on now..Seriously..AMD rox Intel...The ONLY Good thing about Intel is (I HEAR) their Core-Duo as opposed to AMD DUEL CORE technology is better...But overall I like AMD and I also hear Dell will be switchin from Intel to AMD (Not Sure on the facts as they are rumors to me, But i wouldnt doubt it
AMD Athlon Processor is always better. The reason for this is its massive 3800+. Intel has its powers as well though. Most Intels have pentium 4's which are reliable but as to say Amd Athlon has an amptitude of bieng in most computer system. HP has AMD. I think Dell uses Intel. Same with Gateway and Emachines both suck.
I love AMD 
No doubt.... AMD IS WAY BETTER............
and i know that the four core version will rock... and i am hoping it will run intel out of business....
and i know that the four core version will rock... and i am hoping it will run intel out of business....
wel lamd need more cooling capacity compare with intel if not your in troubel
AMD easily
AMD had some heating probs before.. but they fixed all that..we never hear of an AMD Overheating nowadays...
i know what i am going to say.. is not possilbe (hoping it is possilbe)... but what if AMD licenses CELL from Sony and IBM and Toshiba... waht if they come out with the general purpose ccell proc that we can all buy and use just like any other proc....wild idea.. may not be possible but... it wud be gr8...
i know what i am going to say.. is not possilbe (hoping it is possilbe)... but what if AMD licenses CELL from Sony and IBM and Toshiba... waht if they come out with the general purpose ccell proc that we can all buy and use just like any other proc....wild idea.. may not be possible but... it wud be gr8...
in my oppinion AMD trump intel. they were first out with a 64 consumer cpu, and if you are like me and like overclock your pc the bios in almost never locked. lower cpu temps and more stble, amd all the way
Amd was the pioneer in seamless 64 bit design... it was the only proc that was able to run 32 bit app and seamlessly switch to 64 bit ones.. i hear that intel actually licensed the AMD64 technology made some changes so as to fit their arch better, renamed as EM64T and released it...
I just purchased a 3200+ 64 processor and I have been AMD since they came out (even though Xeon is my namesake) and by far AMD is best for value. If you have no problems with funds I believe P4 and AMD are comperable, but where I come from Money is King and AMD is much, much cheaper over here. If you dare dabble in Dual Processor servers Intel has em beat easily.
I have a sony with Intel and it is very NOISY, my Gateway laptop has Intel and overheats too much. The HP I am using is just fine with AMD.
AMD is clearly the choice fo users. Economy is the most important determining factors. Should also consider power consumption and heat radiation for the 2 processors.
depending on their uses is which is better. AMD is a great gaming Cpu but i preffer the intel chip because i get better overall performance, i do quite a bit of divx encoding and video recording so this gives the intel a great bonus. I bought the 3GHz P4 chip, the dual cores where too expensive and not worth the hassle. I have the cpu overclocked to 3.6GHz as well as ram overclocked and my cpu stays a safe 40 degrees most of the time and that is stock cooling. AMD or Intel is all in the users
P.S. The equiverlant naming of the AMD such as 3800 is not a good reference because none of my friends with higher AMD cpu's get better performance than me.
P.S. The equiverlant naming of the AMD such as 3800 is not a good reference because none of my friends with higher AMD cpu's get better performance than me.
i prefer amd over intel. amd = more flops per dollar and less heat per flop. the only downside for amd has been chipset and ram support but this has been improving greatly in recent years.
AMD is definatly a better one than Intel, A great one for a serious gamer or for a great media fellow... but I suppose Intel will not be too bad..
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005Dec/bch20051215033811.htm
I found that article the other day^. It does a good job of explaining the difference between amd processors and intel's p4 netburst technology.
I found that article the other day^. It does a good job of explaining the difference between amd processors and intel's p4 netburst technology.
| tony wrote: |
| http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005Dec/bch20051215033811.htm
|
thats a pretty good explanation. i too would agree with the majority and say AMDs are better. looking at development AMD always seems to be ahead of intel aswell, an expample would be the mentioned quadcore processors that will be coming in a year or so
i have an older 1.5 gb intell processor my son has a newer amd chipset its a 2.2 but my intel smokes the amd we both have 768 mb of ram but my older intel runs circles arounf his amd imo intel p4 still rules
I don't consider an AMD vs Intel debate healthy for wise consumer. Take each product by themselves. At the time of my computer purchase, the Athlon 64 was the best bang for buck. If I was to purchase another computer in the next six months though, I'd probably go with a Core 2 Duo considering the great game performance and overclockability.
It's unfortunate for AMD that when they finally started getting a decent amount of market share due to their great Athlon 64/X2 processors, Intel stepped in with such a powerful dual core cpu. It's great for consumers though since prices on nearly every cpu have dropped dramatically in the last couple months.
Right now I'm looking at the E6600 as my CPU of choice, not that A64 X2s aren't a great buy given their crazy low price points.
It's unfortunate for AMD that when they finally started getting a decent amount of market share due to their great Athlon 64/X2 processors, Intel stepped in with such a powerful dual core cpu. It's great for consumers though since prices on nearly every cpu have dropped dramatically in the last couple months.
Right now I'm looking at the E6600 as my CPU of choice, not that A64 X2s aren't a great buy given their crazy low price points.
Core 2 duo was a blow to AMD's market share growth but surely that will never deter their spirits or enthusiasm to become the best once again. Plus we can hope for newer and better products (ALL-IN-ONE solutions), now that AMD partnered up with ATI.
Who knows what the future has for us, we can hope... AMD is not worried about the core 2 Duo as they know they are going to take back the market once they release the new quad core.
Who knows what the future has for us, we can hope... AMD is not worried about the core 2 Duo as they know they are going to take back the market once they release the new quad core.
I have both, but I don't think it makes much difference. For gaming, I would say AMD is better, but in laptops, Intel.
it looks like that intel is trying to win in a segment, that they never can.. the graphics segment... AMD got themselves the king, ATI.. intel is frantically trying to come out with a product similar to that of AMDs..
They are just a bunch of copy cats... i mean others make good ideas and intel just steals ("legally", though) them...come on... many are thinking they will go for nvidia,,,that again shows that they can come out with some thing or the other once in a while but they still need help from others to get back into the game... tell me how long will intel be at top...
They are just a bunch of copy cats... i mean others make good ideas and intel just steals ("legally", though) them...come on... many are thinking they will go for nvidia,,,that again shows that they can come out with some thing or the other once in a while but they still need help from others to get back into the game... tell me how long will intel be at top...
No daubt, you get the better Processor for your money at AMD's. More performance for the same money. Admittedly, I have an P4 3.0Ghz... But these days I'm working on a computer sys together with TomS, and I definitely recommended him to take an AMD after having talked about it for a while. Ok, today, I'd recommend the Athlon 64 X2 ones. Very good for the price is e.g. the 4200+ with an AM2-Socket. Don't take 939-sockets today anymore. They're old and you can't use DDR2-Ram...
| Sephz0r wrote: |
| I would say the AMD.
AMD's use underclocking techniques to lower temperatures and save battery power. Most machine manufacturers take advantage of this and it enables them to use smaller cases for the computer. Another reason, is that AMD's dedicated more processing power to the currently running program, or the program which is selected from the task bar, whereas Pentium's are built to multi-task (i think), therefore sharing processing power between programs equally as they are queued on the taskbar. AMD > INTEL |
as per your explanation, dont you think AMD will process slower than intel if mutilple tasks are running simultaneously, which can be commonly seen in most of the personal computers being used to the homes?
First of all, we need to consider how AMD came out. As many of you may remember, the days when the only PC processor was Intel is not so long ago.
What happened then?
AMD implemented the exact same instruction set, with the ideas from its engineers. Whatevet Intel did, AMD had to copy. Because Intel was already a standard and thousands of compilers etc existed for Intel, and the programs were already compiled for it.
It's been some time since AMD came out, but the question whether AMD can have implemented the same instruction set better than Intel is still open, the reason is that Intel is a much bigger team and have always had the time advantage versus AMD.
In my opinion AMD today is as close as it gets to Intel, but still Intel is one step ahead.
What happened then?
AMD implemented the exact same instruction set, with the ideas from its engineers. Whatevet Intel did, AMD had to copy. Because Intel was already a standard and thousands of compilers etc existed for Intel, and the programs were already compiled for it.
It's been some time since AMD came out, but the question whether AMD can have implemented the same instruction set better than Intel is still open, the reason is that Intel is a much bigger team and have always had the time advantage versus AMD.
In my opinion AMD today is as close as it gets to Intel, but still Intel is one step ahead.
AMD did come out with their own 64-bit extension (AMD64).. intel had to copy that of from AMD... well both companies are good... AMD is younger compared to INTEL so there will be some differences in tech... but nonetheless. AMD kicks but..the new core 2 DUO looks good but looking at cost factor .. i will go for an AMD any day....
Dont know why AMD couldn't come out with DDR2 and 65nm manufacturing processes sooner....
Dont know why AMD couldn't come out with DDR2 and 65nm manufacturing processes sooner....
I have intel 4 3.6 ghz. Old technology, intel is supposed to outperform AMD with it's dual core 2 cpus.
I don't like intel, because;
1. They are (generally) more expensive.
2. They (generally) run hotter than AMD processors.
and 3. Thier marketing tactics, they try to steal AMD's customers by forcing them to use intel chips in whatever way they can.
1. They are (generally) more expensive.
2. They (generally) run hotter than AMD processors.
and 3. Thier marketing tactics, they try to steal AMD's customers by forcing them to use intel chips in whatever way they can.
I would prefer AMD over Intel especially that I'm into graphics design. Before we used AMD 64 (900 MHz) and i would say it was even faster thatn the P4 (3.0) that we hae now, not to mention that our AMD before uses only 512 of RAM and 64 bit video card.
amd has always been the better performing procesoor.... they will blow intel away soon....
AMD is very much better than Intel when your talking to an overall aspect on how a processor truly works...
It is very much cheaper and faster compared with Intel.....
Try to check this out...
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5322290.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854788,00.asp
http://news.com.com/AMD+desktop+chips+edge..._3-5322290.html
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx
It is very much cheaper and faster compared with Intel.....
Try to check this out...
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5322290.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854788,00.asp
http://news.com.com/AMD+desktop+chips+edge..._3-5322290.html
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx
thanx for the links... well we can wait for the true battle between AMD and intell... in the next year... when AMD comes out with their new proecssors....
i cant wait....if i had a wish i will wish for the AMD 4x4 CPU machine....
ha... that will be the day...
i cant wait....if i had a wish i will wish for the AMD 4x4 CPU machine....
ha... that will be the day...
Intell is all i have used, but a friend of mines always complains of the AMD he got... now that tells me, not to recommend AMD processor
thats not all wrong...
AMD did have some trouble in the past... but now AMD makes some of the most popular and best perfomming processors in the world...
AMD CPUs are cheaper than their equivalent performing Intel coutnerpart..(donno abt core 2 duo).. They have a feature called cool and quiet which makes the proc run cooler and quieter than old AMD CPUS..one of my friends have an AMD thunderbird(1.2 GHz).. its performs real good...
i say always recommend AMD... Intel may have the market share and the ads... but AMD is a good cost effective quality product...i garuntee
AMD did have some trouble in the past... but now AMD makes some of the most popular and best perfomming processors in the world...
AMD CPUs are cheaper than their equivalent performing Intel coutnerpart..(donno abt core 2 duo).. They have a feature called cool and quiet which makes the proc run cooler and quieter than old AMD CPUS..one of my friends have an AMD thunderbird(1.2 GHz).. its performs real good...
i say always recommend AMD... Intel may have the market share and the ads... but AMD is a good cost effective quality product...i garuntee
intel chipset have more problem like overheat processor, cache memory problem and unstable.... that why next year, intel pentium 4 not created again.... in market,,, just for stock clearing......
The intel conroe will be the best processor ever but intel have been loosing game since intel pentiul II
AMD is definately the best. They run better, they are cheaper, and, well, that's all you need to know. Buy AMD!
AMD is always coming with new fresh processors which are steps ahead than intel. At any stage, Intel cannot overtake AMD nowadays.
Now I want to assemble a system, and I try different Motherboard - processor combination and finally end up with an AMD solution, because at the same price point AMD system is always far better than Intel. So for my budget I was not able to find an Intel system - too bad for intel
.
Now I want to assemble a system, and I try different Motherboard - processor combination and finally end up with an AMD solution, because at the same price point AMD system is always far better than Intel. So for my budget I was not able to find an Intel system - too bad for intel
.Conroe may be better.... but AMD will beat it with its already finished 4x4 core proc (Quad core)
| cjtreid wrote: |
| I have an intel, but I wish I had an AMD |
haha same story here
i have an AMD... i curse the day... when i had an old P3
AMD ++++ than INTEL-----
AMD is better than Intel b'se i use both but AMD's performance is better like in price, power and processing so i preferred to use AMD.It's not heat up like Intel as well as save power and multitasking is also good.
AMD is better than Intel b'se i use both but AMD's performance is better like in price, power and processing so i preferred to use AMD.It's not heat up like Intel as well as save power and multitasking is also good.
You guys humour me greatly this question doesnt have a straight forward answer as you can compare them on a number of levels here are a couple of examples.
-money for ghz
-gaming
-number crunching (video encoding you know what i mean)
As for shear price AMD has always been good to us, I had this in mind when i bought my A64 3500+. Also amd are good for gaming.
Problem is that these pweny AMD chips dont have the roar power that Intel chips have. THis is hard to compare as it various depending on budget.
My next PC that i am building is a dual core intel following specs and i am buying it for the roar sick power that i will get that will alow me to game well and work well.
e6600 OC@ 3ghz
Asus psw mobo
2gb-4gb ram (dunno what yet)
7950gx2
stacker 830
possibly water cooling
-money for ghz
-gaming
-number crunching (video encoding you know what i mean)
As for shear price AMD has always been good to us, I had this in mind when i bought my A64 3500+. Also amd are good for gaming.
Problem is that these pweny AMD chips dont have the roar power that Intel chips have. THis is hard to compare as it various depending on budget.
My next PC that i am building is a dual core intel following specs and i am buying it for the roar sick power that i will get that will alow me to game well and work well.
e6600 OC@ 3ghz
Asus psw mobo
2gb-4gb ram (dunno what yet)
7950gx2
stacker 830
possibly water cooling
I trust AMD, i never liked intels
| gelid wrote: |
|
e6600 OC@ 3ghz Asus psw mobo 2gb-4gb ram (dunno what yet) 7950gx2 stacker 830 possibly water cooling |
7950gx2 ? :\
Dude, you're a n00b, aren't ya' ?
No matter. Do some reading b4 you buy that crap.
well AMD has the best performance.. the new intel core 2 duo may be faster but AMD already has their quad core procs ready to jump at us...
I also have seen some benchmarks where Intel is faster than AMD (slightly though)... but... that increase is bcoz of the benchamrk's dependence on Intel tech like SSE3 or somethin like that... look at 64bit tech... AMD64>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>EM64T
I also have seen some benchmarks where Intel is faster than AMD (slightly though)... but... that increase is bcoz of the benchamrk's dependence on Intel tech like SSE3 or somethin like that... look at 64bit tech... AMD64>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>EM64T
I'm going to have to say AMD. The reasoning behind this is the fact that I game a lot, use my computer for media all the time, and I like to overclock ^_^. However a friend of mine is really into graphics intensive programs (CAD, Graphic Design, etc.) and he swears by Intel for that particular type of use. For general use though, I would have to say AMD simply because of the cost/performance issue. Unless of course you happen to work for Industrial Lights and Magic or something in which case you're using a Mac anyway heh.
-David-
-David-
If you are overclocking, AMD is still better because there are really no good Conroe overclocking boards yet. There are some decent ones, but I really think none take full advantage of the cores' capabilities. Of course, if you can get a e6600 or 6800, you will whip anything that AMD can throw at you right now. Either way, you can't go wrong with either companies nowadays.
I'll stick to intel
AMD
If you are going to do gaming go for AMD if not go for Intel
Intel always was the best, and such will be.
I dont know why but in the end, i allways choose AMD !
There is no question. P4's have an older architecture that is clearly beaten by the much newer amd 64's. Also, the Venice models have performed better than their siblings. The major benchmarks have all reported the same results. P4 cannot compete in any category, except in cases where HT comes into play. Also, Intel's dual cores obviously perform better against the x64 amd's in multi-tasking benchmarks. The amd x2 dual cores have a slight edge over the cheaply-made Pentium D dual cores.
I have an AMD Turion 64. I tell you I'm loving it. It's my first experiece with AMD, and in my books it's far better then Intel
I'm on Athlon 64 x2 Dual-Core 3800+ this is good enough.
it all depends on what your purpose is.
gaming/designing purposes AMD
other normal purposes /development/deployment purposes Intel.
gaming/designing purposes AMD
other normal purposes /development/deployment purposes Intel.
Things have been shaken up a lot by the core 2 duo that costs about $300 beating an AMD FX-62 ($1400) in all tests. Unless AMD implements some amazing new architecture in its quad-core, I am not hopeful of a comeback form AMD any time soon as there is really no use for quad-cores right now.
yup ... the intel core 2 duo is good.. but the upcoming AMD has the shear power and performance capabilites to do some serious damage to intel's short lived dominance 
...
The AMD torrenza technology is going to prove really useful to AMD partners as it will help in customization of the AMD chips... i heard from some where that AMD's quad core Opteron will have an inbuilt ATI physics engine or something.. (plz correct me if i am wrong)...
If i can dig up the article again.. i will post the link...
...
The AMD torrenza technology is going to prove really useful to AMD partners as it will help in customization of the AMD chips... i heard from some where that AMD's quad core Opteron will have an inbuilt ATI physics engine or something.. (plz correct me if i am wrong)...
If i can dig up the article again.. i will post the link...
well there is a new type of X86 processors coming from AMD .. called "Fusion"...
Well this is a design where AMD is going to integrate its Processor with ATI Graphics card at silicon level..These processors are intended for providing a kind of step-function increases in performance per watt realtive to today's "ONLY CPU" kind of architechtures....
But these babies will continue to support high end discrete video cards and physics accelarators and so on.....
AMD expects to use "Fusion" processors in all of their priority segments; including laptops, desktops, workstations and servers, and consumer electronics. They expect to come out with "Fusion" sometime later 2008 or early 2009.
AMD also plans on delivering a range of integrated platforms in 2007 to serve markets such as commercial clients, mobile computing, and gaming and media computing.
.... Now we are goin to hear that Intel has also started something like this......
Well this is a design where AMD is going to integrate its Processor with ATI Graphics card at silicon level..These processors are intended for providing a kind of step-function increases in performance per watt realtive to today's "ONLY CPU" kind of architechtures....
But these babies will continue to support high end discrete video cards and physics accelarators and so on.....
AMD expects to use "Fusion" processors in all of their priority segments; including laptops, desktops, workstations and servers, and consumer electronics. They expect to come out with "Fusion" sometime later 2008 or early 2009.
AMD also plans on delivering a range of integrated platforms in 2007 to serve markets such as commercial clients, mobile computing, and gaming and media computing.
.... Now we are goin to hear that Intel has also started something like this......
My first computer contained Intel processor and that was five years ago. I exchange it for AMD processor six months later and AMD processors own my computer since then. Why should I buy worse processor for same money?
However, Intel's Conroe is really faster that Athlon (for now) so it may be my next processor.
However, Intel's Conroe is really faster that Athlon (for now) so it may be my next processor.
I like Intel better. Especially when the Core Quad comes out...Hopefully by Leopard iMacs or something will have em.
well basically AMD 4x4 and Intel core2 duo quad has its differences... They say that AMD has better memory performance and slightly less "Per core" performance as Intel...
But Intel quad core doesnt have the same memory performance...
hmm.. well we cant say anythin now.. we will have to wait for it to release...
But Intel quad core doesnt have the same memory performance...
hmm.. well we cant say anythin now.. we will have to wait for it to release...
The AMD Intel war doesnt really bother me, i just get wat i get(im not rich so i settle for best performance:price ratio)
The Core 2 Duo's look good, i hope to get a new core 2 based sysytem at christmas.
The Core 2 Duo's look good, i hope to get a new core 2 based sysytem at christmas.
my doubt is why hasnt AMD reduced the price of its AM2 processors so as to compete with CORE 2.... 
Me = Mac
Mac = Intel
Me = Intel
My math teacher would be proud...
Mac = Intel
Me = Intel
My math teacher would be proud...
To sum up the current market:
Intel's Core 2 Duo is still on top. AMD socket 939 is very competitively priced, with dual core 3800+'s starting at around $100. They are a bit worse than Core 2 Duo, but in terms of price to performance, AMD is still on top if you go s939.
At the current moment, DDR2 is also unnecessary, and an upgrade from 939 to AM2 is completely unnecessary for AMD users. Some benchmarks even suggest DDR2 is on par with, or even slower, than DDR in some applications.
Your gaming performance and overall performance are still influenced mainly by your graphics card or RAM, the bottleneck doesn't even fall on the CPU for many single core + SLI apps in modern games, although there is some slowdown with multitasking with a low-end CPU.
For the future, AMD's quad core is showing a bit better progress than Intel, primarily because it will upscale better, allowing apps to better utilize the multiple cores. Unfortunately, only Intel has released quad-core benchmarks that I know of.
To conclude, Intel is on top with the processor war, mainly because their new Core 2 Duo architechure, combined with the large L2 cache of the E6600 and X6700 make them far superior to anything AMD can throw at them, ESPECIALLY when overclocking.
Intel's Core 2 Duo is still on top. AMD socket 939 is very competitively priced, with dual core 3800+'s starting at around $100. They are a bit worse than Core 2 Duo, but in terms of price to performance, AMD is still on top if you go s939.
At the current moment, DDR2 is also unnecessary, and an upgrade from 939 to AM2 is completely unnecessary for AMD users. Some benchmarks even suggest DDR2 is on par with, or even slower, than DDR in some applications.
Your gaming performance and overall performance are still influenced mainly by your graphics card or RAM, the bottleneck doesn't even fall on the CPU for many single core + SLI apps in modern games, although there is some slowdown with multitasking with a low-end CPU.
For the future, AMD's quad core is showing a bit better progress than Intel, primarily because it will upscale better, allowing apps to better utilize the multiple cores. Unfortunately, only Intel has released quad-core benchmarks that I know of.
To conclude, Intel is on top with the processor war, mainly because their new Core 2 Duo architechure, combined with the large L2 cache of the E6600 and X6700 make them far superior to anything AMD can throw at them, ESPECIALLY when overclocking.
AMD had been dominating intel with there 64bit line for the longest time. Finally intel got there act togeather with Conroe.
Currently intel is in the lead by a good amount, however I believe AMD will come back in the coming year or 2.
Currently intel is in the lead by a good amount, however I believe AMD will come back in the coming year or 2.
I'm using AMD for past a few years. I like it better than Intel. Currently using AMD Turion 64 X2 processor, really impressed with its performance.
I think, AMD is better. I currently have AMD (but 450, not 3800:)) and I enjoy it. And 3800 is better than errr... forgot. Anyway, AMD is better.
Well, as of my Intel is pwning on AMD...badly. And now that Intel has quad core out. So I wonder when AMD is gonna release the cpu/gpu all in one models.
yup... amd is working on thier "Fusion" processor.. it will incorporate a GPU right into the CPU.. dunno if we can use the GPU power when we are in need of more computing power and not graphics power, (for eg rendering)....
Amd is not worried abt their competition.. they know they have a good product to compete with Intel.. we will have to wait...to find out
Amd is not worried abt their competition.. they know they have a good product to compete with Intel.. we will have to wait...to find out
AMD for sure. Mine is AMD 64bit 3200+ venice core. I also have 3.0 ghz Intel processor based PC. I prefer AMD over Intel
Who do you think you are by saying that AMD is better. I had both and AMD is A bit to slow for intel. i have a notebook which has 1.3g of intel
and another of amd also 1.3 G and the AMD one is a lot slower
and another of amd also 1.3 G and the AMD one is a lot slower
Not everything is determined soley by GHz, oren. RAM, the chipset, the architechiture, the cache, and even drivers or the video card can majorly affect processor performance.
amd all the way baby... they run cooler and use less electricity so theyre a money saver. plus they're priced cheaper anyway
EDIT: and oren the clocks arent the same. a 2.4ghz amd isnt the same as a 2.4ghz intel
EDIT: and oren the clocks arent the same. a 2.4ghz amd isnt the same as a 2.4ghz intel
yup the AMDs run cooler.....but,... most of all they have good price to performance ratios...
| The_Gamer294 wrote: |
| amd all the way baby... they run cooler and use less electricity so theyre a money saver. plus they're priced cheaper anyway
|
That was the case in the days of the old prescotts. However, the C2D's run very cool and as or performance price ratio, beats AMD.
I would also go with AMD because it is faster and you can get it at a better price.
AMD nice, but it's get hot very fast. But AMD is the best to play games. Intel good in doing work. In game, not really good, but so far, not bad.
I've had 3 or 4 Intels, and have never had any problems with any of them. I had to get rd of my laptop recently, which contained a P4M, and that worked really nicely. I'm currently on a P3, which is fine, but I can't wait to get a Core 2 Duo, and a new mobo.
I've only ever had one AMD, and it was some piece of crap Duron 1400. Well, that thing lasted about 6 months before it bit the bullet. Piece of crap that was. I hope all AMD chips aren't like that, because that put a sour spin on things for me from AMD.
I've only ever had one AMD, and it was some piece of crap Duron 1400. Well, that thing lasted about 6 months before it bit the bullet. Piece of crap that was. I hope all AMD chips aren't like that, because that put a sour spin on things for me from AMD.
I currently have an amd cpu, but i believe that at the time beeing, intel core 2 duo, is much better, that athlonx2, or fx...
I believe that you shouldn't be fanatic with a company.... At some times amd is better, and at some other times, intel...thats the way it goes(same goes for ati&nvidia)...
I believe that you shouldn't be fanatic with a company.... At some times amd is better, and at some other times, intel...thats the way it goes(same goes for ati&nvidia)...
i bought a COMPAQ PRESARIO V3133 with AMD turion X2...... with 512MB DDR2 667Mhz........... and it rocks
the grpahics is awesome and much more performance from CPU than expected........
the grpahics is awesome and much more performance from CPU than expected........
I have been test driving the notebook.. and it seems its really quiet and becomes warm when i run games.. i tested UT2003 on it.. i ran it at high and performance was just stunning... including graphics....
I put the notebook thru its paces when i did a 3d rendering.. it took my old machine abt 12 hrs.. but this baby cranked out the pic at abt one and half hours....
sorry for deviating away from the topic.. but this thing is really cool... i think this can be pitted against most of the core duo laptops out there...
I put the notebook thru its paces when i did a 3d rendering.. it took my old machine abt 12 hrs.. but this baby cranked out the pic at abt one and half hours....
sorry for deviating away from the topic.. but this thing is really cool... i think this can be pitted against most of the core duo laptops out there...
INTEL core 2 quad.. is looking real good.. it surpassed.. the ATHLON FX-74 quads...
Any one got a chance to use the new 65nm AMDs. i saw the benchmarks.. its upto the mark, considering its the first wave of AMD 65nm CPUS.. the performance aint much diff from 90nm counterparts.. but the power concumption has been reduced... so the performance per watt has risen......
WAY TO GO AMD!!!.... i am still waiting for the Barcelona and Altair FX Cores...
WAY TO GO AMD!!!.... i am still waiting for the Barcelona and Altair FX Cores...
I think AMD by far are the best processors they have a faster core clocking speed and I just love the i have a AMD ATHLON 64x 4200+ with water cooling!
yeah.. i like the new x2 too.. its really power efficient......
AMD is definitely catching up Intel. I couldn't see the real difference yet. but given the competitive price. I would go for AMD.
How is AMD catching up on Intel? Their 4x4 isn't anything revolutionary, it is way ourperformed by the quad-core Kentsfields...
The only thing competitive about AMD is their pricing. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE AMD. I am typing this from a system running an Opty 146, and am probably going to have another system with an Opty 148 very soon. Intel is just ahead from a technological viewpoint right now...
The only thing competitive about AMD is their pricing. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE AMD. I am typing this from a system running an Opty 146, and am probably going to have another system with an Opty 148 very soon. Intel is just ahead from a technological viewpoint right now...
well. yeah. the current 4x4 is not that great.. but their upcoming chips are looking cool.. but we have to wait till they come out, to make a comparison...
But the figures of the AMD R600 GPU is nice... ... finally... AMD is doing its catchin up... atleast in this segment...
But the figures of the AMD R600 GPU is nice...
... finally... AMD is doing its catchin up... atleast in this segment... I currently have the AMD 3800+
I had just always thought green+green=mean as in AMD and nVidia,
i'm pretty happy with my 3800+ but after surfing around abit it seems so that intel has now got the market with the release of the core two duo.
I've always missed the cpu virtualisation with Intel because it was so much easier to alt tab between cpu intensive applications, not that it's a must have feature.
But in your situation definately go the AMD over intel, but if you were looking for a high end PC... Intel for sure they have a hold over AMD at the moment. BUT AT A PRICE!
I had just always thought green+green=mean as in AMD and nVidia,
i'm pretty happy with my 3800+ but after surfing around abit it seems so that intel has now got the market with the release of the core two duo.
I've always missed the cpu virtualisation with Intel because it was so much easier to alt tab between cpu intensive applications, not that it's a must have feature.
But in your situation definately go the AMD over intel, but if you were looking for a high end PC... Intel for sure they have a hold over AMD at the moment. BUT AT A PRICE!
true said...
well anyways.. no need to worry abt INTEL... AMD has already started chipping away INTEL's advantage... it wont be long, b4 AMD is back on top again........
Plus.. IBM is lending a helping hand... THANK U IBM ....
well anyways.. no need to worry abt INTEL... AMD has already started chipping away INTEL's advantage... it wont be long, b4 AMD is back on top again........
Plus.. IBM is lending a helping hand... THANK U IBM ....
I would go with AMD all the way. AMD is the better processor bar none! If you are highly into gaming, than AMD is the best choice no questions asked. BUT if you are more into video editing and such, than Intel would be much faster than AMD in that aspect.