View Full Version : AMD vs Intel round 1
dark_reaper
10-12-04, 10:26
Although the AMD FX-55 is ahead with all of the magazines. I would like you opinoion, not the media's opinions but the consumors Opinion. You can debate your opinions in this thread. Also what do you think what CPU shhould come out with the new Asus nForce 4 motherboard that came out today.
Dribble Joy
10-12-04, 12:31
Depends on what you are doing.
AMD for teh gamage.
switchback
10-12-04, 12:38
AMD for the price. And i thought i read the Sempron owns the celaron so its better for budget peeps. Might be wrong though
The new system i'm getting after xmas will have an atlon 64 so.. AMD i guess :D
DigestiveBiscui
10-12-04, 14:34
just got a new computer
512 RAM
AMd Athlon 64 3200 (something like that anyway)
9800pro
and so on
it's lovely, but atm it bluescreens on every boot so i can't test it yet :P
The PC in my siggy runs very well, using its P4e 3.0 GHz CPU. Should play HL2 and Doom 3 well when I get them too. With the Hyper threading it means I can run 2 NC clients side by side at about 30-40 FPS each :p
just got a new computer
512 RAM
AMd Athlon 64 3200 (something like that anyway)
9800pro
and so on
it's lovely, but atm it bluescreens on every boot so i can't test it yet :P
Get yo'self some new RAM, that'll fix it I bet.
And AMD, pricing, performance + reliability. I'd go for them everytime.
(11pc's in the house, 9 are AMD. The other 2 are old P2 233's that I got free :D)
DigestiveBiscui
10-12-04, 16:41
ok, hold on - i'll just get out all of the wads of cash i have lying around
hohoho - silly me
AMD for the price. And i thought i read the Sempron owns the celaron so its better for budget peeps. Might be wrong though
you cant really use the celeron processors as a comparisance..
the celeron is like the weakest Intel CPU out there.
AMDīs get way hotter than an INTEL cpu, generally speaking.
INTEL cpuīs can generally get overclocked more..
and I would never put an AMD in any computer I create or use.
and yes I have had AMD in my computer once, and it sucked so much ass compared to the pentium I had in before, even though it was supposed to be faster.
I know AMD has improved much lately, but :
experience > promises
dark_reaper
10-12-04, 17:39
I had and AMD XP 1800 for four years and I never have any problems. My Next upgrade, I will upgrade to either a Sempron or the FX series.
I know AMD beats Intel by a long shot both performance and price. I just read the Maximum PC because of their good reviews on Processors and the AMD FX-55 owned the Intel 3.46 ghz EE processor. The P4 EE has an 800fsb, I am supprised that thing dont just fry.
The worst thing about Intels is that they are overclocked and dont last as long that an AMD does. Also AMD dont spend money on those lame ass commercials like Intel does.
One thing for shure I will never put an Intel Processor in my computer. :D
The worst thing about Intels is that they are overclocked and dont last as long that an AMD does. Also AMD dont spend money on those lame ass commercials like Intel does.
lol, you donīt think AMDīs are overclocked.. haha..
AMDīs ARE overclocked from standard, just like INTELīs are.
I've had a P4 3.2 @ 4.4 for over a year now 24/7 nearly, no problems at all.
[TgR]KILLER
10-12-04, 17:57
amd 4 ever tbh :) all 3 systems in the house are running amd atm. 1 AMD 2000+ 1 AMD 2200+ and mine a 2200+ OCed to 2800+
never had problems with AMD and their cheap and work perfectly ^^
Intel really have nothing left to offer unless you want >2 CPUs in a server box.
AMD now beat them hollow on every single metric, even power/heat issues which used to their only real weak point.
KILLER']amd 4 ever tbh :) all 3 systems in the house are running amd atm. 1 AMD 2000+ 1 AMD 2200+ and mine a 2200+ OCed to 2800+
never had problems with AMD and their cheap and work perfectly ^^
just exactly what do you call cheap ?
I bought a CPU for my dad not long ago a P4 3.0 Ghz, for only 1700.
thats very cheap here..
and since everyone is posting what they have in the house then :
Shitload of comps below 400 Mhz
Dual AMD something 400 / 400 Mhz - Stationary
Intel Pentium 4 1.4 Ghz - Stationary
Intel Pentium 4 1.4 Ghz - Laptop
Intel Pentium 4 2.4 Ghz - Stationary
Intel Pentium 4 2.5 Ghz - Laptop
Intel Pentium 4 2.8 Ghz - Laptop
Intel Pentium 4 3.0 Ghz - Stationary
dark_reaper
10-12-04, 20:02
AMD is not overclock as much as intel is. AMD out performs Intel. AMD is better than Intel. I know from expierience. I have built over 50 computers, 45 were AMD and 5 were Intel. And guess who return, Intel.
If you look at the current AMD FX-55 and the 3.46 Intel EE. Intel EE is around $999, while the AMD FX-55 is $826. The FX-55 out performs Intel by a long shot. Use this website to convert the currency www.xe.com.
Performance AMD> Intel
Quality AMD > Intel
Price AMD > Intel
Durability AMD > Intel
I currently Have:
AMD Athlon XP 2200 1.86 ghz (my comp)
AMD Duron 900mhz (Compaq Laptop)
Dual AMD Seprons 2800 for editing computer
AMD Athlon XP 2800 (pops comp)
AMD Athlon XP 1800 (sisters computer)
Intel 3 dunno speed, but the computers in pieces
Intel 2 at 800mhz, got knocked up by a baseball bat.
I am about to upgrade my computer to an AMD FX processor with a socket 939.
AMD 4 Ever
Performance AMD> Intel
Quality AMD > Intel
Price AMD > Intel
Durability AMD > Intel
In my experience, I havenīt seen an AMD be better than an INTEL, Iīve never had a problem with an INTEL CPU, I have however had loads of problems with heat on AMDīs.
So for me, Performance : INTEL > AMD
I have no idea what you base quality on.
Price : true AMD are cheaper than INTEL. but that doesnt mean INTELīs cpuīs cant be cheap from time to time.
Durability : INTEL > AMD so much.
QuantumDelta
10-12-04, 21:13
In my experiance, which has dealt with well over 150 pcs by now (probably not 200...), I'd most definately say AMD are, these days, (since XP most definately) out performing Intel in any way you could rate.
The 64 bit platforms is evidence of that enough on it's own.
Intel have begun to change their tune recently so they may come back to the fight, the same way nVidia did with ATi;
Remember, although AMD are now BY FAR and above the better CPU Producers, Intel still, have a much larger market share.
I keep telling my retarded place of work they need to replace their PIIIs, and where am I pointing them?
They have serious IT Problems as it is let alone using terrible CPUs. (The fact that they're mostly using RAM that isn't even sold anymore doesn't help either...).
I have owned one of most types of processors from both companies.
Celerons are good for one thing o/c.
P2s were nice CPUs at the time.
P1s weren't all that great but I felt a major step forward.
P3s GAH don't get me started.
P4s GAH !!!!!
HTs - Nice try Intel but 2 partial CPUs in one? Nah.
Duron's were not something I prefered over Celeron's to be honest, but they did the job, and were cheaper.
Since Intel reached a clock speed of about 1ghz, they've been struggling to keep up and they've done it by o/cing, more and more.
They market their CPU Speed.
Not it's capability.
AMD Realising most of the general public are, for want of better words, utter morons actually had to release a scale measurement and named their chips to be equivilent of what the Intel competition were using.
2.2 ghz being as powerful as 3.0, easily.
A64s have even managed to fix their heat problems, which really does mean that they're greater than Pentiums in every single way now.
Again, like I said at the start though;
Intel are changing their tune and following AMD, and have more resources than AMD do.
AMD Are far superior to Intel at this time, and have been for a long while.
dark_reaper
10-12-04, 21:45
The Duron Processors ware ok, but once the Athlons especially the Barton core. AMD has been on top of the market. Now AMD pwn Intel. I will love it is AMD becomes bigger than Intel.
Oh and naimex AMD does not have Heat issueas anymore. The AMD 64s and FX series will forever own Intel
AMD > Intel 4 ever
AMD FANBOI 4 LIF.
Nah. :P I go with what's the better buy. Right now, I gotta say though, AMD beat the living shit out of Intel in the last year.
Maybe Intel will make a comeback. Maybe they'll continue to lose to AMD. More money does not always = better product. There needs to be brains behind the product for it to be anything more than a piece of trash.
And Naimex... it sounds like you're basing your entire argument off one bad experience with a processor. Not the way to support your argument tbh.
I don't care how you look at it... Intel got "PWNED WITH A PASSION LOLOLO" this time around. But that's how it works when you have two major companies competing with each other *cough* Nvidia and ATI *cough*.
It's a big circle. You win some, you lose some. A lot of people actually think Intel and AMD have secret agreements to continuously beat each other to suck the market dry. Doesn't sound like a bad plan to me, but we'll never really know. We'll all just continue going on and buying the best product at the time. :)
I'm getting a new PC over xmas and i was unsure of whether to go for a P4 or 64.
Its a toss up between this P4 chip (http://www.aria.co.uk/ProductInfoComm.asp?ID=8071) or this 64 chip (http://www.aria.co.uk/ProductInfoComm.asp?ID=15217)
Depend on what your needs are.
It tested both AMD 3200 and intel HT 3.0
If i convert an Mdb database to sql (size 800 with datacompression) it takes
2.5 days on the intel 3 on the amd.
if i run Nc2 the intel gives me 40 - 50 Fps the AMD 60 - 70.
So imo it really depends on what your needs are.
Naimex and indeed i aint AMD who's having heat issues now. Did you see how hot a HT prescott can get. if he gets a bit stressed with regular fan no overclocking he goes up to 75°C That is with 2 nc clients, 1 sqlServer 1IIS and azureus. Even the AMD doesn't get with the same setup.
dark_reaper
10-12-04, 23:09
Get the AMD 64, It will out perform the P4 by a long shot.
Purely as an AMD user for like... EVAR.
AMD - Cheap - reliable - apparently Intel offer better overclock, but with the speeds we see these days - we don't need O/C.
Naimex and indeed i aint AMD who's having heat issues now. Did you see how hot a HT prescott can get. if he gets a bit stressed with regular fan no overclocking he goes up to 75°C That is with 2 nc clients, 1 sqlServer 1IIS and azureus. Even the AMD doesn't get with the same setup.
^^
well, he must have the worst airflow or the worst cooler ever.
I havenīt seen one cooler that came with the INTEL cpus that could cool them.
but if you buy a proper cooler on the side, no problems.
I have about 27-30 degrees in my room, my computer sits stable at about 40.
and I bet if i cleaned my fans, I could make it go down and follow the room temperature.
mmm I will have to go with amd becouse pentium is way to expensive. Right now im using a 2800+ running at 2.4 gigs. That and its been proven that amd are better for gaming. The only pentium i ever used was a pentium 3 500. Then i got a duron and clocked it from 1 gig to 1.333 with stock everything. I mean i would get a pentium just to see how well it performes but i dont have the money to do that, so i stick with what works.
I would get pentium if they where cheaper.
and BTW what do you mean intel run cooler then amd? dont pentium have more transistors, therefore generate more heat?
I actualy have some friends who just bought these 3 gig pentium computers with the heatsink from pentium and all and they run friggin hot. They run at 60 some degrees. Though my bro says it may have somthing to do with their weak power supplys.
^^
well, he must have the worst airflow or the worst cooler ever.
I havenīt seen one cooler that came with the INTEL cpus that could cool them.
but if you buy a proper cooler on the side, no problems.
I have about 27-30 degrees in my room, my computer sits stable at about 40.
and I bet if i cleaned my fans, I could make it go down and follow the room temperature.
i spent Ģ10 on a HS&F on my XP2500 thats clocked to a XP3200 and that keeps it at a nice 40 degrees in windows and around 45 in games under full load. Most gamers that build thier own systems should know that the stock HS&F supplied with retail CPUs are complete toss and just buy a new one right away.
soo AMD's also are much cooler simply by getting a better HS&F.
i spent Ģ10 on a HS&F on my XP2500 thats clocked to a XP3200 and that keeps it at a nice 40 degrees in windows and around 45 in games under full load. Most gamers that build thier own systems should know that the stock HS&F supplied with retail CPUs are complete toss and just buy a new one right away.
soo AMD's also are much cooler simply by getting a better HS&F.
was just trying to find a reasonable solution to why the system in question was all the way up at 75 degrees.
In my experience, I havenīt seen an AMD be better than an INTEL, Iīve never had a problem with an INTEL CPU, I have however had loads of problems with heat on AMDīs.
As I said above this WAS a minor advantage to Intel - now that has swung massively to AMD. By massively I mean something like half the energy usage/heat generation on the latest CPUs.
So for me, Performance : INTEL > AMD
Then you can't have bought one in the last 8-10 years. Simple as that.
Durability : INTEL > AMD so much.
As this is directly related to heat/energy consumption, see above.
I'd love to know where the people who talk about manufacturers overclocking their CPUs learnt about CPU manufacturing. :rolleyes:
I'd love to know where the people who talk about manufacturers overclocking their CPUs learnt about CPU manufacturing. :rolleyes:
it is commonly known, that to drag extra juice out of the highest cpuīs on the market, they take the highest and most stable cpu they have, and overclock it directly, making for instance a 2.4 a 2.8, without making a 2.8
which also is why INTEL doesnīt have a cpu at the same max speed as the AMD.
because they canīt clock their highest most stable cpu to those speeds, without it becoming unstable.
this has raised many questions, whether or not AMD has found a way to clock their cpu even more, or simply found a better way to make cpus.
the general feeling I have gotten from the messages scattered throughout the web, is that AMD simply found a way to make their highest cpu, go even higher without losing stability.
however, because of my mistrust to AMD cpuīs I take it that they gained that extra speed, by sacrificing some stability.
No.
They manufacture to a fixed process, then they test the chips and brand them based on their performance.
Intel doesn't have a CPU at the same clock as AMD because they are incapable of making one. They tried for the first few years after the K5 and then gave up and fell back to just producing more marketing hype than AMD.
The reasons AMD are so much better are many and varied. They started off the 5x86 war on a better footing by not maintaining a lot of legacy tech Intel used, they have had better designs pretty much throughout (one or two exceptions of course) and they now hold patents for several fab technologies that allow for lower energy consumption.
For a long time now the only way Intel have been able to fight at all is by throwing more and more cache onto old CPU designs and dropping the die-size to squeeze out a few more cycles. This obviously has limits and in general means their designs are under MORE stress than the AMD ones, not less as you implied. It's possible they are making crap like the EE as a holding measure while they make the next great leap but tbh there is no evidence of that. They seem to be wasting all their R&D on Itanium :lol: .
i spent Ģ10 on a HS&F on my XP2500 thats clocked to a XP3200 and that keeps it at a nice 40 degrees in windows and around 45 in games under full load. Most gamers that build thier own systems should know that the stock HS&F supplied with retail CPUs are complete toss and just buy a new one right away.
soo AMD's also are much cooler simply by getting a better HS&F.
What voltage are you running that chip at?
I have the same chip running as you at 3200 by upping the FSB from 166 to 200. Didn't touch the multiplier.
But to get it to run stable I have the Vcore voltage at 1.85 and get 43C while writing this and 47 to 50C while playing NC2 (depending on room temps)
Never went above 50C in the summer.
That's with this $45 HS though. See pics too. :)
http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/thermalright/slk900a/p1.html
dark_reaper
11-12-04, 07:17
I have just heard someone talking about a new Processor design that is 10 times faster than the fastest processor out now. It is one of the companies but I am not shure which one.
QuantumDelta
11-12-04, 15:26
Jernau is right.
I shouldn't really have said o/cing, but I couldn't think of a way of saying "Just ramping up their clockspeed rapidly."
If a Chip has the same core, it's capable of the same stuff.
There's reasons why it isn't set to run at the same speed most of the time.
Whether that be because they failed a high end test.
Or because the manufacturers are trying to meet their lower end proc quota (they will normally meet their high end one first, so they'll adjust the CPUs to the lower settings, I can't remember how they do it because I think it's slightly different to typical down-clocking but meh).
[TgR]KILLER
11-12-04, 16:55
without reading most of this and the second page.. but on the heat thing of AMD's maybe they had head trouble's in the past but this AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (T-Bred), 2.02 GHz ( OCed 2200+ ) is 43 degree's ATM and my cpu cooler aint even full power. in the summer he doesn't get above 50 degree's really only @ some times when its extreemly hot ( but being in the top of the house doesn't help eighter differes 10 degree's between here and downstairs in the summer with the sun right on the room :/ )
dark_reaper
12-12-04, 07:39
Right now it seems that AMD pwnes Intel.
AMD > Intel :D
Intels definately for me. I've had a P4 2.8 Extreme Edition in my box ever since they were released and i've had no problems, it's run cool and the hyperthreading makes a huge difference.
Tbh, i'm also not too fond of AMD's manufacturing process- sweatshops in Taiwan, whereas Intels are made in labs in the US....
That, and my m8 had an AMD in his box with a cooler rated for his model and above. Next day his room had a nice scorch mark on the floor where the box went up.... so i'm kinda forever afraid of that happening. Can't lose my PC!
___T-X____
12-12-04, 15:39
I had and AMD XP 1800 for four years and I never have any problems. My Next upgrade, I will upgrade to either a Sempron or the FX series.
I know AMD beats Intel by a long shot both performance and price. I just read the Maximum PC because of their good reviews on Processors and the AMD FX-55 owned the Intel 3.46 ghz EE processor. The P4 EE has an 800fsb, I am supprised that thing dont just fry.
The worst thing about Intels is that they are overclocked and dont last as long that an AMD does. Also AMD dont spend money on those lame ass commercials like Intel does.
One thing for shure I will never put an Intel Processor in my computer. :D
If your lucky you got a decent 1800xp, mine overclocks to 2500xp stable on Air
Tbh, i'm also not too fond of AMD's manufacturing process- sweatshops in Taiwan, whereas Intels are made in labs in the US....:lol: wtf are you on? AMD's fabs are in Dresden, Germany and Austin, Texas. Intel have at least one in China if that's what you are thinking of.
That, and my m8 had an AMD in his box with a cooler rated for his model and above. Next day his room had a nice scorch mark on the floor where the box went up.... so i'm kinda forever afraid of that happening. Can't lose my PC!It's not the CPU's fault that some people can't put a PC together properly.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.