AMD vs Intel round 2 [Archive] - Official Neocron Forum

Lothar IB

23-03-05, 01:22

I help maintian several hundred computers and we have moved to AMD over the years. I take full credit for it to :)

AMD in recent years to us seem no different than intel in terms of reliabilty.
Speedwise certian programs may favor one chip or the other but honestly in most settings those differences mean nothing. Granted if you are doing major compile work of some sort and one chip may cut off an hour of wait time go for it. We don't face that kind of situation here to often.

Most of our people use business software of different sorts, one of the most intense would be SAS i would guess and we have had no problems related to the cpu with any of our programs. Few years back i heard of a few programs having issues with a non intel chip but those problems were fixed rather quickly as far as i'm aware and know of none currently.

So AMD all the way. :)

naimex

23-03-05, 02:05

Right now it is proven that AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 is the best processor on the market. But expensive as hell.

...

ha..

haha.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha..

yes... indeed.. right...

no seriously though... i dont care about it... no amd will ever come near my machine.

i had a really bad experience with amd once, it was the first, the only and the last time i will ever use an amd.

i have however never had a single problem with intels cpus.

as i stated in some other thread some time somewhere, i would rather have a 2.4 intel than a 3.4 amd or even a 4 ghz amd.. i dont like amd, and i love intel.

so propaganda for amd wont work on me.

intel forever and ever and ever into the eternity of never.

QuantumDelta

23-03-05, 02:23

I wouldn't use intel unless I was forced to.

Being forced to would mean:
Intel actually being better than AMD for the purpose.

Which, most of the time when constructing systems for my purposes?
They're not.

Therefore I will never use Intel.

Needless to say I've have similar experiences to Naimex, except, in reverse, my initial two computers were intel (remember this is back when intel were good...)

They were unreliable, slow and eventually fried.

Never had an AMD do that to me.

Jesterthegreat

23-03-05, 02:23

CMaster

23-03-05, 02:37

Daft fanboism.

Whatever provides the best price/performance ratio in the price range I can pay (or just better performance if money is a limited or no concern). I declare no loyalty to either side, much as I have no loyalty to either nVidia or ATi. It's whoever provides the best product for my purpouses at the time. My current gaming machine is an Athlon 2200+. My laptop is unashamedly a centrino.

cornelius5

23-03-05, 02:53

i started building my own pc's around the time that u "had" to use that propriatary rambus ram for intel,, O_o

the cost vs. performance ratio for intel chips makes no sense compared with amd.

i have built 20+ systems for friends and clients and imho an amd xp2500 for 80$
walks all over an intel 3.0 priced at 160$.

but hey whatever, if u wanna pay the price because intel has the higher ghz rating, its your money.

dark_reaper

23-03-05, 07:24

...

ha..

haha.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha..

yes... indeed.. right...

no seriously though... i dont care about it... no amd will ever come near my machine.

i had a really bad experience with amd once, it was the first, the only and the last time i will ever use an amd.

i have however never had a single problem with intels cpus.

as i stated in some other thread some time somewhere, i would rather have a 2.4 intel than a 3.4 amd or even a 4 ghz amd.. i dont like amd, and i love intel.

so propaganda for amd wont work on me.

intel forever and ever and ever into the eternity of never.

Then you prabally dont know your processors then. AMD will always out perform Intel. Intel may be faster and WILL not last as long as an AMD. But AMD has the best quality. I wont be supprised if Intel goes out of business. Only reason that Intel survives is because of the what would you call em, low end users that dont know whit about computers and hardware. Intels mostly exist in brand name computers.
I know back in the day AMD used to have a heating problem. But that is solved. I garuntee that an AMD will last alot longer than an Intel. In 4 years I went through 4 intel processors wich is shit. 1 pII and 3 p4's. They did not last me a year. This computer that I am on is 6 years old. I built back in the 9th grade. an AMD Athlon 1800+ and still running. just recently upgraded to a 2200. About to upgrade to a 64 2800. It will be a while for intel to get into the 64 bit processor, even when they do. They will be worlthess pieces of shit. More Intel PC's fail more than AMD pc's.

I have prabally built over 30 machines, very few intels. But the Intels always come back. Always.

AMD 4 Ever.

Hoernerice

23-03-05, 09:06

after i heard now, that in the new p4, copied amd code is, i think that amd is better. before it wasnt better, just didnt cost as much as p4. problem what amd have that they get tooooo hot. they eat to much power. i also hope that intel bring a normal 64bit cisc cpu out. otherwise it could get a problem for one of the both. but we must wait for new windows wich support 64bit, i think.....
(sry when something is not 100% clear, im very tierd)

jernau

23-03-05, 09:17

AMD.

No surprise there and not much point explaining why ;).

Jesterthegreat

23-03-05, 09:54

but we must wait for new windows wich support 64bit, i think.....

or we just download the beta which is free for 365 days (which i intend to do when my mobo and gfx card arrive.)

jernau

23-03-05, 10:15

or we just download the beta which is free for 365 days (which i intend to do when my mobo and gfx card arrive.)
And hope it will even install and that it's XP infestation isn't too crippling...

Mighty Max

23-03-05, 10:21

I had lil encounter with a AMD cpu which made me stop caring about the manufacture and only buy intel ones ...

Plugged this complete new 566MHz chip in (was up to date back then) ... and all what i got was a nice glance in the bios-splash screen before the case was filled with dark smoke :p

And tbh. till there is no HT on amd's there is no reason for me to change my mind. I dont need ultra power, when i cant use reserves like i can on the HT.

The only amd still running is in my TV-machine ... there it cant do harm:p

Freaky Fryd

23-03-05, 10:25

AMD all the way for me

Jesterthegreat

23-03-05, 10:26

shoulda made it a public poll... theres 3 for intel now (naim, mighty max and who?)

Gulinborsti

23-03-05, 10:40

[x] AMD

1) lower price for equal-or-higher performance
2) <--- overclocking maniac: XP-M 2500+ @2.500MHz (10.5 x 238)

jernau

23-03-05, 10:46

shoulda made it a public poll... theres 3 for intel now (naim, mighty max and who?)
Maybe someone misread the question?

Omnituens

23-03-05, 11:43

I have an AMD Barton 3200+ and I'm Lovin' It

personally, all the systems ive worked on that were Intel were a right ball-ache

I would always select AMD over Intel.

Bugs Gunny

23-03-05, 12:27

We got our first P4 3.2 laptop here at work.
The thing was given to the user on monday and today he complained that his old PIII was a lot better as the battery lasted longer and ac adaptor was ony half the size and 1/3 the weight.

I use all amd's at home and i must say, slap good cooling on and you're ready to overclock those babies without running into any problems.

Xian

23-03-05, 13:24

I go for whatever gives the best performance - I think anyone who sticks with a particular manufacturer all the darn time is a bit silly. I used to hate AMD processors due to setup & heat problems I was having - doesn't mean I won't give them a chance to see if I can get more performance instead of wasting money.

At the moment I still say AMD pip Intel to the post. The Prescott core is a joke and a 90nm process doesn't seem to have done much for the heat problems. Now Intel is releasing it's 64bit line which includes SpeedStep (for those who don't know - a clock speed changer similar to what's found in laptops) to reduce heat & power consumption.

That's great, but I really don't think Intel should have to use laptop technology; too much sidestepping the real problem in my opinion. Even the 130nm Clawhammer stays cooler and that's only really found in the high-end processors, if I remember rightly.

Intel outperform AMD every time for media encoding & seemingly on 3DS rendering - but the only time I'll buy them for a rendering machine here is for a dual Xeon setup. Most of them are on dual AMD's anyway, the P4's we had here were always dying towards the end of a hard day's rendering.

In terms of servers I wouldn't touch a dual Opteron with a barge pole for the moment as I would want to see a clear boost over the Xeon.

Benchmark results seem to show AMD whip Intel on the gaming side of things. In the end it's just preference; the difference in performance at the high end of the spectrum between both manufacturers is slim, at least when you're talking about desktops.

Ninjano2002uk

23-03-05, 14:30

i never had a AMD & well i just wuv Intel :P sex p4 3.6 Ghz :D

Hoernerice

23-03-05, 15:50

or we just download the beta which is free for 365 days (which i intend to do when my mobo and gfx card arrive.)
if u mean the 64bit- update for xp....as i know (i could be wrong) its a 64bit simulation, not true 64bit.

Jesterthegreat

23-03-05, 20:26

if u mean the 64bit- update for xp....as i know (i could be wrong) its a 64bit simulation, not true 64bit.

i mean windows 64 that is in the beta stages.

a while back i asked on the forum if anyone used it and other than a few driver issues it got all good comments. no one said they tried it and uninstalled it, everyone seemed happy with it

darkservent

24-03-05, 01:27

AMD

I love a community who favours AMD who favours LINUX but have mixed feelings on the GFX card scene. Gosh.

dark_reaper

24-03-05, 03:43

AMD

I love a community who favours AMD who favours LINUX but have mixed feelings on the GFX card scene. Gosh.

I love you too.

Mighty Mouse

24-03-05, 08:38

AMD is better im getting a amd 64 bit 3000+ proccessor in my new comp expensive but nice about 170 bucks or so dont remember but still good

dark_reaper

24-03-05, 20:26

Me too! :) I am also going to get a Motherboard with 2x PCI-E. Ohh my new system is going to rock. I am mainly going to build it for Editing, but I will put alot of games on there also. The socket 939 are the best.

Tostino

24-03-05, 20:31

Amd is the best atm. My last comp was a AMD (the one I am on now is a p4) but at the time when I made my comp AMD only had the XP series out so I didnt want to waste cash on that. My next one I will make will be a AMD, they just seem faster then Intel.

Skusty

24-03-05, 20:46

Not good on Software... :angel:

dark_reaper

24-03-05, 21:15

Intel may have the clock speed, but AMD still have the best quality speed.

darknessfairy

24-03-05, 21:15

amd all the way im afraid.

just my 2 pennyworth

Mighty Max

24-03-05, 22:53

Intel may have the clock speed, but AMD still have the best quality speed.

Now tell me the different.

Im not deciding on that as a religious question (Just dislike what happened with the one and never the other)

But there is no better power then the other as you are stating. Mips are Mips, Flops are Flops. There are indeed some differences in the microcode that makes the AMD a bit faster when it comes to floating point calculations. Beside that both CPUs have nearly the same performance in jump prediction and simultaneous calculations.

Up to that comes there is AMD not better then intel. Take the top of each available atm (took www.snogard.de as a reference here) AMD: Athlon 64-FX55 with 777.90 €. Intel: Pentium 4 570J with 579.90€.

For the 64Bit extension. Nothin there that brings any really use of it for me
And if i'd really need the 64Bit power id neither go with AMDs nor Intels. Id look over to the not x86 compliants. IA32 and it deriviving standards are out of date ... they only survive due to downlinking compability.

For gaming the decission between AMDs and Intels is not much more then between NVidia and ATI ... complete subjective choosen imho.

naimex

24-03-05, 23:09

For gaming the decission between AMDs and Intels is not much more then between NVidia and ATI ... complete subjective choosen imho.

i prefer nvidia, simply because i fancy OpenGL over D3D

darknessfairy

24-03-05, 23:10

nvidia + amd >>>>> ati + intel

dark_reaper

24-03-05, 23:20

i prefer nvidia, simply because i fancy OpenGL over D3D

Wow! something we agree on. :lol:

nVidia + AMD >>>>>>>>>>ATI + Intel.

oh and BTW I am not just talking about games applications when it comes to processors, i am talking about all of the applications.

From what I have been reading lately, only thing that a 64bit proccesor is good for is Vidio/ Audio editing applications and graphic arts, animation, etc. For example if you want to look at a good non-linear editor look at Final Cut Pro. It is the #1 editor in the world atm. It is designed for a 64 bit processor. Although I really hate macs and apples. If Avid is able to get thier thumbs outta thier asses and develop Avid specifically for a 64 bit processor as apple did. FCP and Avid will be neck to neck.

Mighty Max

24-03-05, 23:55

/me runs Intel + nVidia

I might burst a bubble here, but Athlon64 is not 64bit. Its just a marketting issue with 64bit extended registers. Even a Pentium II has some 64bit features (and therefor 64bit wide registers, i.e. the trapcounters) that would allow them to be called 64bit extended.

It has some nice effects. But MPEG de/encoding is not something that you really advance with it. OK it gets faster but losses more data, but the DCT has to be done in the FPU for accuracy (which is still the same for 64bit and normal processors). Beside that the 64bit addition & substraction mapped to 32bit needs only one more CPU cycle, and is likely (>98%) to be executed simultaneous since it happens in different registers. The multiplication needs 4 more calcs instead of 1. And is at around 50% done in the same cycle too.
Only the devision has a big advantage in time against its 32bit projection. But divisions in DCT are used against mutliplications on a 1:64 ratio ...

The effect of the "big" 64 on the AMD is merely a marketing one.

And as stated. I wouldnt use x86 for such ... i might be no fan of Macs as desktop systems, but a nice G5 Workstation might do wonder there.

dark_reaper

25-03-05, 00:14

Some one knows thier stuff. Right now the G5 is the 2nd most powerful computer, or shall I say G5's. But you are right. I just know my airplanes, cameras, lighting, and editing. For editing a G5 is the way to go. But for PC editing an AMD 64 is the way to go, from all of the reviews I have been reading.

naimex

25-03-05, 01:16

/me runs Intel + nVidia

me too :)

well on most..

kinda.. lol

Stationairy is Intel and Nvidia
Laptop is Intel and Ati
Server is Intel + Intel and (what does voodoo banshee qualify as?)

dark_reaper

25-03-05, 01:32

(what does voodoo banshee qualify as?

Something I would not even bother with. I thought they went out of business a few years ago? :confused:

Rabiator

25-03-05, 01:38

My current preference:
AMD, mostly due to the lower power consumption. Allows you to use slower and less noisy fans. If you care about stuff like global warming, this will also make your computer a bit more environment-friendly.

In terms of speed, AMD an Intel are pretty close.

The 64 bit adress space of the Athlon64 is nice, but not really important to private PCs at the moment. Even Windows(32bit) can handle 2 GBytes of RAM without running into it's internal limitations, and 2 GByte is still more than comfortable.
Intel is also introducing 64 bit, and by the time it becomes a real issue, you will be able to buy 64 bit Intel CPUs too.

naimex

25-03-05, 03:51

Something I would not even bother with. I thought they went out of business a few years ago? :confused:

well its a card from 98 or 99.

it was the voodoo 1 card that ********** the voodoo 2 card.

first came voodoo 1 then they made voodoo 2 and same time as voodoo 2 came on the market, the voodoo banshee also came on and ********** it.

voodoo 1 was 8 mb and less
voodoo 2 was 12 mb
the banshee was 16 mb

it rules :D

EDIT: why is rap-ed not allowed to be used ? havent seen profanity filters on here before :/

Terayon

25-03-05, 04:08

Amd for gaming.

Obsidian X

25-03-05, 04:24

My last 3 AMD machines ran like velcro-covered shit on a sheepskin rug. I vote Intel, purely becuase of past experiences with AMD processors.

Jaenus

25-03-05, 04:41

Probably repeating stuff here but I always choose Intel in my machines dispite knowing AMD will allow games to run better.

My shuttle has a P4 2.6, with hyper-threading enabled, and when playing CS:S I get terrible frame rates because only half of the CPU is being utilized. I live with it because it improves system stability and when I'm actually working, with multiple apps running, things run much more smoothly.

GeForce over ATI any day.

Mighty Max

25-03-05, 10:08

when playing CS:S I get terrible frame rates because only half of the CPU is being utilized.

You do realize that this 50% there is only optics of windows?
Run an execution stamp monitor and you'll see what i mean

Modern 3d-games are multithreaded and profit from the two virtual processors.

Beside that ... there is an option to disable that feature oO

If you get shite FPS i'd look somewhere else. With same gfx card (FX5600Go) and same speed ranking 2.800+ against a 2.8GHz HT i get on my laptop about 5-10% more frames then on my friends one. Same OS same amount of installed software.

athon

25-03-05, 10:53

I prefer AMD because:
1) I've never had a problem with them.
2) Intel spend far too much money on useless, gimmicky advertising.
3) I believe most of what intel uses to market their processors are basically useless gimmicks with cool names, while AMD basically sit quietly rolling out 64-bit, cool n quiet and othe features people actually want.
4) Intel use GHz for marketing, while AMD did away with that ages ago (of course you can still find out what GHz for AMD CPU runs at, they just don't stick it in big huge fonts everywhere).
5) IMO more bang for your buck

Athon Solo

darkservent

25-03-05, 13:54

Not everyone is rich to get Intel anyway.

Mighty Max

25-03-05, 14:20

Not everyone is rich to get Intel anyway.

Thought that i had posted somewhere about a price comparison of the top ones each ... AMD was not the cheaper one, it was Intel costing less ...

darkservent

25-03-05, 15:25

Not everyone has use for the top range AMD, Im referring to the consumer ones and not the professional systems. Ive always noticed at computer fairs that AMD is always cheaper then the Intel and this is the bottom end.

And I would be interested in seeing an article where it says that AMD 64s arnt real 64 bits and its all a marketing ploy, cause thats a first for me.

Mighty Max

25-03-05, 16:01

Darkservent read the white papers. There is all you need to know about the 64 bit extensions.

Part of the way the AMD64 architecture does its magic is to turn the eight 32-bit x86 General Purpose Registers into 64-bit GPRs—and the operations that use them into 64-bit operations. When 32-bit applications are running, the classic EAX, EBX, ECX, EDX, ESI, EDI, EBP and ESP registers contain 32 bits.

Read and understand:
General Purpose Registers are to do general purposes, like mathematical calcs. As stated are they can easily be mapped to 32bit in the same speed (beside DIV and IDIV)

For the ones who know something about that the real important registers are missing. Where are the segment registers? Yes not listed, because they are still 32bit max. Where is the EIP? What 32Bit ? So i can't ever run any program above the 4Gig limit?

Hmm, ok segment registers dont matter in protected mode when it comes to segment size, so what are about their DTs? Global Description Table, Local DT or Interupt DT? still 32Bit wtf?

To solve that problem, the AMD64 architecture introduces a 64-bit flat address space where implementations may support fewer than 64 bits of addressing. That's a 256 terabyte flat address space, which can be accessed directly—without paging—by 64-bit applications.

Ok, so in plain addressing mode (real mode addressing) i can access the upper mem through a 64:32bit addressing. Nice. What you miss here is only that in this flat addressing mode no description pages are valid. say: all of the memory above the 4Gig is accessible by every process. Multi-User OSes with more then 4gig adé (or with huge, therefor slow workarounds to protect that mem)

Sorry, but the 64 is 64 bit extended CPU, not a real 64 bit CPU.

PS: the link to that AMD article (that is intended to be a praise to AMD64) is http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/16101 - but if you know something about the x86 architecture you can read between the lines.

I dont say that extension aint an advantage, but its indeed not useable for the most things. If it brings an advantage to 5% of all applications (and this is very much) it brings a sales advantage of much more ... so it is merely an marketting issue to draw the big 64 on it.

jernau

27-03-05, 12:51

Until there are optimised 64-bit compilers that's all pretty irrelevant.

Besides, the AMD 64-bit instruction set will be extensible into future chip revisions (one of the reasons MS told Intel to stick IA64 up their arse) so by the time the software world catches up any marketing BS happening today will be irrelevant.

This is hardly the first time this has happened, Intel were a lot further from being "truly 32-bit" when they started claiming it.