Printable View
Is there really a better? Truthfully I think Intel last longer, but AMD seems to work better. I watched this one video from tomshardware.com where they showed what happens when you take the cooler/fan (something) off the chip, and on the intel's it just froze the game they were playing. Once they put it back on it worked fine. When they took it off the AMD's it actually started smoking and destroyed itself. I already have an AMD so I'm looking for advice on my next buy.
-duc
well, i'd say that AMD is better for games, and Intel is better for video editing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by duc
That's definitely a factor to consider if you happen to be one of the millions of people out there who takes the fan off the processor while playing games. :rolleyes:
Well usually you don't take the cooler off your CPU... :D
I'd say AMD offer the same speed for about half to two-thirds the price of the equivalent Intel processors.
Yeah, more break, but that's usually because people stuff them by installing the coolers wrongly (like putting them on sideways). They are more fragile than Intel's, but that's not really a factor once the CPU is installed and running.
Plus, AMD have created the new consumer 64-bit standard AMD64 :D ... the spec that Microsoft are using to make Windows... so Intel have to make their 64-bit processors AMD-compatible :D
at the moment 64-bit processors dont do anything extra.
I prefer AMD as they are cheaper and they run cooler (Or at least they used to).
Pentiums are still good though as long as you avoid the Celerons :)
For servers I would personally think Intel might be better with HT and all that, but on desktops, you cant beat the value of AMD chips and can get away with using cheap cooling (stock fans usually work fine).
In the past Intel chips always ran cooler than AMD - and Intel used this as a very big marketing tool for businesses. Now the new AMD chips run much cooler than Intel and Intel have gone very quiet on the issue.
In the current generation of chips AMD have a better architecture and I would recommend getting one of their chips. However I seriously doubt it'll be long before Intel are back up there.
DJ
Put simply they are both the same and there is hardly anything to destinguish the two. HT never makes much difference in my opinion but there we go :)
Yeah to be honest you'd be hard pushed to distinguise between the two without benchmarking them! But theorically AMD design is better - which is good enough for me - I love an underdog!
DJ
That's because most programs are single threaded, which doesn't utilise HT technology, which is a shame indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
well people might disagree with me here but iv allways considered Intel to be more for office/buissness etc and AMd for games and video editing
Id like to get a new amd 64 but at this point i can't see any advantages. Perhaps when i get cash for my voodoo ill opt for twin amd cpu's. I have no complaints about my p4 though. Hl2 and doom3 run pretty good.
Dilenger looking at your sig you know roman numerals for 4 is IV not IIII :)
64bit Windows and Linux. It's quite cool. Too bad I don't have one yetQuote:
Originally Posted by Dilenger4
Yeah i knew that but i didn't think that pent 3's which were labled III were really roman numerals. Seems intel threw them in the trash with the p4. Too bad though because in 2042 i could have changed my cpu specs in my sig to Intel PXXVII 500Ghz. :lol:Quote:
Posted by BodwadUK
Dilenger looking at your sig you know roman numerals for 4 is IV not IIII
Either that, or your version of PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 500 GHzQuote:
Originally Posted by Dilenger4
Of course they do. Conventional 32-bit processors had to split 64-bit integers over multiple registers and 64-bit operations were very slow and latent. With the release of good, solid 64-bit architecture, software developers will be able to work efficiently with numbers over 4.2 billion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajames
Now that IPv6 is out and used widely, you cannot store a long version of an IP address in a single 32-bit integer. Solution? Pad it out and put it into a 64-bit one! Either that or go the char[6] way.
But it has to simulate 32bit surely thus slowing down 32bit programs? :confused:
Conventional register access and instruction sets can still be used (sometimes a recompile is required if low-level optomisations were made). On AMD64 architecture, there are eight new 64-bit registers, and eight new SSE registers. Most of the 64-bit instructions are simply prefixed 32-bit instructions, meaning 32-bit applications can run natively using standard 32-bit memory addressing and so forth. However, you need a 64-bit operating system (one that is aware of the ability to enable long mode), otherwise your program will bomb out.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
Don't get confused; AMD64 is not an entirely new architecture, just an extension to the x86 architecture. So no simulation is done; if anything, any of the old IA-32 64-bit instructions have been improved to move across registers (or perhaps not, but that would have been ideal) to improve performance on 32-bit apps which take advantage of 64-bit instructions.
I used to have a Intel Celeron 512MhzQuote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
:blush:
I have an Intel Celeron D 2816Mhz i fail to see what is wrong with it, apart from my old Athlon XP 1600+ pwning it :SQuote:
Originally Posted by Madboy
Celeron is Pentium gone wrong heh... from memory, I think it lacks several possible enhancements (but includes MMX), making them solid and cheap. Nothing wrong with Celeron, especially if all you are going to do is surf the web. The moment you do anything too intense, and you will probably notice the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreatone