[RESOLVED] Cheap intel or AMD?

I want to upgrade my motherboard and processor but don't have much money to spend.

I have found the intel celeron d 2.8 ghz processor for £55, and an AMD sempron 3000+ for £65.

Which do u think i should buy??

The AMD is £10 more expensive and says it is clocked at 1.8 ghz! thats £10 more for a ghz LESS speed??

but i have also read that because it is a 3000+ it is comparatively 3ghz, which means £10 more for 200 mhz more. A bit more like it!!!

Wot r ur thoughts?? I have read everywhere that AMD processors are better, but if it is only 1.8 ghz, i don't want it!

Thanks for reading, if you don't feel like posting, just contribute to the poll!!

GTJ

ps. I use my pc for programming mainly and also 3d modelling and animation, so u can c y i want the fastest processor...

The 3000 is like a 1.8 Ghz. also you cant compare AMD to a Celeron as teh celeron has 50% lesss L2 on die cache which means it will be less productive when placed under a load like multitasking with multiple programs running.

I wouldnt buy a Celeron at all. I would get a slower Pentium instead.

You can't really look at GHz these days, it just doesn't work anymore. AMD has chosen a technique and architecture of doing more per clock cycle (or whatever it was called in English) in their processors, which means they do actually more per GHz than Intel's processors. Celerons are also widely known as poor processors: they're cheap, but don't really give much power, one of the reasons being what RobDog pointed out. Practically if you want a cheap processor yet with a lot of capability, you choose AMD. You're likely to regret if you buy a Celeron (although I've heard the recent versions have gotten better, the oldest Celerons were really bad).

I'm too lazy to look for articles that compare and benchmark the processors.

How about an AMD Athlon 3000+, for only £85? (good company, I've bought from them before)

If you want speed, don't go for a 'junior' processor, go for outdated 'adult' processors instead if you can afford it, as the performance difference is significant. A good place to look for comparison benchmarks is TomsHardware.com

I have a Celeron D 2.8Ghz, and as much as i "love" it i would definitely say go for the AMD. Simply faster, more work per clock cycle and basically much more responsive.

I can max out my Celeron D @ 3.61Ghz, but still it barely catches a Sempron 3000+.
I would suggest ditching Celerons and never buying them, ever. I made that mistake and pushed it to its max and still, it's not worthy.
My AMD Athlon 1600+ beats it in most benches and of course my AMD is much more responsive (talking about things like opening programs etc)
Of course the AMD 1600+ is clocked at 1.47Ghz. So, for way under half my maxed speed, it beats me.
Mhz aren't everything.

Go for the AMD.

Just found an interesting graph in the latest issue of MikroBitti (leading Finnish magazine for new technology): AMD's processor prices have gone up (ie. they sell less cheap processors they did before) while Intel is dropping their prices. People are willing to pay a bit more for AMD's processors because they are really that much better than Intel's at the moment.

It might be AMD might loses some of its good price vs. quality rating over time, but it still ought to be a better choice. A lot depends on the next processor generation, but that goes way off this thread.

Thanks ppl for all your comments and help.

especially thanks to si_the_geek for his find, i have decided to purchase this (AMD Athlon 64 3000+).

I went to the AMD site, searched around a bit harder and found comparison graphs of its processors versus the intel counterpart, it whoops intel by a mile everytime!

Cheers every1 for their help! all reputations added to.

GTJ

amd has increased its customer support a lot than what it was before .before amd had problems with overheating but thats gone now as far as i know .and also celeron architecture is a real poor one compared to pentium ones .so amd is more preferred

wait for the 5.8-10 ghz processors :o