Printable View
In preparation for building a new killer system I have had members "suggest" one vs the other but to keep the thread on-topic I created this one. :)
I was looking at a Dual CPU system consisting of 2 P4 Dual Core Hyper Threading 3.0, 1024 FSB, 1.0/2.0 Mb cache, processors with a couple of Gigs of RAM.
Ok, let the discussion begin. :D
A discussion is not needed. Look at any benchmarks. Any comparable Intel vs AMD, the Intel loses. Intel's top offering cannot compete with AMD's. AMD offers native 32 and 64 bit computing where as Intel does not have this. It used to be AMDs ran hotter than Intel, but now it is usually the reverse. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/22/0714240 shows Intel's heat issues with the newer CPUs. AMD is also cheaper.
The only reason you should choose Intel is if you are a fan boy or you're biased to Intel.
This post probably sounded biased but it isn't. I myself have several Intel systems. I choose which is the best at the time. Right now it's AMD.
You know my answer ;)
If price is a factor go for AMD. Just make some extra cooling arrangements.
If price is not a factor, buy Intel. No doubt you'll get better community support/ application support. (don't want to go into speed comparison.)
Edit
AHHHH !
I by mistake voted for Intel. Consider it for AMD.
Make AMD the top one.
Well thats for a Xeon processor. I'm not going to get one of those.
I may be wrong but I remember reading somewhere that you can not compare a Intel 3.0 with an AMD 3000. Its something to do with the way AMD uses different measurements. an AMD 3000 is not a 3.0 Gig like Intels its actually less from what I hear.
Price is not a factor and I have to say I am biased towards Intel as I have been a Intel user all my life with no problems. I want quality and performance as its going to cost allot. Dont want to waste money but not afraid to spend it. ;)
AMD 64 4800+ X2 All the way!
I started liking AMD back when I had my AMD K6-2 500mhz chips.. it was cheaper and I, as well, didnt have any problems with it. Been AMD ever since...
And I'll repost this Rob :)
Theres an article in the new Maximum PC magazine comparing the new Athlon 64 FX-60 dual core chips to the new Pentium Extreme Edition 955 dual core chips. In quoting them, overall, the "Pentium Extreme Edition 955 still gets spanked by the Athlon FX-60" (however in some tests it was faster...) In converting an MPEG-2 movie to Nero's MPEG4 format, Athlon was 60 percent faster than the Pentium...
Dont really have anything against Pentium... im just a cheapskate :)
Time for a first: I agree with kasracer :D
My AMD 64 3000+ is noticably faster than the equivalent Pentium that I used to have at work, and it was less than a third of the price too.
And yes you are right about clock speeds, mine is (I think) 1.8 GHz - the "3000+" naming comes from the Intel chip it beats on benchmarks (or at least theoretically, if those chips dont actually exist).
The last time I heard of Intel chips being noticably better than AMD, it was a part of discussions about Quake 2 - these days I would say they are almost equal (some app's will favour one or the other).
See so then a AMD 3000 CPU for say $100 is not that same value and performance as an Intel CPU 3.0 for $150. The Intel CPU will outperform the AMD since the AMD is actually like a 1.8?
No, the 3000+ (even tho it is 1.8Ghz) outperforms the Intel 3.0 Ghz, due to the functionailty differences.
The AMD requires fewer clock cycles for many operations (apparently), presumably due to pipelining or additional co-processors.
This is of course marketing published on behalf of AMD, but it works in my case anyway!
Ah, so it has a co-processor. But the Dual Core CPUs from Intel have 2 pipelines on the die allowing twice as much processing power as their previous single synchronious cpus. The HT cpus are a little better with asynchronous processing in a single pipeline but supposedly not even close like the separate dual cores.
Rob, if your after Dual CPU's go with AMD Opterons, seriously, the 146's i think it is (or is it 148's), then overclock them yourself, stably on stock heatsinks you EASY gain anohter 1Ghz. They seriously beat almost anything put in front of them.
If its Dual Core you're after, go for AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Link below shows exactly why...
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=192&type=expert
Sorry but Intel just don't make the cut these days :(
My old Athlon 1600+ Beats my Celeron @3.2Ghz hands down... and its only rated for half that speed.
I just build a http://www.pepster.com/ComputerLogo.png and the last 5 builds were Intel, but I have to go with AMD at this current moment. :bigyello:
AMD maybe slower speedwise than the Pentiums, but since it is more efficient and executes more instructions simutaniously, it just comes to show that AMD's don't need much speed to compute faster than the Pentiums. My fathers AMD 2.2 GHz is just as fast as a Pentium 3.4 GHz.
Also, AMD's are cheaper. ;)
Yes, I am hearing a theme for this thread already but the votes dont match with the theme. AMD is more expensive I think from what I have seen in pricing. :(
Gimli64, Welcome to the Forums.
That looks like a killer system. What monitor is that? and size?
I've always owned Intel, but a few people that I know have AMD's, and they seem to be alot better than the old AMD chips. I had one with W98 that I picked up from someone. I didn't like it very much.
What? This makes no sense. You should go with AMD for the Application support.Quote:
Originally Posted by iPrank
Both AMD and Intel support the x86 platform. I have never run across an application that could not run on both AMD and Intel. It's bad design if it cannot run on both (unless it's an APP specific for the platform like a performance read out application for HyperThreading on an Intel CPU (AMD has hyperthreading, btw)).
AMD's 64 bit processor supports both 32 and 64bit applications natively so it only makes sense that AMD would be the better choice in applciation compatability.
Also, what do you mean community support? Both have a huge following....
A 3GHz Intel is comparable to a 3000+ from AMD. Hence the name. AMD cannot say "3000+ is equal to a 3GHz Intel" so they say it's equal to a 3GHz Duron CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
If you are biased towards Intel then that's fine. Both processors will work for you perfectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
The 3000+ means it's comparable to a 3GHz performance. AMD's GHz doesn't matter as much. It gives more performance per Hertz.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I always get my stuff at NewEgg.com. They usually have great pricing. Some of AMD's new chips are expensive, but overall Intel is higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Is there any proof of this?Quote:
AMD's GHz doesn't matter as much. It gives more performance per Hertz.
Duron? Isnt that another budget type of Intel CPU?Quote:
AMD cannot say "3000+ is equal to a 3GHz Intel" so they say it's equal to a 3GHz Duron CPU.
Power consumption is also one of the important factor, and AMD consumes about 50% less power than INTEL.
Any benchmark shows the proof. It's just how AMDs work. It's like PowerPC chips. They operated at a lower clock speed than some Intel CPUs but could still out perform them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Obviously that's not the case anymore (Apple is moving to Intel).
It was an AMD CPU before they discontinued it. It was marketed by the GHz (i.e. it had no rating (1800+, 3000+))Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I'm a decent hardware guy but if the cpu uses less power then it should only relate to the powersupply needing to supply the motherboard with less. But with the powerfull PS' that are out now does that really make a difference? Maybe it will generate less heat but...?
Less power means you save more money on your electric bill. It also gives you more flexibility with what upgrades your PSU can handle in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Guess I'm old school where More is always More. :D
Frankly even i had thought about starting a thread lke this one, but then all it took me was a google search and the first result gave me the answer.
BENCHMARK
for me MORE IN LESS seems fine.
Thanks for the article link. I am reading it now. :D
I used to work for Intel (actually, we called it "InHell")
The company is so anal-retentive and bogged down in endless bureaucracy that I'm convinced they can't possibly send any product out the door.
My theory: they buy AMD chips and re-label them ;^
Sorry I have nothing useful to offer. I know nothing about AND except how to spell it.
Anyone remember Zilog? Alpha?
My cousin works for Intel and he likes the company. They pay him well and plenty of benefits. Oh, and from time to time they give the employees options to purchase CPUs and stuff for very cheap!
I'd work there if given the chance. ;)
Considering AMD yet rob ? ;)
Maybe i should show the power of an Opteron chip, maybe then you'll leave Intel for good. Or just take the plunge and go X2, nothing Intel has can catch it, and if you look into their outlines for the future the Intel chips won;t even start to compete until 2008, which to me wouuld be a long time behind considering what AMD will have to offer by then.
Sorry, i have no links atm, i'm in college, i will back my post up later Rob ;)
Still cant pry myself away from Intel. I read half the article before going to bed this morning. :D I'll reread it after I go back to bed. :D
Is it that half the article was sufficient to prove that you are wrong?? :D
No, as I only made it through the first page before I got sidetracked. :D
Too bad the poll doesnt show more of a position on this. Its a tie so far. :(
It is not tie. Consider my vote for AMD. :)
RD you wanna reconsider your decision?
I guess "someone" just voted. But I thought your vote didnt count? HA just kidding. ;)
Oh wait I see you voted for Intel, hmm... :D
Ya it was a negative vote for Intel :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBo
Doesn't anyone else out there find this post hilarious :confused:
Check out the monitor on my desk in the Post your Shack thread in Chit-Chat. The one I have is a Dell 24" wide format. Awesome monitor with plenty of screen real estate for dev. Looks like Gimili has a similar sized one, though a different brand.Quote:
That looks like a killer system. What monitor is that? and size?
I've been using AMD since the 486 series and would rather have one of them the the Intell in the same series. My laptop is AMD,my daughters is K6 AMD and my wife's new machine is AMD 3800+.
More importantly, less power = less heat = less change your nice new CPU will melt....Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
Ok, then why did Apple change to Intel processors and not AMD?
Intel probably offered them a better price..Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
But they wouldnt want to jepordize their products/sales if it was inferior. They would get a bad rep and loose money. So Intel is viewed as the better processor by Macintosh! :D
Macs used to have IBM processors in them.
The same reason Dell uses Intel and hasn't sold any AMD chips: Intel has the fabrication plants to produce a massive amount of chips to supply all of its parents with.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
AMD Doesn't have the facilities yet to replace Intel in offering massive amounts of chips to the likes of Dell and Apple.
Also, Intel just unveiled its new Mobile processors which use the 65 nanometre process which gives it very low power consumption and it's a dual-core chip. The funny thing is, AMD's Turion processor uses about 1/5th of the power that the Yonah does and still out performs it even though it's a single core CPU (at least from what I have seen). Plus it's 64bit.
No, Intel can meet their requirements for a huge amount of chips where AMD may or may not be able to. Apple doesn't want shortages especially since they're stock is going through the roof and each quarter they are selling a record number of computers and ipods.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
The PowerPC chips were quite slow and power hungry compared to the new Intel which. So it's nice to see them switch. Too bad they didn't go for AMD but I see their reasons behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
How many non-techies are aware of AMD? (in my experience, very few)
What percentage of Mac buyers are techies? (in my experience, quite low)
I see this as a marketing gimmick as much as anything else, they know that people will see the name Intel and think something like "well I've heard of them, it must be good... I'll buy it". Not to mention of course the 'accidental' sales it will cause when people go out to buy an Intel based PC.
That makes two of us :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I have learned not to be biased in my proccessor opionons anymore. Back in the day of the original thread, where me and intel sucks slandered anyone who whispered the name of intel, But as of today... The better processor gets my $$. I figure a difference within 100$ isnt that much for performance. So as of today, my vote is definetly going to AMD.
Rumor has it, that they have quad core opterons running at about 2600$ a piece. If money is no object get one of those. My boss just is thinking about ordering dual quads with dual pci express rendering graphics cards with 16gb of memory. His total last time he checked was 14,500$... He should have it within the month.
That means i get his old one :)
Dual Xeons 3.4ghz with the fx quadro 4450... I think.
I'd like to see how the new Intels that are in the Macs released today compare to a similar AMD.
There're some good posts on this thread, with some strong arguments.
I suppose for a really top-notch computer, this will make a difference, but I find there are other considerations for more general systems. One of my computers got relegated to the exercise/storage room because the fans were too loud.
However, I now have a program that evolves a mathematical model for 3,000,000 iterations. I have this running on three different computers: An Intel 2.8GHz Pentium D, an Intel 2.8GHz Pentium III, and an old AMD 1.2 GHz Athlon (at least I think that's what's in that computer). There is no obvious difference between how long each one takes to complete, all three take about three days.
Basicaly, I don't think that most people can actually tell the difference for most applications. Use whatever you feel comfortable with, because it will be obsolete before you care.
Dont you mean a P4?Quote:
Originally Posted by shaggy
Who knows... maybe they wanted to brand them IntApple... or AppIntel.... Or Appentium... :lol: ........ pentiapple??? you get the idea..... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
***Whoops.. thought that was mentioned at the end of the thread... but there was another page... so this looks a little rediculous now... (yes I know it still looked a little rediculous to start out)... but .. ehh... I'll keep it here...
As for the clock speed thingy, the AMDs have a much longer pipeline length than the Intels which means more instructions per clock cycle. Intel deliberately shortened the pipeline on the Pentium 4s so that they could ramp up the clock speed, seeing as at the time most people only considered clock speed when evaluating processor performance it made Intel look as though they had made huge gains.
Another thing, I don't know if this is still true but it certainly was in the days of the Athlon XP (when I was shopping around for my setup ;)), there was an opinion that AMD processors were less reliable than Intels because they had a statistically far higher amount returned after purchase due to failures. This in fact had nothing to do with the chip's reliability, it was simply because P4's had a large bulky packaging so even an ape could install one without damaging it, whereas the Athlon XP had no covering over the chip itself and required a careful installation - this is where they were damaged as people were installing them themselves without proper caution. As long as the chip was handled gently and the heatsink installed correctly (no pressing on an angle, mounting in the correct way etc.) it was fine.
Nowadays I think the Athlon 64's may use a different packaging so I'm not sure if this still applies but it's worth considering if you ever hear doubts about AMD reliability. Once installed they have a comparable service life to Pentiums (in both cases far longer than it takes for them to outdate).
There is allot of good points made here :thumb: But no decision yet. :(
Just heard that the Intel chips being in Macs are going to increase speed 3x!
Ok Rob, if you have the money, set 2 systems up side by side, one AMD one Intel.
Run a CPU intensive program, and see how smoothly each one performs, i guarantee that setup correctly the AMd will be much faster due to its onboard memory controller. Intel have gone the wrong way and taken the memory controller off the chip and this has caused lag times in their processors. Don't be fooled by the clock speeds, AMD's are the way to go, they do much more work per cycle.
...or simply see any of the benchmark tests. I aint posting any new links though:D
I'll post one then :D
Here's a recent CPU comparison (about 30 chips) from a site that has always been very reliable:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/..._core_assault/
Another great article. I heard about that site but never took the time to go there. :blush:
Good points but why would it run slightly slower on single threaded apps?Quote:
some applications run marginally slower on dual-core processors compared to their single-core counterparts with the same clock speed (we found a 3.3% difference with WinRAR, for example). Yet this advantage will be short lived as more applications make use of thread-optimized multiple processing cores.
I'd guess as they natively support multi-threading they need to basically emulate single-threading. Not a major deal in the long term tho, as the biggest example they could find was 3.3% difference, with an app that will no doubt be replaced soon enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
A few more blurbs that is a good deciding factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD CPU
Ok, here's what I want for my Xmas present :D
You seriously want a watercooled FX-60 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I take it thats a win for AMD ?