AMD vs INTEL for a development machine.

**kleptos** · Mar 19th, 2004, 02:12 PM

I am building a PC for the purpose of software development. I am currently building small applications but will be building more enterprise applications in the future. Hopefully, if my knowledge get better i will be working on some game programming. Since this will be the sole purpose for this machine, what processor should i go with Intel or AMD. I know AMD are good chips but do they still overheat? Which way should i go? The OS for this will be Windows XP Professional and then eventually Longhorn.

Thanks!

**Ideas Man** · Mar 20th, 2004, 01:08 AM

I doubt very much so that any processor you buy now will run longhorn with all the bells and whistles, I'd personally go with the Intel, they have a better build quality and don't overheat. That's my opinion.

Note: There is no need to start a whingeing competition over this either like some people will and you know who you are.

**dis1411** · Mar 20th, 2004, 02:08 AM

the cpu should be ok.. its the Gpu that will be getting a workout

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Mar 20th, 2004, 07:50 PM

My friend has an XP 1800+ overclocked so that the FSB is 333 MHz, and it runs at 109 F.

It should be noted he has a Thermaltake heatsink, and so do I. I have an xp 1600+(different chip core), and it runs slightly hotter than my friend's(44.5 C currently). Then again his heatsink is fully copper, mine only has a copper core.

**made_of_asp** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 12:17 AM

AMD ~ Intel are pretty much the same quality. They both run stable.

Currently, the chipset has more to do with stability than the CPU itself.

It is true though, AMD do run hotter than Intel (at least the XP series) but i prefer AMD.

P4's currently outphase Athlon XP's in most tasks, althrough FX-51 outruns 'em all.

AMD = Currently Better Value.

Correct me if i'm wrong

**IntelSucks** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by made_of_asp
AMD ~ Intel are pretty much the same quality. They both run stable.

Currently, the chipset has more to do with stability than the CPU itself.

It is true though, AMD do run hotter than Intel (at least the XP series)

P4's currently outphase Athlon XP's in most tasks, althrough FX-51 outruns 'em all.

Correct me if i'm wrong

What, are you an Idiot?...The P4 "outphase" Athlon XP's, thats the biggest load of bs I have ever heard. Same quality, OMG *** are you talking about!

As far as heat goes, the AMD runs hotter but also runs more efficiently and are designed to handle high temeratures...I swear...Those stupid Pentimum pieces of crap cant handle heat because they suck my anus hole.

**cid** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 01:03 AM

Ok man...I would definetly go with AMD on this one.
1. Cost efficient
2.Multitasking Capabilities
3.It does not run hot(I have a 2500 Barton sitting at about 109)
4.Pipelines in the actual processor are spread apart.
5.When benchmarked with an Intel(equal speed) the AMD is always the winner.

Dont listen to IdeasMan or Madboy on this subject. And If your developing software you dont need an awesome GPU. Also if it was me personally I would go with the AMD 64 chip. This cpu has blown away the competetion. Then run windows xp64 bit edition. And compiling software has never been easier.

**Ideas Man** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 01:04 AM

You suck, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. How many more people are you going to insult?

**IntelSucks** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Ideas Man
I doubt very much so that any processor you buy now will run longhorn with all the bells and whistles, I'd personally go with the Intel, they have a better build quality and don't overheat. That's my opinion.

Note: There is no need to start a whingeing competition over this either like some people will and you know who you are.

Hahahahahahahahhahaha, here we go again, another Intel loving queer who thinks he knows stuff about processors. Overheat!? All the bells and whistles!? Its beta it sucks no matter what your running.

**IntelSucks** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 01:06 AM

my 2500 barton is sitting at 79 right now

**cid** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Ideas Man
Note: There is no need to start a whingeing competition over this either like some people will and you know who you are.

He only doesnt want to start a debate because he WILL lose and he doesnt have enough facts to back up his trash talk

**Edneeis** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 01:48 AM

It doesn't matter what processor you get, Intel or AMD, development is just another application so they will both work just fine.

**IntelSucks** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Edneeis
It doesn't matter what processor you get, Intel or AMD, development is just another application so they will both work just fine.

This is only something that stupid people say.

**si_the_geek** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by IntelSucks
This is only something that stupid people say.

No, it is something that unbiased people say.

I have never known anybody recommend either Intel or AMD processors in favour of each other in terms of development, at least not with any valid justification. I haven't seen a difference, and neither have any of the people I have known who have used both.

There are situations where one manufacturers processor is noticably better than the others (such as value for money, or video editing), but development doesnt seem to be one of them.

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 06:57 PM

Actually AMDs are superior for development, especially in an enterprise, as lower costs result in higher profits.

Athlons are doing more work per cycle than Pentiums. 9 versus 6.

This is why you'll hear clock alone doesn't mean what it used to.

However, the higher FSB, and HyperThreading of the pentiums provide performance that can't be denied. There's much less of a bottle neck when your P4 is truly running at 800 MHz FSB(have fun emptying your wallet though).

As for Intels not being able to handle heat, I suppose you didn't see the video of what happened when the coolers malfunctioned(for the sake of the test they were simply removed from the die) anyway the Athlons burned up, the Pentiums stayed alive. This brought AMD to fix the problem, and any new CPU(AMD or Intel) should have no problem with shutting itself off at excessive temps.

As for top of the line. Intel holds that with the P4 extreme edition(2 MB cache! higher quality memory is used for cache, which makes it far superior(quicker) than standard RAM). Even the AMD 64 FX cannot beat it. So in the end, a much faster clock wins, at a fairly comparable price. And at higher clock rates the Athlon XPs/64s don't hold up to their 'PR' ratings, AMD 64 3400+ doesn't compare to a 3.2 GHz P4(EE), and Intel wipes the floor with them.

But AMD has always gave the consumers the most bang for their buck, and with quality and stability that's highly respectable.

In the end, AMD wins the wise consumers. For those who wish to pay for a brand name, and that brand's marketing, Intel is there.

And every time one of Intel's commercials comes on you can say, "I helped pay for that!"

**IntelSucks** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 10:44 PM

Actually you guys just can't handle the truth.

**cid** · Mar 22nd, 2004, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Actually AMDs are superior for development, especially in an enterprise, as lower costs result in higher profits.

Athlons are doing more work per cycle than Pentiums. 9 versus 6.

This is why you'll hear clock alone doesn't mean what it used to.

However, the higher FSB, and HyperThreading of the pentiums provide performance that can't be denied. There's much less of a bottle neck when your P4 is truly running at 800 MHz FSB(have fun emptying your wallet though).

As for Intels not being able to handle heat, I suppose you didn't see the video of what happened when the coolers malfunctioned(for the sake of the test they were simply removed from the die) anyway the Athlons burned up, the Pentiums stayed alive. This brought AMD to fix the problem, and any new CPU(AMD or Intel) should have no problem with shutting itself off at excessive temps.

As for top of the line. Intel holds that with the P4 extreme edition(2 MB cache! higher quality memory is used for cache, which makes it far superior(quicker) than standard RAM). Even the AMD 64 FX cannot beat it. So in the end, a much faster clock wins, at a fairly comparable price. And at higher clock rates the Athlon XPs/64s don't hold up to their 'PR' ratings, AMD 64 3400+ doesn't compare to a 3.2 GHz P4(EE), and Intel wipes the floor with them.

But AMD has always gave the consumers the most bang for their buck, and with quality and stability that's highly respectable.

In the end, AMD wins the wise consumers. For those who wish to pay for a brand name, and that brand's marketing, Intel is there.

And every time one of Intel's commercials comes on you can say, "I helped pay for that!"

Wow digitalerror I didnt know you had it in you

But you left one thing out. Not all P4 processors have Hyperthreading. I think you have to buy 3.06ghz and above to get hyperthreading. But AMD also has a similar technology called "?"(maybe...Hyper Power, or something like that). So it is unfair to say that Intel has hyperthreading and leave out AMD's technology. As a matter of fact AMD has a consumer level 64-bit porcessor with "hyperthreading". So all in all AMD is still the better processor.

Hey guys take a look at this...

And dont discredit it by saying "That is on the AMD website so it cant be true." If it was not true Im sure Intel would have sued all ready. Im sure that the competitors take a look at each others websites quite often with a fine tipped comb.

**Ideas Man** · Mar 23rd, 2004, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by cid
Not all P4 processors have Hyperthreading. I think you have to buy 3.06ghz and above to get hyperthreading.

THat was the first, but all since then have Hyper-Threading, a 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 3.2, 3.4?? all have hyperthreading and the 800MHz FSB. Intel is currently making the P4s and the Xeons with 64-bit but they won;t be available till the second half of this year, i expect right in time with Windows XP 64-bit edition.

**cid** · Mar 23rd, 2004, 12:10 AM

Well regardless the benchmark says it all.

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Mar 23rd, 2004, 03:42 AM

True, cid, AMD 64 processors support a bus system called HyperTransport(which is a bus type, and not on the chip itself, so it'll be the motherboard which really matters, not only the chip), which capacity is about 12.8 GB/s, and knocks the socks off the bus of a P4, but the greater P4 CPU clock, along with it's marginally smaller IPC(instructions per clock-cycle) still out performs the latest AMD model, this probably has some help with the largest on-die cache, which has 30 nanosecond(of very expensive) latent memory compared to the best RAM which may fare around 60 nanoseconds. Twice the speed will make a noticeable difference, and with faux dual-cpu support, instructions would be processed very quickly, especially with RDRAM (beyond any AMD), as benchmarks show.

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Mar 23rd, 2004, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by cid
Well regardless the benchmark says it all.

They don't include the P4 Extreme Edition(EE) and it's because it'd win.

I'm not bashing AMD, I own one(XP 1600+), and have no regrets.

But Intel does have a better chip, at a greater price than it's worth. AMD offers chips that are afforable, perform great, and are stable. The three reasons why a lot of us love AMD.

**Ideas Man** · Mar 23rd, 2004, 04:18 AM

Personal preference and what the person values in a product eventually decides what you buy, I choose me P4 and never looked back, anthough it's slow by todays standards, it still does the trick and hasn't missed a beat.

**si_the_geek** · Mar 23rd, 2004, 05:35 AM

DiGiTaIErRoR - I agree that AMD chips are better value (unless you get a discount on Intel based machines like the company I work for

). But why are they better for development?

If you were building a development only machine and were given one Intel chip and one AMD chip (along with apt. board/RAM etc), why would you choose the one you choose?

I would personally not buy Intel purely because of the price difference (and recommend my friends do the same), but I am still waiting for any justification in terms of development.

Originally posted by cid
Well regardless the benchmark says it all.

As always, benchmarks are very subjective - it is very easy to test mainly the things that you know you will be best at (both Intel and AMD have been proven to do this on several occasions). This means that the benchmark is accurate, but does not necessarily relate directly to real world use.

I remember when the benchmark wars of the '90s started - AMD showed that their speed was superior, but didn't test any floating point, where they were proved to be far slower (which was a serious issue back then, as many the big games of the time were based on floating point arithmetic).

Originally posted by Ideas Man
Personal preference and what the person values in a product eventually decides what you buy

I agree completely.

**cid** · Mar 23rd, 2004, 11:31 AM

Well if you look at the P4EE edition vs. the P4 you will see little difference. Look for the benchmark yourself. Show me a benchmark of fact like I showed you and I will be a little more gratuitous towards your opinions.

**W01fgang** · Mar 23rd, 2004, 04:12 PM

I'm building an Athlon 64 next month for programming workstation. I currently work from a pentium III 667 (ridiculous.. i know) with dual 21" display.

Now days, that Athlon 64 is dirt cheap and it's just too good to let it slip by...

Athlon 64 at 3200+ with 1MB cache, it's around $260... and the 3000+ with 512K cache is around $210. That's is just pure value for 64bit processing power. AMD has processors with integrated memory controllers.

$50 more and double the cache!!!

If you intend to work on windows and occasionally have linux cooking, this is still the best platform IMHO.

Which ever way, expect to upgrade 2 years later for PCI Express mobo.

oh... BTW... LONG LIVE AMD!! (excuse me..)

**Ideas Man** · Mar 24th, 2004, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by W01fgang
expect to upgrade 2 years later for PCI Express mobo.

It's not that far away at all, try about 3 months, atleast that's what Intel is saying and they're making it, almost finished.

**IntelSucks** · Mar 24th, 2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Ideas Man
It's not that far away at all, try about 3 months, atleast that's what Intel is saying and they're making it, almost finished.

Yeah PCI Express should be here sometime this year and I am thinking that AGP is going to go away.

**Cander** · Mar 24th, 2004, 10:49 AM

Unless you plan on writting in Assembly, chip is irrelevant.

**W01fgang** · Mar 24th, 2004, 04:36 PM

You're right about PCI express in months to come.

PCI express comes in 3 flavors, hence 3 types of slots based on the band width. It would be sometime until majority vendors starts releasing mobos, cards and etc. Hopefully soon.

My only problem with my choice of Athlon 64 is the motherboard. There are just no "Good" mobo. These 1st Gen are not great in features and not fine tuned. nVidia nForce3 150 is just an interim mobo before 250 is release.

For cheap and powerful i still think Athlon XP 3200+ at $190, with Asus A7N8X DELUXE NForce II Ultra 400 at $129 is a solid deal.

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Mar 24th, 2004, 10:08 PM

si_the_geek:

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Actually AMDs are superior for development, especially in an enterprise, as lower costs result in higher profits.

**Ideas Man** · Mar 25th, 2004, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by IntelSucks
... and I am thinking that AGP is going to go away.

No need to think that, it is dead now. It would explain why ATI and NVIDIA hadn't released anything latly. PCI Express will be awsome and will replace AGP. It will replace the lot and is very exciting in what it offers.

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Mar 25th, 2004, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by W01fgang
You're right about PCI express in months to come.

PCI express comes in 3 flavors, hence 3 types of slots based on the band width. It would be sometime until majority vendors starts releasing mobos, cards and etc. Hopefully soon.

My only problem with my choice of Athlon 64 is the motherboard. There are just no "Good" mobo. These 1st Gen are not great in features and not fine tuned. nVidia nForce3 150 is just an interim mobo before 250 is release.

For cheap and powerful i still think Athlon XP 3200+ at $190, with Asus A7N8X DELUXE NForce II Ultra 400 at $129 is a solid deal.

I prefer ABIT. As for RAM: Crucial, Mushkin, or Corsair. Video: ATI Radeon series is nice, and NVidia also has some nice boards. HDD: WD. CPU: AMD. CASE/PSU: Antec TruePower.

**kleptos** · Apr 5th, 2004, 02:10 PM

If i go with a 64 bit AMD, with 64 bit Windows XP, will my 32 bit apps still work, or will i notice a problem? For instance VS.NET, will it run just as good as it does now if not better with the 64 bit flavor, or will somethings not work right because its 32 bit on a 64?

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Apr 5th, 2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by kleptos
If i go with a 64 bit AMD, with 64 bit Windows XP, will my 32 bit apps still work, or will i notice a problem? For instance VS.NET, will it run just as good as it does now if not better with the 64 bit flavor, or will somethings not work right because its 32 bit on a 64?

32 bit still works.

**si_the_geek** · Apr 6th, 2004, 03:50 AM

Yep.. there have been several reviews of running 32bit software on 64bit cpu's (at sites like www.tomshardware.com and www.pcpro.co.uk ). The only issue I've heard about is a relative lack of speed with Intel chips, but nothing too serious.

**W01fgang** · Apr 6th, 2004, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
I prefer ABIT. As for RAM: Crucial, Mushkin, or Corsair. Video: ATI Radeon series is nice, and NVidia also has some nice boards. HDD: WD. CPU: AMD. CASE/PSU: Antec TruePower.

You're right. Abit has always been loyal to the core tweakers.

In fact i am getting a cheap Abit NF7 with Athlon XP 2800+.

**Edneeis** · Apr 18th, 2004, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by IntelSucks
This is only something that stupid people say.

And that must be what guys with small dicks say.

RAM is going to be a bigger asset then whether your CPU is INTEL or AMD when it comes to development. Generally speaking CPUs aren't really targetting specific applications especially not general development applications. You may get some tuned for 3D work but not one tuned for Visual Studio.

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Apr 18th, 2004, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by Edneeis
And that must be what guys with small dicks say.

RAM is going to be a bigger asset then whether your CPU is INTEL or AMD when it comes to development. Generally speaking CPUs aren't really targetting specific applications especially not general development applications. You may get some tuned for 3D work but not one tuned for Visual Studio.

Basically anything that'll make the computer faster would make Visual Studio faster. AMD offers the most bang for the buck, so choosing AMD can give you better performance on a limited budget.

**Edneeis** · Apr 18th, 2004, 03:33 PM

I agree that AMD is probably going to be the most cost efficent CPU but that wasn't the question. Also there is more that makes the computer 'fast' than just the CPU. This brings me back to my original response:
"It doesn't matter what processor you get, Intel or AMD, development is just another application so they will both work just fine."

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Apr 18th, 2004, 03:48 PM

In a business it wouldn't really matter which way you go. If it's solely for development there's no real price difference, because you won't need a top-of-the-line system to do it(or anything near one). But for a at home developer spending a little extra money(compared to buying old technology) can go a long way when buying an AMD system. Compatible RAM which doesn't bottleneck the system is cheap, and boards supporting AMDs are quite cheap too.

And Opertons are still making mincemeat out of Xeons, so the servers at the place of development would benefit from AMD too.

Thread: AMD vs INTEL for a development machine.

Thread Tools

Display

AMD vs INTEL for a development machine.

Posting Permissions