Intel vs. AMD...

[RobDog888]

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.

[Kasracer]

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.

[iPrank]

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.

[RobDog888]

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.

[RobDog888]

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.

[-TPM-]

AMD 64 4800+ X2 All the way!

[gigemboy]

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

[si_the_geek]

Time for a first: I agree with kasracer

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).

[RobDog888]

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?

[si_the_geek]

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!

[RobDog888]

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.

[thegreatone]

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.

[Gimli64]

I just build a and the last 5 builds were Intel, but I have to go with AMD at this current moment.

[Jacob Roman]

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.

[RobDog888]

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?

[dglienna]

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.

[Kasracer]

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.)

What? This makes no sense. You should go with AMD for the Application support.

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....

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.

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.

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.

If you are biased towards Intel then that's fine. Both processors will work for you perfectly.

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?

The 3000+ means it's comparable to a 3GHz performance. AMD's GHz doesn't matter as much. It gives more performance per Hertz.

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.

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.

[RobDog888]

AMD's GHz doesn't matter as much. It gives more performance per Hertz.

Is there any proof of this?

AMD cannot say "3000+ is equal to a 3GHz Intel" so they say it's equal to a 3GHz Duron CPU.

Duron? Isnt that another budget type of Intel CPU?

[fahad k]

Power consumption is also one of the important factor, and AMD consumes about 50% less power than INTEL.

[Kasracer]

Is there any proof of this?

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.

Obviously that's not the case anymore (Apple is moving to Intel).

Duron? Isnt that another budget type of Intel CPU?

It was an AMD CPU before they discontinued it. It was marketed by the GHz (i.e. it had no rating (1800+, 3000+))

[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...?

[Kasracer]

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.

[RobDog888]

Guess I'm old school where More is always More.

[fahad k]

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.

[RobDog888]

Thanks for the article link. I am reading it now.

[DaveBo]

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?

[RobDog888]

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.

[thegreatone]

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

[RobDog888]

Still cant pry myself away from Intel. I read half the article before going to bed this morning. I'll reread it after I go back to bed.

[fahad k]

Is it that half the article was sufficient to prove that you are wrong??

[RobDog888]

No, as I only made it through the first page before I got sidetracked.

Too bad the poll doesnt show more of a position on this. Its a tie so far.

[iPrank]

It is not tie. Consider my vote for AMD.

[fahad k]

RD you wanna reconsider your decision?

[RobDog888]

I guess "someone" just voted. But I thought your vote didnt count? HA just kidding.

Oh wait I see you voted for Intel, hmm...

[fahad k]

Ya it was a negative vote for Intel

[Shaggy Hiker]

Sorry I have nothing useful to offer. I know nothing about AND except how to spell it.

Doesn't anyone else out there find this post hilarious

That looks like a killer system. What monitor is that? and size?

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.

[GaryMazzone]

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+.

[-TPM-]

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.

More importantly, less power = less heat = less change your nice new CPU will melt....

[RobDog888]

Ok, then why did Apple change to Intel processors and not AMD?

[-TPM-]

Ok, then why did Apple change to Intel processors and not AMD?

Intel probably offered them a better price..