AMD vs. Intel

**ShIzO** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 04:17 PM

what do you guys think, which one is better? i'm planning to upgrade my current P3-450 and i can't deicide on which one to pick. I've read many articles stating that P4 is a piece of ****... and that Athlon is the best.

why is Intel cutting prices by half?

regards,
shizo

**parksie** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 04:18 PM

AMD seems to have pulled ahead now.

**SurfDemon** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 04:20 PM

check out

www.tomshardware.com

he always has good articles. At present it looks like an Athalon 1.3ghz is faster than the P4 1.7ghz. So thats pretty much an open and shut case.

SD

denniswrenn · Apr 23rd, 2001, 04:21 PM

The Athlons kick the **** out of anything Intel has made

The K6-2s weren't very good though.

**ShIzO** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 04:22 PM

so you guys think i should go with Athlon?

**zmerlinz** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 04:24 PM

AMD

denniswrenn · Apr 23rd, 2001, 04:25 PM

YES, Go with the Athlon

**SurfDemon** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 04:27 PM

Mmmmm, thats a toughie.... but yip go withthe Athalon. I have a 600 (getting a bit old know) biut I'm well happy with it.

SD

**HarryW** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 04:38 PM

Other good sites for that kind of stuff are www.sharkyextreme.com or www.anandtech.com .

I have an Althon 550 which is looked a bit aged now (it's slot A

) but performance-wise it's done very well. To be fair, I have found that the support for the chipsets that work with Athlons isn't that great, but then that could be the same with the Intel chips, I haven't done anything techie with an Intel PC in ages.

I would go with the Athlon. Anyone know how long til there'll be an Athlon running at about 2 GHz? I'll probably upgrade then.

**Technocrat** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 05:54 PM

Actually there is a lot more to consider than just CPU, there is also MB Chipset, and RAM type.

AMD has the best speed/price ratio. They also have a ok chip sets, KX133 and KX133-A. KX133 can do "normal" PC133 and PC100 memory. Which is priced really good (~$105US for 256MB CL2, 7ns, which is the fastest PC133 you can buy) KX133-A can do DDR memory, which I think will be the big new type of memory (~$125US for 256MB of the fastest DDR).

With Intel, they want you to use Rambus memory, which has not been that great so far. Plus it is a lot more $$ (~$220 for the slowest 256 RDRAM) than PC133 and DDR. There have been a lot of problems with it, plus it has been shown to be slower than most other types of RAM. They also have a couple of really stinky chipsets, 820 and 810. They have one pretty good one their 815 chipset, which is the only one I would buy.

So Intel has a lot of negatives. Bad chipsets, high cost, low performance RAM, poor cost/speed ratio. Thats why I bought a 1.1ghz AMD Athlon.

**Technocrat** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 05:55 PM

Oh and HarryW, I think mid this year is the target for 2Ghz from AMD

**MPrestonf12** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 06:12 PM

I don't know too much about the chips but from the research I did, some lean toward Intel just becasue they have been around longer(i think). But I've also heard its a more "Ford VS Chevy" deal, both chips are very acceptable although the AMD chips do as someone said have a good speed/price ratio. just my .002Cents

**HarryW** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 07:04 PM

A lot of people prefer Intel just because they haven't been paying attention and don't realise how good their competition is now.

Ford vs Chevy means nothing much to me, I guess there's a bit of rivalry there is there? A bit like Man Utd vs Man City or Arsenal vs West Ham vs Spurs?

**chrisjk** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 07:10 PM

I think it speaks volumes when the world's largest PC manufacturer won't go near AMD because of "unreliable components" (Dell I mean, of course)

**HarryW** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 08:41 PM

Perhaps you're right about unreliable components, but I don't think there are any problems with the CPUs themselves, just the supporting components. Intel's supporting components aren't exactly trouble-free either.

When did Dell decide that?

**chrisjk** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 08:56 PM

after testing the first Athlon, they reckoned they couldn't get a system to run reliably. so it's Intel only if you buy Dell.

**Sastraxi** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 10:05 PM

*cough* go FORD!
*cough* go THUNDERBIRD!

**ShIzO** · Apr 23rd, 2001, 11:17 PM

thanks guys, i think i'm gonna go with Athlon...

**HarryW** · Apr 24th, 2001, 12:20 PM

The first Athlon? That was ages ago. The components are a lot more mature now, although they're still not that reliable if you ask me. I don't really think Intel is a whole lot more reliable though.

I think it speaks volumes about Dell if they couldn't get a system to run reliably.

**chrisjk** · Apr 24th, 2001, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by HarryW
I think it speaks volumes about Dell if they couldn't get a system to run reliably.

Well yes there is that slant on it I suppose

**JoshT** · Apr 24th, 2001, 02:53 PM

Athlons are great, the only advantage Intel has is the multiple processor support. I've purchased decent dual-processor PIII motherboards for only $30 more than a good Athlon one. Now if Intel slashes their prices...

**HarryW** · Apr 24th, 2001, 03:11 PM

I don't want to sound like some AMD fanatic, I'm not really I just think they're ahead right now, but dual Athlon motherboards are on their way pretty soon.

**mastermind94** · Apr 24th, 2001, 08:38 PM

I like AMD... I bought an intel processor once (a i80386

) but, I saw the difference. Since I bought an AMD AM486DX2-66MHz... Now, I'm stuck with a K6-2 400MHz and I didn't see any trouble with the K6-2. I'm planning to buy a thunderbird of something like that...

**Edwin_Drood_1870** · Apr 25th, 2001, 08:46 AM

Which is faster? I have heard that P4s whip Athlons
someplaces, and other places I hear that Athlons burn
P4s. Which is true? Both companies must adjust the
benchmarks to their own advantage.

**Technocrat** · Apr 25th, 2001, 09:44 AM

In Intel's "world" software that supports Intel's new chipset commands (Kinda like MMX) are supposed to be 5-10% faster than using an other CPU. As of right now no software out there supports those commands (Kinda like MMX at fist). Also do to the slowness of Rambus memory (Which of course Intel wants you to use so the can make more $$), Intel is getting whiped pretty bad. But if you use PC-133, the speed is pretty close to an AMD. If you use DDR, the speed is the exact same as an AMD using DDR.

**Edwin_Drood_1870** · Apr 25th, 2001, 12:07 PM

Thanks. That makes it alot clearer.

What is the difference between Athlons and DDR Athlons?
Is it just refering to what type of RAM is currently in
the machine or is a DDR faster??

**Technocrat** · Apr 25th, 2001, 12:37 PM

DDR is DDR Ram, and there are no specail Athlons that run on DDR just MBs.
Right now PC-133 apears to still be the faster RAM, CPU combo, but DDR is not to far back there. I think once MB makers get the right chipsets, BIOS setting, and RAM settings, DDR will be faster than anything on the market.

**HarryW** · Apr 25th, 2001, 01:56 PM

DDR stands for Double Data Rate, it's already in use in a lot of graphics cards (like the better GeForce cards).

If you want independent benchmarks, go to one of the tech sites already mentioned. www.tomshardware.com has a good set of benchmarks comparing Athlons and P4s. Looks like the P4s are lagging behind at the moment because they are not usually as fast as Athlons with the usual instruction set, but with apps that use their SSE2 extensions the P4s fare much better.

**Edwin_Drood_1870** · Apr 25th, 2001, 03:21 PM

Thanks Technocrat and Harry.

I have been trying to decide whether
I should buy an Intel or AMD. It seems
like AMD's the winner though.

Thread: AMD vs. Intel

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions