AMD or INTEL

AMD or INTEL?

  • AMD

    Votes: 75 57.3%

  • INTE:

    Votes: 56 42.7%
  • Total voters
    131
Well, not exactly another "batch."

Both companies have new chips under development... We'll just have to wait and see.
 
Originally posted by subs
one question......

currently which AMD is faster than the Intel P4 3.2 800fsb with HT????
Click to expand...

one question...

how much does it cost?

(answer: 800$)
 
I can not begin to express how happy I am Intel is getting rid of those stupid evil pins for processors. I hate those things. Nothing like the fear of breaking a 300 dollar chip because one tiny pin gets ripped out.
 
in the high end market amd is getting their ass whipped.... ht mixed with 800mhz fsb does wonders..

and more bang for your buck?? well... let me tell you that the 2.4c's can get to 3.5ghz on stock voltage and cooling.... and completely stable.

and as for the mac, no its not faster. those comparisions apple put up were not fair comparisions... they fudged results to make their's look better. dont belive me? read around.
 
AMD. Cheaper. Faster statistically check the benchmarks
 
Originally posted by Chicky
AMD. Cheaper. Faster statistically check the benchmarks
Click to expand...

Faster? Damn, I knew when deciding between my new P4 3.0 @ 3.6ghz Hyper threaded 800 fsb processor...I should have actually went with the AMD 3000+:dozey:
 
cheaper?? not really
www.newegg.com

p4 2.4ghz 800mhz fsb= 171.00 (can easily clock to 3 ghz)
amd barton 3000= 244.00

basically you get a 3ghz cpu for only 171.00

and faster?? definetely not now. they were.. but they no longer hold the performance crown. read some reviews.

check out this review:
http://www.ocaddiction.com/reviews/cpu/intel_3gc/pg3.shtml
and this one
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1403&page=6
and just about any other review on the net...
the barton gets destroyed

in quake3 arena the p4 3.0 is 100 frames faster than a barton 3000!!! 100 frames!!!!!!!

not to mention amds can fry in a second, and the only good mobos for them are the nforce2's....
i work at pcclub and i know what kind of motherboards come back, and which ones dont.
 
---------- OT ------------


jakup.. u got a PM :p check it plz =)


PS: Pentium wee, gogogo =)
 
AMD all the way! Faster, and saves me atleast $50 on an equal processor. Intels are way overpriced.
 
I voted Intel for the present, seeing as they have insanely overclocking friendly CPUs right now, while AMD is having headroom problems. They also start out faster, and a few mobos are even coming OC'ed (I like to think of this as good). However, all this may change with AMD's next magnum opus, which is on the horizon, while the Prescott seems far away.

Right now, the obvious choice for me is the P4 line. But I've made a vow not to buy another computer until I see benchmark numbers 4x higher than my current computer. I have a P4 2.53 GHz, and a Radeon 9700 Pro, so I'll be waiting for a year or two at my guess.
 
I generally find AMD more reliable than intel. My curent computer is a 2200 i think. Cant remember now because ive had it so long. Anway. The only trouble ive had with my computer is windows.

My next computer is gonna be an AMD to. One thing i like about AMD is, as someone has mentioned already, their lack of a need to advertise in the way that intel does. This saves them a lot of man power and money meaning they can spend it on other things. Also most of their following will likely be people who at least know something about computers and any feedback they get will be off those people. Obviously all the intel fans here know stuff about computers. But there are a lot of people who go to Dell and buy crappy machines.

Oh yeah i dont tend to overclock my machines now. I did it a few times but once my fan broke and quickly burnt out my processor. I find that the chips do well enough without over clocking.
 
not underperforming, and the P4 wasnt overpriced either...
 
I will be getting the AMD 3000+ with the Barton core, so I said AMD.

And what are you guys saying about AMD's frying easily I have had mine with stock cooling for about a year now, I think, might actually be longer, and have not had any problems with it at all.

My last computer was an Intel though and it was a nice card so I wouldnt say they are bad cards but they just dont appeal to me more than an AMD does, I geuss I am weird like that.
:rolling:
 
Originally posted by theHATRED
Currently no AMD is faster than the 3,2GHZ 800mhz HT. The I saw some very intresting results the other day. The new Athlon64, going by the name of Opteron, got only 300 points less in 3d mark 2001SE than the latest intel processor, though the Opteron is only clocked at 1,8ghz!
Click to expand...

Athlon64 is NOT Opteron. Opteron is AMD's new server processor designed to compete with Intel's Xeon. No performance information has been released about Athlon64.

Also, who cares if it's clocked only at 1.8GHz yet can compare with a much higher clocked Intel CPU. AMD themselves have made a point of not judging processors on clock speed alone with their "+" modeling system. Lets put your point into perspective:

Say there was a 1.7GHz P4 for $150, and, lets say, a 1.5GHz (1700+) AMD for $150, and both CPU's performed EXACTLY the same (this is not true). Your argument would be that the AMD chip is better just because it's clocked lower. This is stupid. Why, if both are priced the same and perform the same, would one be better? It's just the way they're designed.

If each company uses different units of measurement for each CPU, why compare them. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
 
well im an Intel fan .... and I have 3.2c comming my way. T minus 2 days
 
Originally posted by $pazmatazz
Also, who cares if it's clocked only at 1.8GHz yet can compare with a much higher clocked Intel CPU. AMD themselves have made a point of not judging processors on clock speed alone with their "+" modeling system. Lets put your point into perspective:

Say there was a 1.7GHz P4 for $150, and, lets say, a 1.5GHz (1700+) AMD for $150, and both CPU's performed EXACTLY the same (this is not true). Your argument would be that the AMD chip is better just because it's clocked lower. This is stupid. Why, if both are priced the same and perform the same, would one be better? It's just the way they're designed.

If each company uses different units of measurement for each CPU, why compare them. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

You're so incredibly wrong it's not even funny.

The AMD processor would be "better" in your example, because of a few things.

If an AMD CPU running at 2ghz can come close to matching an Intel CPU running at 3ghz, the AMD CPU is better because it is obviously more optimized than Intel's. Not to mention, the AMD CPU can be overclocked and therefore destroy the Intel CPU it's in competition with.

Furthermore, comparing processors between two different companies is not "apples to oranges." Both companies produce processors, both companies are competing with eachother. Therefore they CAN be compared. They both do the same task, they both have the same result. What we're comparing is the performance.
 
I know this may be alittle off topic but ....

im looking to buy a new amd motherboard to run hl2 on (my current one is very old). Any suggestions , im currently looking at the Epox 8RDA3+ nForce2

Thanks.
 
Originally posted by malice
I know this may be alittle off topic but ....

im looking to buy a new amd motherboard to run hl2 on (my current one is very old). Any suggestions , im currently looking at the Epox 8RDA3+ nForce2

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Dont forgett my friend.. nForce2 chipset mother boards ONLY works with AMD ;)

I am atm making a HUGE decision of i should pick Pentium4 2.4 ghz and clock it to 3ghz.. or go with AMD 2.8ghz.. cuz with the AMD i can use nForce2 based motherboards and i will get like ATA133 and uber stuff like that, witch i have to pay alot of cash to get to a usual P4 motherboard... =/
 
Originally posted by kohoyin
intel

could someone explain to me the AMD system of clockspeed? the whole 3500/2000/4000/etc?

I only speak in ghz :/
Click to expand...

lol ya, I was browsing motherboard combos on price watch, and I was lookin at the amds and I was like wtf is 2200? Is that 2.2 ghz or something lower that supposedly runs at that speed. Give me a break amd :rolleyes:
 
I never have had a problem with any of my Intel or AMD cpu's. I have 2 amd's one a 1.2 T-bird the other an 2400+ both stay turned on 24/7 and never give me trouble. My Intel is a 2.5ghz comp I bought on ebay it has never failed me either and turned out to be a great deal.

I vote AMD because of the price.
 
Sayam.....

P4 3.2 :: (wow) Kingston 512 pc3200 HyperX (cool!):: Asus P4C800-E(great!) :: (2) 36GB 10,000 Rpm S-ATA Western Digital HDD's on Raid 0 (wow!):: Geforce4 MX440 64mb(WTF!? :LOL: )
 
AMD IS faster relatively for the price and the clockspeed, there's no denying that. Intel always stays ahead in clockspeeds though to make up. That is for comsumer cards anyway...

AMD owns Professional cards nowadays... :).

Some say Intel is more "reliable", but as long as you know what the hell you're doing, AMD cards are fine. But I suppose the majority of the consumer know nothing about knowing what they're doing anyway. :p
 
I love AMD too - let us not forget, that even USArmy used (maybe still does, but I don`t want to post things which I`m not sure about ;) them in missiles during War in Persian Gulf. :) Screw that some of them have hit about 100km from their targets ;).

More serious now. I have money for Athlon XP 2500+ or 2600+.
Should I invest in more mhz, or in 512kb L2 cache ?


N3T
 
Originally posted by n3t
I love AMD too - let us not forget, that even USArmy used (maybe still does, but I don`t want to post things which I`m not sure about ;) them in missiles during War in Persian Gulf. :) Screw that some of them have hit about 100km from their targets ;).

More serious now. I have money for Athlon XP 2500+ or 2600+.
Should I invest in more mhz, or in 512kb L2 cache ?


N3T
Click to expand...

i have a xp2500(1.8GhZ) running rock solid stable @ 2.2 which basically makes it a xp3000, for 90 bucks for the CPU and 20 bucks for a nice all copper heatsink i can give intel's best that costs around 5-6 times as much a run for it's money, with the money i saved i can buy a 5900 ultra AND have enough left over to buy lunch..with desert!! ROFL!!

i did not have to think hard on $110 vs $600 for roughly the same performance...
 
Intel all the way. More expensive, less friendly to OC, but they are a hell of alot faster.

And actaully, the 3.0GHz is cheaper than the XP 3200 and runs faster
 
If amd was better then intel then why dont i see them being used over intel in businesses. Most places use dell which in turn uses intel because it is very reliable.
 
Originally posted by TrueWeltall
If amd was better then intel then why dont i see them being used over intel in businesses. Most places use dell which in turn uses intel because it is very reliable.
Click to expand...

actually what many people do not remember is way back when intel was building it's rep, AMD was making chips for them! :D

the reason dell uses strictly intel is that intel gives them a price break for NOT building with AMD, on the other hand whenever michal dell wants cheaper CPU's he starts a rumor that dell will start using AMD.

that freind is simply TCB on both their part. they both build good processors from my experience i go AMD because 110 bucks gets me almost the same performance 600 bucks will going intel. here is a breakdown.

AMD retail boxed xp2500 OC'ed to xp3000, copper heatsink, fx 5900, lunch at el chico, tank of gas, movie(2 tickets) with overpriced popcorn and soda=$649

intel retail boxed 3.2 = $669

ARRRG!!! :D
 
i work at pcclub.. i can honostly tell you that i get plenty more amd's back then intels... i can honostly say we also sell more amd's than intels..

most of the time i get amds back because they have compatibality problems with certain motherboards, and there is so many different versions of the same chip... palamino, thoroughbred, and barton.. can be somewhat confusing. half of the other time i get amd's back because people manhandle them, and crack the core.. since its exposed.
 
Benchmark the Oced 2500+ vs the 3.2GHx 800MHZ FSB. The amd chip will get iit's butt spanked.
 
Ok, I am not a hardware person, and I would like to upgrade my cpu/motherboard. From what I have gathered so far:

  • AMD's can be overclocked more stabily.
  • AMD's are cheaper
  • AMD's are more efficient on a lower level
  • INTEL's are faster across the board
  • AMD's core is exposed and vulnerable

can someone please explain these numbers?:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-15.html
? - thank you

I want to make a good decision on which to buy. I have a budget of approx. $350 for a good motherboard and cpu. In the issue of bang for buck, I'm willing to shell out some more buck for a little more bang. In the end, this thread is one big contridiction for me because of all the overclocking being equal to x processor, etc.

If all processors remain defaultly clocked, which can push the most data? Not which has the biggest mhz.

Other thing to note- I do not want to buy a cpu that is in actual fact an older model that's been internally overclocked. That seems like cheating to me, and I want to know that my cpu is as fast as it is because that's how fast it is naturally.

How dangerous is the AMD's exposed core? I've heard of them cracking, can this happen to me if I bought an amd and installed it myself? What could I do to prevent this should I choose AMD?

Phew - so many questions. I wish someone would just lay out the facts and tell me clear and straight the facts about both families of processors, how fast they really are, how fast they could be overclocked to, (all in terms of data computed, not mhz) and approximately how long they are expected to remain 'current' (best guess is all)

Perhaps a chart or something? Thanks to those who get through this post (apologies!;)) But I am left high and dry flipping a coin as to what to buy - I need some understandable data. This is a very big purchase for me and I want to make it well, as I'm sure other do.

Thanks,
Will
 
Originally posted by $niper
You're so incredibly wrong it's not even funny.

The AMD processor would be "better" in your example, because of a few things.

If an AMD CPU running at 2ghz can come close to matching an Intel CPU running at 3ghz, the AMD CPU is better because it is obviously more optimized than Intel's.
Click to expand...

More optimized how? They’re both giving you the exact same performance, and are both the same prices. They’re just designed differently to give you their results.

Example: I want to go from point A (house) to point B (gas station). I can either:

1. Take route 1, which is shorter, but has me stopping at three intersections, thus taking me 5 minutes to reach point B.

2. Take route 2, which is longer, but doesn’t have any intersections, and still takes me 5 minutes to reach point B.

Point being, both are different, but yield the same results, and neither has any huge advantage over the other in basic terms.

Not to mention, the AMD CPU can be overclocked and therefore destroy the Intel CPU it's in competition with.
Click to expand...

Well sure AMD CPU’s can be overclocked, but so can Intel CPU’s. Why would you think only AMD chips can be overclocked?


Furthermore, comparing processors between two different companies is not "apples to oranges." Both companies produce processors, both companies are competing with eachother. Therefore they CAN be compared. They both do the same task, they both have the same result. What we're comparing is the performance.
Click to expand...

I didn’t mean comparing companies, I meant comparing AMD’s actual CPU clock speeds (instead of their “+” numbering system) to Intel’s actual clock speed. If AMD CPU’s aren’t properly judged on clock speed alone, and if even AMD doesn’t want people evaluating their CPU’s on clock speed, then WHY compare it!? It’s as if you’re are looking for an easy one up for your argument.
 
intels overclock much easier... they run cooler, allowing you to get to higher levels... no unlocking, no multiplyers, just bump up the fsb.. thats it. plus they can overclock with even stock cooling.
 
Originally posted by SidewinderX143
Benchmark the Oced 2500+ vs the 3.2GHx 800MHZ FSB. The amd chip will get iit's butt spanked.
Click to expand...

the intel wins for sure, but not enough to justify a $520 price difference! :D
 
Originally posted by Shad0hawK
actually what many people do not remember is way back when intel was building it's rep, AMD was making chips for them! :D

the reason dell uses strictly intel is that intel gives them a price break for NOT building with AMD, on the other hand whenever michal dell wants cheaper CPU's he starts a rumor that dell will start using AMD.

that freind is simply TCB on both their part. they both build good processors from my experience i go AMD because 110 bucks gets me almost the same performance 600 bucks will going intel. here is a breakdown.

AMD retail boxed xp2500 OC'ed to xp3000, copper heatsink, fx 5900, lunch at el chico, tank of gas, movie(2 tickets) with overpriced popcorn and soda=$649

intel retail boxed 3.2 = $669

ARRRG!!! :D
Click to expand...


yeah but the 3.2 is litteraly twice as fast(not really that much)as your unstable 3000+

sorry but the amd being cheaper isnt true anymore.(atleast in high end cpus)

i can get a 2.8 for a helluva lot less than a 3200 ..and its a faster cpu that can be overclocked alot more.

comparing a OC'd 2500+ to a 3.2 is like comparing apples to oranges

in the high end market ..intel wins:cool:
 
Originally posted by crabcakes66
yeah but the 3.2 is litteraly twice as fast(not really that much)as your unstable 3000+

sorry but the amd being cheaper isnt true anymore.(atleast in high end cpus)

i can get a 2.8 for a helluva lot less than a 3200 ..and its a faster cpu that can be overclocked alot more.

comparing a OC'd 2500+ to a 3.2 is like comparing apples to oranges

in the high end market ..intel wins:cool:
Click to expand...


my comp is not unstable, that is merely wishful thinking on your part apparantly.

the 3.2 is faster, i do not dispute that (i find myself having to repeat that alot)

the last time i looked 110 was less than 669 at least according to how they taught math "back in the day"! :D

the performance difference is well worth the price difference.
 
Originally posted by Shad0hawK
my comp is not unstable, that is merely wishful thinking on your part apparantly.

the 3.2 is faster, i do not dispute that (i find myself having to repeat that alot)

the last time i looked 110 was less than 669 at least according to how they taught math "back in the day"! :D

the performance difference is well worth the price difference.
Click to expand...

My whole point being that you cant really compare the two.

the 3.2 is intels flagship...therefore the price is rediculus


Im well aware that mid-range amds are an excellent buy. I just bought a 2600+ not to long ago.

A p4 2.4 runs about 170$.....and when overclocked to 3ghz will be a good shot faster than a 2500+@3000+.

If i were going to build a machine to overclock ...i would go with a pentium. If i were building a new system right now....i would go with a pentium.

look at the preformance of a 3200+ vs a p4 3.0ghz.

what is a better deal?
 
i personally like intel more then AMD, intel has served me well over the years
 
Originally posted by crabcakes66
My whole point being that you cant really compare the two.

the 3.2 is intels flagship...therefore the price is rediculus


Im well aware that mid-range amds are an excellent buy. I just bought a 2600+ not to long ago.

A p4 2.4 runs about 170$.....and when overclocked to 3ghz will be a good shot faster than a 2500+@3000+.

If i were going to build a machine to overclock ...i would go with a pentium. If i were building a new system right now....i would go with a pentium.

look at the performance of a 3200+ vs a p4 3.0ghz.

what is a better deal?
Click to expand...

not for 110 bucks you wont though, 10-15 fps to me is not paying 559 dollars for especially considering

as far as if i got a better deal, i see nothing convincing me otherwise, lets see do i spend $669 on a processor that will get me 222 fps in ut2003 or $110 on one that will get me a cpu that on a similarly equipped system will get me 203 fps?

yes. i got the better deal.

i am not comparing the 2 chips, other than price, other people are though ;) as far as the difference between a xp3200 and a p4 3.2 i do not dispute the p4 is faster. i think this is the fifth time i have said that, not that repeating myself does any good...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Chris D
Forum update
Replies
8
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Lizardizzle
  • Poll
A proposition: ValveTime Half-Life 1 co-op event
Replies
5
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
-smash-
ARG or Easter Egg found inside Danger Zone update
Replies
2
Views
20K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
Back
Top