AMD Or Intel

[TheArtfulDodger]

Witch do you prefer and why?

So it seems every one has pretty much agreed.
Intel if you have alot of money to blow.
Amd is afforable and has great proformance is good for overclocking.

[Steven4563]

amd coz its better performance for your money plus im a amd fanboy :)

[TheArtfulDodger]

I do hear that amd had some nice benchmarks,
But i noticed that A amd 2.2ghz cost more than a intel p4 3.0ghz
any comments?

[Molybdym]

Welcome to the forums!

AMD tends to be the enthusiast's chip(spelling?) For the reason you can change the multipliers for the clock. Not to mention the cost aspect. And being able to modify them into SMP chips is pretty cool too.

I had a P4 and really liked it. Yea you can't change the multi's, but it's on a 200MHz x 4 front side bus(with a good chip, that can be up past 250MHz), you cannot beat that memory bandwidth! And Intel, as a company, seems to me to be a little more. . .how can I put this. . .um, stable?

If you're new to this, half the fun is torturing yourelf about what platform to goto. Just hang around here and do your research, you'll get it.;)

Originally posted by TheArtfulDodger
I do hear that amd had some nice benchmarks,
But i noticed that A amd 2.2ghz cost more than a intel p4 3.0ghz
any comments?

Fabrication costs are eating AMD alive, and why would an overclocker buy a chip at 2.2GHz, when we can buy one that runs at say 1.6GHz, and turn it into a 2.2GHz. So the lack of demand for this particular chip in not high, thereby driving up the cost. The cost also relates to the core, if it's a Barton, more cashe is more $$$$

M

[Damian]

Originally posted by TheArtfulDodger
I do hear that amd had some nice benchmarks,
But i noticed that A amd 2.2ghz cost more than a intel p4 3.0ghz
any comments?

A 1700+, which can be bought for $45, can easily be cranked to 2.2ghz or more. That was the only reason why I went with AMD for my current rig.

[TheArtfulDodger]

Im looking to build a gaming rig. That i can overclock the hell out of. Also have screaming porformance for low cost. Ill be spending about 500$ or so i could use some help figuring some things out also some ideas on with platform i should go with

[Molybdym]

AMD XP1700 - $50

Epox 8RDA+ - $85

Memory(I'm horrible at this: Corsair, or Hyper-X, I like Mushkin, sexy RAM;)) ~ $160 up to $250

Thermalright SK-7 with a fan ~ $25

Fortron 460W - $75

Video Card: This will be your speciality, as I'm not really a gamer. I've heard good things aboot the soft-modded 9500np? But what ever money you save on the MB and proc, splurge on that card!

The case and CDROMs, and floppy's are up to you, this is my suggestion. The MB I have and love. it does not have northbridge voltage adjustments, but you can mod to get that;)

[Chaos Snake]

I'm a big AMD fan, if for no other reason then whenever I'm using a Intel based machine I feel as if big brother is looking over my shoulder.

[Molybdym]

Originally posted by Chaos Snake
I'm a big AMD fan, if for no other reason then whenever I'm using a Intel based machine I feel as if big brother is looking over my shoulder.

*/looks at sig/* NICE overclock!!:eek:

[Cjwinnit]

P4 chips have their merits. One of the nice things is it's a lot harder to crush the cores because of the heatspreader. Normally that's not such a selling point but I have a heavy hand so it's a bonus for me. The memory bandwidth (someone mentioned before) is also a huge selling point if you can get the memory to handle it.

[TheMatrixHasYou]

I like AMD for the price to performance ratio. If money was not a factor, then I would go Intel, but since it is, and most likely always will be, I'll go AMD. For $60 bucks I have a CPU that can break 2 GHz without a sweat, and after some heavy OCing, it can get to 2.4-2.5 GHz. Plus, the Mobos are also cheaper. The NF7-S is now only $110. And it has great onboard sound.

[TROIDX]

AMD because the overclockability is hi.

[Lord_Zoltan]

I have had both in the past.

AMD because price is way cheaper, and performance is still great, overclocking is awsome!

[fiji]

I don't prefer either


now their products yes

currently I favor some AMD products for their price/performance value

granted if I had $500 dollars to blow on a processor, I probably would get the latest and greatest from Intel

[Lord_Zoltan]

Originally posted by fiji
I don't prefer either


now their products yes

currently I favor some AMD products for their price/performance value

granted if I had $500 dollars to blow on a processor, I probably would get the latest and greatest from Intel

Same here, but when do you ever have 500 dollars to blow? well maybe you do, but i never do lol.

[Ducker]

Both make excelent chips! I have both. Right now I'm having a ball with my AMD 1700+ T-bred DLT3C JUIHB 0319. So I'll go with AMD.

[Super Nintendo]

Its a hard choice for which one to choose since AMD is cheap but over clocks very good. And Intel is more expensive but overclocks well also. I like AMD because I don't have a lot of money to spend on a system and it still runs games very good. If I ever did a p4 I would probably do it if I was going to do some 3d animation or more processor oriented.

But if you want to spend a good amount of money for a computer then go for p4 but if not go for amd and overclock it.

If you give us amount of how much you want to spend if you were building a computer it would help us be able to tell you the best between a price.

[TheArtfulDodger]

So far my plans are to get a P4 2.6ghz and over clock it. Could some one who has overclocked a P4 close to 2.6ghz post there experiance?

[JoJoMoJo]

Its really all about money...... if the difference isnt that much to you, you are in the same place I was a few months ago. The stability of the Intel platforms is heads and shoulders above anything AMD has to offer. Given that and the P4C chips easily reaching anywhere from 250-300fsb....... I think to myself dam i am glad I switched. I still have my AMD system as a server an Abit NF-7s with a XP2600 @ 2.6 gigahertz. The intel running close to 3.5 with a 250fsb 1:1 is night and day more stable, & faster in multi tasking. It is so nice when gameing ect... to alt tab to the screen and run the programs such as vnc to the server, or adjust my team speak with no system hangs. The difference is noticeable as I have ran this system for weeks without a single reboot. All at the default voltages by the way.

[sangapski]

Originally posted by TheArtfulDodger
So far my plans are to get a P4 2.6ghz and over clock it. Could some one who has overclocked a P4 close to 2.6ghz post there experiance?

i have a 2.6C@3.38 on a P4C800E board with 2x512MB Corsair PC3500

[tyshy]

again...its about money....you could go out and get the 800 fsb and the fastest ram and chip....or...you could prolly build and overclock 2 amd systems and still have optimal performance. Or you could build the cheaper amd system and get dual display and all the other goodies that go along with a sweet machine...

for me...amd all the way....i don't need 800fsb bragging rights....but its nice to show pple pics of ur desk with a comp that looks cool and 3 monitors....:D

[FunkDaMonkMan]

I always go with the best price/performance ratio. Right now that is AMD. If intel becomes cheaper... i'll go with intel.

[Evnas]

Originally posted by dragon orb 3
again...its about money....you could go out and get the 800 fsb and the fastest ram and chip....or...you could prolly build and overclock 2 amd systems and still have optimal performance. Or you could build the cheaper amd system and get dual display and all the other goodies that go along with a sweet machine...

for me...amd all the way....i don't need 800fsb bragging rights....but its nice to show pple pics of ur desk with a comp that looks cool and 3 monitors....:D

Or you could buy a 533Mhz P4 and overclock the hell out of it too fornearly as cheap ;)

[IR1]

Says the Intel Fanboy with the nicely OCed AMD system...:rolleyes: ;)

[Ffats]

Intel for me... In my experiences, an Intel P4 with an accompanying Intel chipset is the most reliable and stable as far as hardware goes. There is something that seems clunky about AMDs to me... I dunno, maybe its their icky website...

[JKeefe]

Wow, an AMD-Intel thread that's going well. Cool. :cool:

Originally posted by TheArtfulDodger
I do hear that amd had some nice benchmarks,
But i noticed that A amd 2.2ghz cost more than a intel p4 3.0ghz
any comments? Something that probably needs explaining here, although most people already know, is that AMD chips do more per clock cycle (Instructions per clock, or IPC) than Intel P4's. The lower IPC on the Intel chips allows for higher clock speeds. So, an Intel chip at 2.4 GHz and an AMD at a 2400+ rating (even though the actual clock frequency is lower) perform roughly the same. As a rule of thumb, the AMD:Intel ratio is close to 3:4 for equivalent performance. These numbers tend to stray Intel's way towards the higher clock speeds (i.e. a 3200+ is clearly outperformed by a 3.2 GHz P4).

So, short story, don't pick Intel because AMD has slower clocks. Pick Intel because of their high memory bandwidth and their IHS (integrate heat spreaders) to protect the processor core. Pick AMD because of their economic value and the ability to change multipliers.

Do a lot of reading before you make up your mind.

As to your questions about people's experiences with a 2.6c, there are many posts on that subject. Do a search and sit down for a long read and some very valuable information. You will find that if you go Intel your most difficult choice will be what memory to purchase.

[Lord_Zoltan]

Originally posted by JKeefe
Wow, an AMD-Intel thread that's going well. Cool. :cool:

Something that probably needs explaining here, although most people already know, is that AMD chips do more per clock cycle (Instructions per clock, or IPC) than Intel P4's. The lower IPC on the Intel chips allows for higher clock speeds. So, an Intel chip at 2.4 GHz and an AMD at a 2400+ rating (even though the actual clock frequency is lower) perform roughly the same. As a rule of thumb, the AMD:Intel ratio is close to 3:4 for equivalent performance. These numbers tend to stray Intel's way towards the higher clock speeds (i.e. a 3200+ is clearly outperformed by a 3.2 GHz P4).

So, short story, don't pick Intel because AMD has slower clocks. Pick Intel because of their high memory bandwidth and their IHS (integrate heat spreaders) to protect the processor core. Pick AMD because of their economic value and the ability to change multipliers.

Do a lot of reading before you make up your mind.

As to your questions about people's experiences with a 2.6c, there are many posts on that subject. Do a search and sit down for a long read and some very valuable information. You will find that if you go Intel your most difficult choice will be what memory to purchase.

absolutley right, and thats why i wanted to try amd because of the IPC is way more! so i figure it will be better for games.
And i wanted to try something new and it was cheap, and i really like it i mean if someone said P4 or AMD i dunno what i would do, my dad says its just like Pepsi and Coke but its not, because its obvious COKE! never pepsi altho shakira is hot, but p4 or AMD, i dunno since im not paying for it maybe p4 cuz its higher clocks but why when i can get a AMD near the same clock and more IPCs! tough choice, shows what kind of man you are :P

[Andy71600]

I am on a limited budget, so AMD is definately most appealing to me.



Also a fanboy!:attn:

[Lord_Zoltan]

Originally posted by Andy71600
I am on a limited budget, so AMD is definately most appealing to me.
Also a fanboy!:attn:

It so true, i wanted to keep my new rig as low cost as i could so i went with AMD, my dad was a bit skeptical because he has never heard of them but i have new alot about them and it kept me under budget and i have no complaints.

[gamefoo21]

heh my boss at work is hooked on netscape 7 and 1.3 durons... and a 1700+ is 10 bucks more i am almost tempted to tell him to change the way he builds his systems.

but i agree

intel = stability and ihs

amd = cheaper and more ipc

the latest round of the processor wars has intel winning stock and overclocked on the prommie. LN2 cooling doesn't count. but back in the earlier days amd definatly had the advantage.

aren't the multi's locked on the athlon 64 and opteron chips.

[petery83]

amd for cost and overclockability

[tediber]

wouldn't a Dual AMD system say 2 Xp2500+ ($88) be better than 1 hyperthreading P4 2.4 800Fsb ($170) ??

[Aktunka]

I wouldn't say that it is a straight tossup of AMD if you don't have money and Intel if you have alot to spend. I would say to keep your eyes open and watch the forums. That is how I learned of the certain revision of a p4 2.4b that had great overclocking and I finally made the move back to intel. The 2.4b was like 150 bucks and overclocked from 2.4 to 3.4 at stock voltage with no hassle. Goes higher if I wanna pump a tad more voltage to it.

Before that I had used 3 different AMD chips because at the times I had been ready to upgrade they had the best cost / performance available.

Anyhow, if there is some great thing with AMD that comes along when you are ready to do an upgrade, I would say do AMD. IF there is a great Intel thing that comes along, go Intel. Both are good and you can hardly go wrong.

[JKeefe]

Originally posted by Lord_Zoltan
maybe p4 cuz its higher clocks but why when i can get a AMD near the same clock and more IPCs! tough choice, shows what kind of man you are :P Umm, I bet you can't get an AMD up to 3.5 GHz....

That's where the best P4s are running on good air or water.

If you could get an AMD up to Intel clock speed we wouldn't be having this discussion. :)




I don't think those of us with less money automatically go with AMD. I don't have a lot of money, but I am a current Intel user and my next upgrade will be Intel because they offer better performance right now. Sure, it's more expensive, but I'm willing to pay more for the better performance. When I upgrade in the future, I will choose the CPU based on who has the performance crown then.

EDIT: Most of us use AMD (http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/poll.php?s=&action=showresults&pollid=4)

Of course, being an Intel guy and sticking with it (or an AMD guy and sticking with it) has its benefits - you don't have to take the time to learn the whole other side of things. For example, I couldn't unlock a multiplier if my life depended on it. I can't tell you the quirks of all of the nForce 2 boards. I can't tell you the operating speeds, FSBs, and PR ratings of all of the Athlon XPs. Could I learn? Sure. But I don't have to right now. Maybe I will have to in the future.

[JKeefe]

Originally posted by tediber
wouldn't a Dual AMD system say 2 Xp2500+ ($88) be better than 1 hyperthreading P4 2.4 800Fsb ($170) ?? Maybe. Dual systems are their own little monters. They require special motherboards, which I beleive are usually rather expensive. These motherboards are also large, and they require special cases that fit the extended ATX standard. You also need a dual-CPU-rated power supply.

Because of all of these things, a single processor to dual processor comparison is not really apples to apples.

[SonicB]

At the moment I am on a AMD machine. I went with AMD with my first personal built pc because of prices and I was told they out perform intel hands down. Well I used my Cousins intel p4 ( Might have been a p3 ) rig he purchased from a computer company can't remember exact brand might have been a Dell ( This was about a year ago ). I was totaly blown away how much faster it did things it blew away my 1800+ XP . That made me think next rig I will go with an intel.

[N.E.R.D_BOI]

I'm open to both companies. I like both for what they have to offer.

At first, AMD's price and overclockability really attracted me. Then Intel's huge numbers just tempted me and i couldnt resist! I wanted the best :D

I definitely wouldnt hesitate to recommend either system according to the buyer's needs and budget!

[TheGr8s1]

I had a 2100xp and was lovin it. Than Intel came out with the 800fsb C's. Everyone was gettin 3.2ghz+ overclocks and I knew than that Intel was the way to go. I picked Intel cuz I just wanted a taste of some serious power.

[AMD_Me]

Originally posted by TheMatrixHasYou
I like AMD for the price to performance ratio. If money was not a factor, then I would go Intel, but since it is, and most likely always will be, I'll go AMD. For $60 bucks I have a CPU that can break 2 GHz without a sweat, and after some heavy OCing, it can get to 2.4-2.5 GHz. Plus, the Mobos are also cheaper. The NF7-S is now only $110. And it has great onboard sound.

I am, or should say I was, and AMD fan (refer to name, AMD_Me). I have broken many cores (mostly due to that damn Golden Orb) so the heatspreader is a bonus. A good mobo, the IS7, with the 865pe chipset, costs about $110 now. The newest P4s, the C 800MHz series, are great overclockers. A 2.4 will go to 3.2 or higher on stock voltage (I have mine running 1.55v(1.52v actual)@3486MHz) for me, just me, I will spend the $120 extra to be able to have a chip that is faster than the fastest stock chip on the planet.

[star882]

AMD Me.
http://www.uploadit.org/files/100703-Athlon%20XP.JPG

[David]

Now, what happened to my "What CPU and why" poll......

[SonicB]

If I get a AMD dose she come with it? :D

[gamefoo21]

i still don't get why everyone drools over her. must be my dislike of bubble heads that can't sing and aren't that hot and pretend to try and be innocent.

[Nasdaq]

I have used both AMD and Intel and can that I like using both of their processors. I like to spread the wealth a little even though I don't have that much to give. My primary machine is an Intel as was my very first PC, a Dell 500Mhz Intel P3. But I do have a laptop with an AMD 1500+ and has taken care of my duties quite nicely. I'm currently building my first AMD rig and though it will be a budget system I'm sure it will perform admirably. Whatever interests me at the time is what I will buy, not just because it says AMD or an Intel on it.

[2los]

Worked with AMD for the longest time for its prices, yet tempted to look into an intel dual system.

[fhanderson]

I use a P4 for my graphics workstation which is very RAM intensive. In PCMark 2002 it scores as high with ddr333 as my AMD does running ddr400 on the ram portion. So I fell that AMD for processor intensive programs like gaming is a good performance/cost option while ram intensive programs are better with a P4.

[Elephanthead]

I buy amd for one reason abnd one reason only. Without amd intel will stop increasing the performance of thier processors, and start raising the prices. AMD me cause a world without AMd is a world of intel price gouging.

[star882]

"I use a P4 for my graphics workstation which is very RAM intensive. In PCMark 2002 it scores as high with ddr333 as my AMD does running ddr400 on the ram portion. So I fell that AMD for processor intensive programs like gaming is a good performance/cost option while ram intensive programs are better with a P4."
My friend Tom Stage says that a 3.0GHz(3000+?) Britney is almost twice as fast as a 3.0GHz 800FSB Pentium 4 for Fear Factor in software mode.
Fear Factor(in software mode) is both processor intensive and memory intensive, though.
When it comes to pure memory bandwidth, the systems are about equal, although the Britney has an edge in memory latency.

[Fallen Phoenix]

For the one that said without AMD, Intel would stop increasing performance, we'll never know because 'they' will never let AMD go out when it's Intel's only competitor. Can't have a monopoly...

I just thought of all the computers I've had and who made the processors and all and here's the list in order from current back to the first one I could remember;

(current rig) P4 1.5 gig (willy? Wth is that anyway?)
AMD 667Mhz
Intel 333Mhz
Cyrix 133(I wish they were still around)
Intel 486
Intel 386
???? 8086
???? 4086
???? TRS80

Those last three I don't really remember who made them. That seems like a lot of computers considering I haven't put much money into upgrading them until a few months ago when I got a good deal on my current mobo and CPU. But then again I've been using computers since I was very little.

The only company I had loyalty to was Cyrix, then they went belly up and I liked AMD. Now I have to respect Intel for a rock solid product and my next CPU will almost certainly be an Intel. I think AMD has some good stuff, but I've picked my side and I'll stay with them till something drastic makes me change my mind.

[da_guy2]

I'm going intel on my next computer. I've had too many problems with poping in AMD cpu's and NOTHING them being defective (3 times in the past year). Plus i've also found many of the AMD's i've used ran really hot. But hey maybe i just have bad luck.

David

[dippy_skoodlez]

Hmm.. I stick with AMD for a few reasons.. athlon look cool for one :D the name athlon xp sounds better.. and Im not paying $167 for a 2.4B when I could pay $90 for an athlon 2500 barton.

[TheArtfulDodger]

Some one said they overclock there intel 2.4 to a 3.4 if they could pm me that would be great i would like more info on what board and what proccesor he used.

[JKeefe]

Just go to the Intel CPU section and start reading. Plenty of people have taken their 2.4 (both B and C chips) to 3.4.

[Code 4]

Intel

[Pixel]

im a former amd fanboy. i think i found a new haven in canterwood!

[blohin]

AMD for me -and not because its cheaper, its because it rocks.
am old amd boy and i'll stay with it.

[allen337]

i use intel, fast reliable. Ive built amd systems and they are great, everything opens quickly and smoothly, but ive had my 2.8 @ 3.6 on air cooled (genuine intel cooling fan $18 if you bought 1, free with processor) and noone seems to see if you buy an 2500+ for $150 you have to spend another $50 on cooling. Is that cheaper?? ALLEN

[Chris_F]

The only good thing AMD is good for is a cheap chip.


Lets go back to when Intel was a pioneer in the processor industry. AMD was just a group of settlers that took the already paved path that Intel laid down.

Back when the Intel 8088 was the big thing, AMD came out with 8088 clones. They were basically just an Intel chip with AMD's name on it. To get more people to buy from them, they replaced the crystal to make it run faster.

If AMD had started from the ground up, and hadn't taken the easy way, maybe they wouldn't be lying in Intel's shadow.

To sum it up: Intel always has, is, and will be far more superior then AMD. End of discussion.

Now I'm sure AMD fanboys are going to jump in and try to defend their CPUs.

[Fallen Phoenix]

And Cyrix fits in where? :cool: I love Cyrix :D

[Mark Larson]

Originally posted by Chris_F
The only good thing AMD is good for is a cheap chip.
Yup. You know who to thank for the latest Intel chip costing less than $ 500. (The 3Ghz, when it was launched). Every Intel chip before then has cost more at its introduction. I'm sure you love paying high prices for cheap **** (hey, do you shop at expensive stores in a mall too?) but i'd rather not. And for that, i'm thankful to AMD.

[Chris_F]

Originally posted by Mark Larson

Yup. You know who to thank for the latest Intel chip costing less than $ 500. (The 3Ghz, when it was launched). Every Intel chip before then has cost more at its introduction. I'm sure you love paying high prices for cheap **** (hey, do you shop at expensive stores in a mall too?) but i'd rather not. And for that, i'm thankful to AMD.

No, I don't. But I don't joke around when it comes to my PC.

[Lord_Zoltan]

Originally posted by Chris_F


No, I don't. But I don't joke around when it comes to my PC.

No offence to anyone here but CHris_F just SHOT YOU DOWN

:D

[gamefoo21]

heh... no see sad fact of the matter... amd fan boys are more likely to drive amd into the ground demanding cpu's for less than a hundred bucks or for a few more dolla than it costs to put them out. thats the sad facts amd can't survive when its own customer base is killing it.

as for cyrix i have a via c3 800 that chip is pure garbage i hate it my cele 366 can kick it around like no ones business. and the c3 is a cyrix core. cyrix cpu's were always slow and cruddy. but amd's were just overclocked intel chips :P until the k7 which was a clone of a slot 1 p3. and when intel ditched secc amd followed almost instantly. heh i wouldn't be surprised if they are making the a64 do less ipc so they can ram the clockspeed up. hehehe its like a soap. disgusting yet funny to watch.

[Silver]

Love AMD and took a lot of pleasure in beating out Intels in 3d benching however after waiting and looking at what the Opteron is bringing to the table, I succumbed. Just purchased an P4C800-E and a 2.8C to go with it. This will be the last post under the AMD presently in the system. Sorry guys but just can not compete with the AMD's any longer.

AMD still holds a place in my heart but in the end this is about oc'ing and I have been off the front page (madonion) far too long.

Take Care All.

Now to figure out his raid thing (never used it) and this fsb thing on Intels.

[AlpheXus]

Intel is the king, we are talkin about stability of course
Overclocking an amd is wonderfull but, whats the point if the system is always rebooting???

[Gautam]

To sum it up: Intel always has, is, and will be far more superior then AMD. End of discussion.
Yes, can't ever forget the days of the almighty Willamette, not to mention the inferior Thunderbird that struggled to compete with it. :rolleyes:

Okay, so its 2003 now, and the P4C's are doing excellent. They are undoubtedly superior to AMD in raw performance as of now. But you've got to be kidding yourself if you think that Intel has always been superior to AMD. AMD was clearly ahead even in raw performance from the Thunderbird all the way up to the Barton(Tualatin to "C" Northwood). They've just slightly lost their performance edge once for the first time in over three years and now Intel fanboys are getting all excited. I'm sorry for being rude, its just that narrow-sighted generalizations like this aren't necessary. Not to mention this:
Intel is the king, we are talkin about stability of course
Overclocking an amd is wonderfull but, whats the point if the system is always rebooting???
I've owned and seen both AMD's and Intel's, and none of them "always reboot."

[Lithan]

Amd without even the slightest pause. Why? Because if I had 500$ to blow on a processor, I'd do one of two things.

One: Buy a 2500+ and drink the rest.

Two: go 64bit for bragging rights.

[maj71109]

I'm an AMD user my first pc I built was a AMD computer. My current pc is a XP2500+ which is the worst proccessor I have ever owned. I have taken the leap to the darkside and Have to say intel all the way I have a 2.4c in the mail. Amd has loss my support I will go INTEL all the way out from here.


:mad:

[Lord_Zoltan]

Originally posted by maj71109
I'm an AMD user my first pc I built was a AMD computer. My current pc is a XP2500+ which is the worst proccessor I have ever owned. I have taken the leap to the darkside and Have to say intel all the way I have a 2.4c in the mail. Amd has loss my support I will go INTEL all the way out from here.


:mad:

2500+ is definatly not the worst processor, i love mine and it performs outstanding.

Why do you say its the worst processor you have ever owne, if you give no reason to base your judgement on it sorta defeats the purpose of even posting.

[Amino]

AMD might be cheap and AMD might have optional multi's, but Intel has FSB, cooler cores, and better chipsets. In all my experience, I have yet to see an AMD chip outperform an Intel, infront of me. You can read the hype online, but I've tried both.

I had a 1700+ OC'd to 2.4 Mhz on an NF7 2.0 (with 210 FSB) and a 2.4 P4B OC'd to 3.06 on a Gigabyte board (With a 175 FSB). I can't remember the model number but it was a 845 chipset. With everything else the same, the intel chip scored 2000+ points higher than the AMD chip.

But to be fair, it's like a comparing an American and a German car. They're both good cars. It just all depends on what your pocket book allows.

[dippy_skoodlez]

Originally posted by gamefoo21
i wouldn't be surprised if they are making the a64 do less ipc so they can ram the clockspeed up. hehehe its like a soap. disgusting yet funny to watch.

Hmm.. they ARE. but not by much. they found a way to lower the IPC by very little, but make it seem as if it were dropped more. I saw it on a wierd page from somewhere.,..;)

[dippy_skoodlez]

Originally posted by Amino
AMD might be cheap and AMD might have optional multi's, but Intel has FSB, cooler cores, and better chipsets. In all my experience, I have yet to see an AMD chip outperform an Intel, infront of me. You can read the hype online, but I've tried both.

I had a 1700+ OC'd to 2.4 Mhz on an NF7 2.0 (with 210 FSB) and a 2.4 P4B OC'd to 3.06 on a Gigabyte board (With a 175 FSB). I can't remember the model number but it was a 845 chipset. With everything else the same, the intel chip scored 2000+ points higher than the AMD chip.

But to be fair, it's like a comparing an American and a German car. They're both good cars. It just all depends on what your pocket book allows.
never see an intel beat? Ill show you my athlon 1700, and my friends 1.7P4. It will kick its butt in ANYTHING. even media encoding.

[maj71109]

To sum it all up Lord_Zoltan I got what i paid for, a cheap chip
and dismal performance. The rating was wrong on mine it should
have been labeled an XP2200+. I will be happy When my P4c800
arrives in the mail where I can finally get the Amd monkey Off my
back. Like Chris_F I don't joke around either about my pc, I
always buy quality I don't go for the cheapest thing in the market.
I have the money to get the best, so I do. I spend wisely and
the best bang for my buck. And All I ever see in these forums
Overclocked Amd chips being compared to stock intel to justify
why they are better, But when you overclock that stock intel chip
that Overclocked AMd is left in the dust once again. My friend that works at AMD told me just before they came out with this rating scheme that it was fool hearty and I see why now. I with Intel now and even she(my friend) that works for amd dosen't have a AMD computer she has an Intel desktop and laptop.

http://www.domestickers.com/pent4n.jpg

http://www.domestickers.com/proc-w.jpg

http://www.domestickers.com/pent4d.jpg

[FunkDaMonkMan]

Originally posted by JKeefe
Maybe. Dual systems are their own little monters. They require special motherboards, which I beleive are usually rather expensive. These motherboards are also large, and they require special cases that fit the extended ATX standard. You also need a dual-CPU-rated power supply.

Because of all of these things, a single processor to dual processor comparison is not really apples to apples.


since no1 contested this, I will.

A year ago, I bought a dual system because it outperformed any single amd or intel machine in multi-tasking for the price i paid. approx $350 for a system I overclocked to dual 1.8ghz (mp2200's). I don't know what the fastest intel or amd cpu was around christmas the year before last. (1 1/2 yrs ago), but I know it couldn't touch this system, especially for the price.

My boards are basically the standard size because they follow the ATX standard, and will fit in any ATX case. I also have used my 400w antec powersupply that came with my case for both motherboards.

Now, I will say that you can't compare apples to apples when concerning dual systems. My system wouldn't perform the same as a 3.6ghz amd cpu in SMP tasks because of the bus overhead. It would probably be on par with ~3ghz amd.

How does this relate to this discussion?

Price for the performance.

[Gautam]

AMD clearly has the upper hand in SMP; its not even worth debating. Your only choice in SMP with Intel are Xeons; the processors alone costing over double getting a T-Bred and modding it for SMP. Not to mention the price of a Xeon-ready board, which would be over double an Athlon MP board. A dual Athlon system's price is on par with a single Intel system. In processor intesive tasks, the SMP system would crush a single-proc system, but in average tasks, the overhead severely takes its toll.

[dippy_skoodlez]

Originally posted by AlpheXus
Intel is the king, we are talkin about stability of course
Overclocking an amd is wonderfull but, whats the point if the system is always rebooting???

ALWAYS CRASHING? My dads 2 celerons, and my friends P4 crashes DAILY. Mine only crashed when I was messing with a BETA program to tweak some deep settings that shouldnt be messed with. Oh, and BTW, Im on an overclocked AMD, and my dads are OEM, friend built his. there are MANY stable systems, more stable than INTELS. :rolleyes:

[dippy_skoodlez]

EDIT: ALL GONE dont know how to delete ;)

[Gautam]

Dippy_skoodlez, I'd suggest you edit those posts immediately...before a mod finds them and bans you. Personal attacks are absolutely not tolerated here, regardless of the accuracy of the posts. It seemed like this thread was actually surviving without becoming a flame war, nearly a first for a thread of this nature, but alas...

[dippy_skoodlez]

here.. hope thats a bit better.. I just dont Like people just going out and claiming they are ALWAYS rebooting. Mine rarely crashes, even when im tweaking crap I know nothing of ;)

[Chris_F]

Well, I own both a Celeron and a P4. Neither crash or give me problems. I also have a friend with a T-berd who wants a P4 because his AMD chip causes him to reboot all the time.

You can't go by what happens to a few people. For all you know, you friends with a P4 might be overclocking them way to far on crapy cooling.

Also, if your going to do a comparison of AMD and Intel, don't compare an AMD chip to a Celly. That's like comparing a P4 3.2C to an AMD 1400+ at stock. :rolleyes:

[dippy_skoodlez]

Originally posted by Chris_F
Well, I own both a Celeron and a P4. Neither crash or give me problems. I also have a friend with a T-berd who wants a P4 because his AMD chip causes him to reboot all the time.

You can't go by what happens to a few people. For all you know, you friends with a P4 might be overclocking them way to far on crapy cooling.

Also, if your going to do a comparison of AMD and Intel, don't compare an AMD chip to a Celly. That's like comparing a P4 3.2C to an AMD 1400+ at stock. :rolleyes:

Actually, None of the INTEL cpu's are overclocked. My AMD is and on a $50 mobo vs. his $100 P4 mobo(asus one). ACtually, think about it.. does the CPU really even cause it to crash most of the time? Its usually a sound card/driver issue from what Ive seen....

Oh, and I know celerons are junk :D Just a few of the INTELS I have come by.. Yuck I hate celerons.. 2.2ghz and a 1.8 I have use are soo SLOW!

[maj71109]

Originally posted by dippy_skoodlez


Actually, None of the INTEL cpu's are overclocked. My AMD is and on a $50 mobo vs. his $100 P4 mobo(asus one). ACtually, think about it.. does the CPU really even cause it to crash most of the time? Its usually a sound card/driver issue from what Ive seen....

Oh, and I know celerons are junk :D Just a few of the INTELS I have come by.. Yuck I hate celerons.. 2.2ghz and a 1.8 I have use are soo SLOW!


Your kind of right the cpu most times is not the fault but the really crappy chipset it is on. This is why I chose intel over Amd now because Most times the chipset for the intel is really great, but for the AMD it is buggy and causes it to reboot and crash constantly.

[Chris_F]

Actually, I don't think my PC has ever crashed do to a CPU. Its almost always software that gunks it up. :D

[maj71109]

Originally posted by Chris_F
Actually, I don't think my PC has ever crashed do to a CPU. Its almost always software that gunks it up. :D



true

[Lord_Zoltan]

Originally posted by maj71109
To sum it all up Lord_Zoltan I got what i paid for, a cheap chip
and dismal performance. The rating was wrong on mine it should
have been labeled an XP2200+. I will be happy When my P4c800
arrives in the mail where I can finally get the Amd monkey Off my
back. Like Chris_F I don't joke around either about my pc, I
always buy quality I don't go for the cheapest thing in the market.
I have the money to get the best, so I do. I spend wisely and
the best bang for my buck. And All I ever see in these forums
Overclocked Amd chips being compared to stock intel to justify
why they are better, But when you overclock that stock intel chip
that Overclocked AMd is left in the dust once again. My friend that works at AMD told me just before they came out with this rating scheme that it was fool hearty and I see why now. I with Intel now and even she(my friend) that works for amd dosen't have a AMD computer she has an Intel desktop and laptop.



Ok, hey its not like i hate intel, i have a p4, love it to death. I like both amd and p4s. Yes p4s can be clocked amazingly, i have a friend with a 2.4 @ 3.0, he can take it to 3.4 i believe but he wants to get phaze change cooling (i hope i said that right..i believe its phaze change..sorry)
I was just wondering how you based your assumption on the 2500+ being the worst ever, some ppl just say it and dont really have any way to back itup but you however have, so whatever. I personally didnt have the money to go nuts and get a hardcore intel , and i thought of trying AMD so i did and im fairly happy with them.
As for your friend that works at amd and doesnt have an amd laptop well my cousin works for Nvidia and has an ATI card in his machine, lol so whats the point not like he is saying Nvidia sux :D

But whatever i think both chips are great hell its what your wallet can afford, or if your like me and like to experience both sides that way you can properly argue a case then you would have both like i do :D

In conclusion i LIKE both AMD and INTEL, if i had 500 bux to blow on a processor hell it probably would be INTEL, but maybe i would just stick with my 2500+ and spend the money else where, i dunno its just i like both chips but .... amd + more money to crank on other stuff always seems to be my favorite from this point on.

[Natsus]

umm.. yeah.. I own a P4 1.6 ghz PC and built a computer with an Athlon XP 1700+

On stock, the 1700+ outperformed my 1.6 ghz p4.. It was also considerably faster in programs and such.

Also, AMD's don't restart that much. Neither does Intel. The main problem is heat and anyone with an overclocked Athlon should know that. Other things like software can crash a system... but most of the time, it's heat.

So yeah.. I like Intel.. but AMD isn't bad either.

[Lithan]

Amd versus intel... lets see.

Amd is cheaper. What does intel have to compete with 1700+ at 41$? 2100+ at 61$? 2500+ at 81$?

Amd is cheaper, Nforce 2 sound and net are perfectly good for my system and anyone else I know. Only nitpickers, intel fanboys, or the mentally challenged few who think that their system can be a recording studio would argue. Saves at least 35$ on a decent sound card.

Amd doesn't require Dual channel ddr for max performance.
...Getting one stick of ram to run 230fsb was alot easier and cheaper for me than getting two sticks to do it would have been.

Intel also has advantages. But from what I've seen those are far more ephemeral than amds. You score higher on a sandra benchmark than I do... A year down the road when we've both upgraded. Those extra few hundred dollars are gonna be so much more comforting than that outdated screenshot. But don't worry. I'm sure your new screenshot will help comfort you while your girlfriend picks up the check and gives you the "You're not getting any tonight" - look.

[dippy_skoodlez]

Originally posted by Natsus
umm.. yeah.. I own a P4 1.6 ghz PC and built a computer with an Athlon XP 1700+

On stock, the 1700+ outperformed my 1.6 ghz p4.. It was also considerably faster in programs and such.

but most of the time, it's heat.

Hmm.. actually, from benchies with willamettes, the athlons are a LOT faster :D

Most of the time its heat? naa.. I dont think that most of the crashes are heat related... because people usually just turn off the comp, turn it back on, and that wouldnt solve the heat problem would it? ;)

[maj71109]

Originally posted by Lord_Zoltan


Ok, hey its not like i hate intel, i have a p4, love it to death. I like both amd and p4s. Yes p4s can be clocked amazingly, i have a friend with a 2.4 @ 3.0, he can take it to 3.4 i believe but he wants to get phaze change cooling (i hope i said that right..i believe its phaze change..sorry)
I was just wondering how you based your assumption on the 2500+ being the worst ever, some ppl just say it and dont really have any way to back itup but you however have, so whatever. I personally didnt have the money to go nuts and get a hardcore intel , and i thought of trying AMD so i did and im fairly happy with them.
As for your friend that works at amd and doesnt have an amd laptop well my cousin works for Nvidia and has an ATI card in his machine, lol so whats the point not like he is saying Nvidia sux :D

But whatever i think both chips are great hell its what your wallet can afford, or if your like me and like to experience both sides that way you can properly argue a case then you would have both like i do :D

In conclusion i LIKE both AMD and INTEL, if i had 500 bux to blow on a processor hell it probably would be INTEL, but maybe i would just stick with my 2500+ and spend the money else where, i dunno its just i like both chips but .... amd + more money to crank on other stuff always seems to be my favorite from this point on.






I didn't say all XP2500+, but just the one I own.(so Don't assume) Because if they all sucked believe me I would have said all.

[Natsus]

Originally posted by dippy_skoodlez


Hmm.. actually, from benchies with willamettes, the athlons are a LOT faster :D

So you're confirming what I said? The reason why I brought that up is because it's a first hand experience.. not some benchmark on a website. Although they are good to look at, sometimes it's good to test yourself.


Most of the time its heat? naa.. I dont think that most of the crashes are heat related... because people usually just turn off the comp, turn it back on, and that wouldnt solve the heat problem would it? ;)

true true.. but then again.. I've never experienced a crash with my athlon yet and neither has my friend and his customers (he builds Athlon computers) so I can't really determine why people think athlons crash more.

[maj71109]

Like you said They both aren't bad, but time for a change and I have to go with the evil one.

[Lord_Zoltan]

ya the only time my computer reboots is when my im testing a higher OC, thus not stable. I have many friends with intels and they dont REBOOT out of no where lmao, maybe they do if your overclock is unstable or if you accidently hit the REBOOT button but hey..whatever..i hate lame remarks.. i dont like amd cuz it reboots all the time..like seriously wtf kind of remark is that..god damn i have both pentiums and amds and they neither reboot out of no where lol unless the clock is making it unstable/.

EDIT: maj71109- and like evil is ever really bad :P always fun to be evil :P

[Mark Larson]

Originally posted by Chris_F
No, I don't. But I don't joke around when it comes to my PC.
Good for you. My PC is not my life, so i don't know where you're coming from.
Originally posted by Lord_Zoltan
No offence to anyone here but CHris_F just SHOT YOU DOWN

:D
OH NOES I GOTS POWNED WHATEVER SHALL I DO??!??!?!
Originally posted by gamefoo21
heh... no see sad fact of the matter... amd fan boys are more likely to drive amd into the ground demanding cpu's for less than a hundred bucks or for a few more dolla than it costs to put them out. thats the sad facts amd can't survive when its own customer base is killing it.
Its not that way - most people you see want to buy AMD because they're cheap and they perform great. Of course this can never happen in Intel-land so you resort to insulting "fanboys" to make a point.

amd's were just overclocked intel chips :P until the k7 which was a clone of a slot 1 p3. and when intel ditched secc amd followed almost instantly. heh i wouldn't be surprised if they are making the a64 do less ipc so they can ram the clockspeed up. hehehe its like a soap. disgusting yet funny to watch.

AMD's were just overclocked Intels? Are you even trying to make sense?

And AMD went to Socket A because Slots were obsolete, expensive and didn't have any benefits.

BTW you must be talking about the 12 pipelines in the K8 vs 10 in the K7. I suggest you not talk about something you're not familiar with.
Originally posted by AlpheXus
Intel is the king, we are talkin about stability of course
Overclocking an amd is wonderfull but, whats the point if the system is always rebooting???
PEBCAK.
Originally posted by Amino
AMD might be cheap and AMD might have optional multi's, but Intel has FSB, cooler cores, and better chipsets. In all my experience, I have yet to see an AMD chip outperform an Intel, infront of me. You can read the hype online, but I've tried both. I have yet to see an Intel outperform an AMD. There. My point is just as valid as yours because you only offer subjective proof.

BTW - if you still think P4s are cooler you have another think coming. The 3.0Ghz dissipates 82W TDP and 100W max, while the 3000+ w/ 400FSB dissipates 53.7W typical and 68.3W max.
Originally posted by dippy_skoodlez
Hmm.. they ARE. but not by much. they found a way to lower the IPC by very little, but make it seem as if it were dropped more. I saw it on a wierd page from somewhere.,..;)
The K8 has 2 extra stages because it has so much more complexity that not adding the stages would mean it'll clock lower than the K7.
The A64/opteron core is identical when it comes to # of functional units. And given that the two extra pipe stages are there to detect dependencies before instructions are sent to the split 3-way integer instruction queues it's safe to say that they are NOT there to improve frequency, or rather that they are there to maintain frequency while improving scheduling efficiency.
Originally posted by Chris_F
Also, if your going to do a comparison of AMD and Intel, don't compare an AMD chip to a Celly. That's like comparing a P4 3.2C to an AMD 1400+ at stock. :rolleyes:
Why can't i compare them if they cost the same?

[Lord_Zoltan]

Originally posted by Mark Larson

Good for you. My PC is not my life, so i don't know where you're coming from.

OH NOES I GOTS POWNED WHATEVER SHALL I DO??!??!?!

Its not that way - most people you see want to buy AMD because they're cheap and they perform great. Of course this can never happen in Intel-land so you resort to insulting "fanboys" to make a point.



AMD's were just overclocked Intels? Are you even trying to make sense?

And AMD went to Socket A because Slots were obsolete, expensive and didn't have any benefits.

BTW you must be talking about the 12 pipelines in the K8 vs 10 in the K7. I suggest you not talk about something you're not familiar with.

PEBCAK.
I have yet to see an Intel outperform an AMD. There. My point is just as valid as yours because you only offer subjective proof.

BTW - if you still think P4s are cooler you have another think coming. The 3.0Ghz dissipates 82W TDP and 100W max, while the 3000+ w/ 400FSB dissipates 53.7W typical and 68.3W max.

The K8 has 2 extra stages because it has so much more complexity that not adding the stages would mean it'll clock lower than the K7.
The A64/opteron core is identical when it comes to # of functional units. And given that the two extra pipe stages are there to detect dependencies before instructions are sent to the split 3-way integer instruction queues it's safe to say that they are NOT there to improve frequency, or rather that they are there to maintain frequency while improving scheduling efficiency.

Why can't i compare them if they cost the same?

L-M- F- A- O !, edit that is just hilarious :D, good job :clap:

:thup::thup:

[maj71109]

Originally posted by Lord_Zoltan
ya the only time my computer reboots is when my im testing a higher OC, thus not stable. I have many friends with intels and they dont REBOOT out of no where lmao, maybe they do if your overclock is unstable or if you accidently hit the REBOOT button but hey..whatever..i hate lame remarks.. i dont like amd cuz it reboots all the time..like seriously wtf kind of remark is that..god damn i have both pentiums and amds and they neither reboot out of no where lol unless the clock is making it unstable/.

EDIT: maj71109- and like evil is ever really bad :P always fun to be evil :P


Other then like most people on this forum that has never had a computer from countless companies, Ive owned both and more.
I've been with intel and amd for a long time, ive seen both grow into what they have become today and I own stock in both. Both are outstanding and if you ask me who I've been with the longest it's Amd but its time to see whats on the otherside of the fence sometime(you might miss something if you stay with one). Then latter on down the road you'll see me switch back because I can't stay with one company to long. about the reboot problems I blame the chipsets and cluttered software that's always the problem(don't forget the operating systems). Don't balme the chips blame the numbers from the software that it crunches cause if the numbers are wrong going in then they'll come out wrong from the cpu.

;)

[Chris_F]

Good for you. My PC is not my life, so i don't know where you're coming from.

It's not my life, but it is my job and recreation.

I work with video. I edit, do a lot of Photoshop and After Effects, and a ton of 3D. I'll always use Intel as my tool. With FX, nothing beats Intel for a PC. A lot of fellow editors I know with confirm this as well.

Also, if you want to compare an AMD to a Celly, go right ahead. AMD will win, but in the end AMD has still lost. So if comparing an AMD to a crappy budget Intel chip makes you feal big, go on.

[maj71109]

Originally posted by Mark Larson

Good for you. My PC is not my life, so i don't know where you're coming from.

OH NOES I GOTS POWNED WHATEVER SHALL I DO??!??!?!

Its not that way - most people you see want to buy AMD because they're cheap and they perform great. Of course this can never happen in Intel-land so you resort to insulting "fanboys" to make a point.



AMD's were just overclocked Intels? Are you even trying to make sense?

And AMD went to Socket A because Slots were obsolete, expensive and didn't have any benefits.

BTW you must be talking about the 12 pipelines in the K8 vs 10 in the K7. I suggest you not talk about something you're not familiar with.

PEBCAK.
I have yet to see an Intel outperform an AMD. There. My point is just as valid as yours because you only offer subjective proof.

BTW - if you still think P4s are cooler you have another think coming. The 3.0Ghz dissipates 82W TDP and 100W max, while the 3000+ w/ 400FSB dissipates 53.7W typical and 68.3W max.

The K8 has 2 extra stages because it has so much more complexity that not adding the stages would mean it'll clock lower than the K7.
The A64/opteron core is identical when it comes to # of functional units. And given that the two extra pipe stages are there to detect dependencies before instructions are sent to the split 3-way integer instruction queues it's safe to say that they are NOT there to improve frequency, or rather that they are there to maintain frequency while improving scheduling efficiency.

Why can't i compare them if they cost the same?



[COLOR=indigo][COLOR=indigo]


why you can't compare off price is because price dosen't mean anything unless your cheap, everyone here compares off performance( [COLOR=orange] see the key word per-for-mance).
[COLOR=indigo] If you go off price alone your just cheating yourself.

[Mark Larson]

Originally posted by Chris_F
Also, if you want to compare an AMD to a Celly, go right ahead. AMD will win, but in the end AMD has still lost. So if comparing an AMD to a crappy budget Intel chip makes you feal big, go on.
The beauty is that i can compare an AthlonXP to a Celeron because they cost the same, or i can compare one to a P4 because they perform about the same. The best of both worlds, if you may.

[Mark Larson]

Originally posted by maj71109




[COLOR=indigo][COLOR=indigo]


why you can't compare off price is because price dosen't mean anything unless your cheap, everyone here compares off performance( [COLOR=orange] see the key word per-for-mance).
[COLOR=indigo] If you go off price alone your just cheating yourself.
I don't give a **** what "everyone" compares, all i want to compare is the hit on my pocketbook.

Care to explain why i'm cheating myself if i compare price?

And i suggest you read the FAQ and Help section of the board if you want to use colors.

[maj71109]

Originally posted by Mark Larson

I don't give a **** what "everyone" compares, all i want to compare is the hit on my pocketbook.

Care to explain why i'm cheating myself if i compare price?

And i suggest you read the FAQ and Help section of the board if you want to use colors.



I see that your vocabulary is limited so i'm going to not hold a coversation with you cause your unarmed.

[dippy_skoodlez]

Hmm... He compares to a celeron becasue thats what INTEL thinks of AMD. low cost worthless CPU's. Thats a main reason they put the celerons out. they thought it could compare with the athlons, not worthy of a P4.. how dare someone make a competitive chip!? :D

[maj71109]

LMAO:p :clap:

[Mark Larson]

Originally posted by maj71109




I see that your vocabulary is limited so i'm going to not hold a coversation with you cause your unarmed.
Go for it, big boy. Let's see what you got.

[ajrettke]

I compare off price/performance. I honestly can't tell a difference between my XP1700@2550 and my freinds P4 2.4C@3.3
yeah his memory bandwidth is a little higher and his 3dmark score (he also has a 9700 pro i have 9500->9700)...but he's paid atleast 300 more than me for an incredibly small gain in performance....his cpu/mobo/ram/vid card cost more than twice my system....
Some people don't care about 300 bucks, they think it's worth it to go intel...i don't but i'm not gonna flame people call em cheap for buying AMD or dumb for going intel

Grow up people and stop personal attacks.

[Mark Larson]

Originally posted by dippy_skoodlez
Hmm... He compares to a celeron becasue thats what INTEL thinks of AMD. low cost worthless CPU's. Thats a main reason they put the celerons out. they thought it could compare with the athlons, not worthy of a P4.. how dare someone make a competitive chip!? :D
In case you didn't know, Celeron was out long before the Athlon, and it was AMD's competition that made the 300A - not Intel's benevolence. All Intel wanted to do was create and own another market segment, the low-cost budget CPU, and they created the Celeron with no cache to speak of. Only AMD's competition made the 300A appear.

(What does this have to do with me comparing AthlonXPs to Celerons and P4's?

[maj71109]

Originally posted by JoJoMoJo
Its really all about money...... if the difference isnt that much to you, you are in the same place I was a few months ago. The stability of the Intel platforms is heads and shoulders above anything AMD has to offer. Given that and the P4C chips easily reaching anywhere from 250-300fsb....... I think to myself dam i am glad I switched. I still have my AMD system as a server an Abit NF-7s with a XP2600 @ 2.6 gigahertz. The intel running close to 3.5 with a 250fsb 1:1 is night and day more stable, & faster in multi tasking. It is so nice when gameing ect... to alt tab to the screen and run the programs such as vnc to the server, or adjust my team speak with no system hangs. The difference is noticeable as I have ran this system for weeks without a single reboot. All at the default voltages by the way.



system specs or nice for your P4 hope mine runs as good as yours

[Lithan]

Originally posted by maj71109




I see that your vocabulary is limited so i'm going to not hold a coversation with you cause your unarmed.


Ummm... (Restrains laughter)... the correct insult is... "I will not engage in a battle of wits with you, as it is clear you would be unarmed." What you said makes about as much sense as a monkey smoking a slice of cantaloupe.

[dippy_skoodlez]

AMD made intel actually make a *semi* decent CPU.... therefore making them ramp up the speeds :) I dont know what it has to do with it, but I didnt start it.

[dippy_skoodlez]

Originally posted by Lithan



Ummm... (Restrains laughter)... the correct insult is... "I will not engage in a battle of wits with you, as it is clear you would be unarmed." What you said makes about as much sense as a monkey smoking a slice of cantaloupe.

LOL or maybe eating paintchips off a goal post.. ;)

[Lord_Zoltan]

Originally posted by Lithan



Ummm... (Restrains laughter)... the correct insult is... "I will not engage in a battle of wits with you, as it is clear you would be unarmed." What you said makes about as much sense as a monkey smoking a slice of cantaloupe.

So true.

[Lithan]

Can someone make me an avatar of a monkey smoking a slice of cantaloupe?

[Xeon24]

The performance between the two, even in the high end chips is very nominal, at least for what I do. Intel is much better in memory intensive applications, but in gaming and general cpu usage, the performance is only nominal.

I was pretty skeptical when I bought my first AMD chip back in the p3 days. I had upgraded to an AMD 1GHz from a p3 733, and actually saved a decent amount of money. Come to find out, there was quite a performance advantage for the AMD chip--I believe they were the first to 1ghz too.

Right now, Intel is on top of performance, but that has not always been the case, and it may not always hold true.

I would never suggest a certain brand because I like it, but to just tell the person to buy whatever is on top that he/she can afford. For me? I'm on a limited budget, so the 2500+ was the way i went, and not regreting it, especailly when it can do 2.3ghz or more, which is right up there with the p4 3.2ghz in performance..and knowing that anything overclocked higher than that is only margainally better for everyday useage.

I can say that I don't really have any more stability issues with an AMD setup than I've had with a p4 setup.

[Fallen Phoenix]

AMD and Intel both use different processes in their CPUs, AMD getting more operations per clock cycle but at decreased clock speed and Intel using the conventional method and getting higher clock speeds. In my eyes, Intel is focused more at professional use and AMD is more a gamer's processor. I use Intel because I don't mind not being on the cutting edge and at the point I buy at performance wise, the price isn't too much different.

[FuzzyNY]

I currently running 1700XP@2.52GHZ, plan to going back to Intel 2.4C next week only because the HT,



that was old sign btw

[lansens]

I have been a fan of AMD for several years now. Mainly because of cost but also because of performance. I have been lured however by the 800fsb and ordered a 2.4c last night along with a canterwood board. Thats just too much fsb to ignore. I don't believe AMD is king when it comes to price any longer. That XP3200 is pretty pricey!

[TheGr8s1]

Originally posted by Lithan



Ummm... (Restrains laughter)... the correct insult is... "I will not engage in a battle of wits with you, as it is clear you would be unarmed." What you said makes about as much sense as a monkey smoking a slice of cantaloupe.

Where'd ya come up with cantaloupe smoking monkeys?

[kenji]

normaly intel all the way. More stable, memory, heatspreader protected core, hyperthreading.

BUT! I am going with amd this winter because claw hammer is comming out, ~1.8-2.0 GHz, ~9.5 GHz of bandwith between the cpu and memmory as opposed to half or 1/3 of that at which current cpus run, and ~400 MHz FSB, at 64 bit, all that on a 64 bit os like the 64 bit version of xp, or straight on to Longhorn. It will rape everything out there right now.

[Lithan]

I hope you are right kenji. I really haven't followed hammers close enough to know one way or the other. But it would be great to have amd get at least 25% market share and turn a profit... Then watch intels prices hit the dirt trying to kill amd in a price war... which is just dumb because they will only be putting themselves in the same position amd is in now (admitedly they would actually have the money to keep this up for awhile... it's still not good business.)

As far as I can tell, amd has good engineers but godawful marketing, and they are afraid to take risks diverging from what intel has done or plans to do (very reasonably so, as they couldn't survive if they did anything to make themselves proprietary like alphas.) I think their beating intel to semi-mainstream 64bit is a step in the right direction. But I'd love to see a commercial chip from them that doesn't rely on brute strength to get an edge. I don't see amd coming out with the likes of SSE2 or hyperthreading. I never knew what 3dnow did back when I had my k6-2. But I knew it was good.

And I wish people would stop saying intels are more stable. It is an ignorant viewpoint. Causes of crashes are software. Windows, even nt based versions, WILL CRASH. Windows is buggy. Many drivers are buggy. Windows blames drivers, manufacturers blame windows. The LAST piece of hardware to blame is your cpu (Assuming you aren't overclocking.)

[N.E.R.D_BOI]

Funny, you can tell who the Fanboys are! They're the one who seem to make attacks over the Amd/Intel and are blinded to even see the advantages of the other system.

Seriously if any of you had not one bit of favouritism in you, then i don't think you'd side for either and you'd realize and appreciate the advantages of boths companies rather than making attacks and getting into heated discussions that turn into childish behaviour :rolleyes:

[Chris_F]

Originally posted by N.E.R.D_BOI
Funny, you can tell who the Fanboys are! They're the one who seem to make attacks over the Amd/Intel and are blinded to even see the advantages of the other system.

Seriously if any of you had not one bit of favouritism in you, then i don't think you'd side for either and you'd realize and appreciate the advantages of boths companies rather than making attacks and getting into heated discussions that turn into childish behaviour :rolleyes:

Perhaps your right, but I have yet to be disappointed by any Intel processor. So for the time being, I'll stick with Intel like I always have.

[Mark Larson]

Originally posted by maj71109




I see that your vocabulary is limited so i'm going to not hold a coversation with you cause your unarmed.
I'm still waiting, Mr English Professor.

[OC Detective]

Originally posted by Chris_F


It's not my life, but it is my job and recreation.

I work with video. I edit, do a lot of Photoshop and After Effects, and a ton of 3D. I'll always use Intel as my tool. With FX, nothing beats Intel for a PC. A lot of fellow editors I know with confirm this as well.


Hmm maybe you should read this - their results on photoshop have AMD XP3000 in front of the Intel 3Ghz with 800FSB.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110923,00.asp

[kellyokeefe825]

AMD

just read this pdf from AMD and you'll understandprocessor preformance (http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/processor_performance_whitepaper_v12.pdf)

[ShakyJake]

I own a retail shop/repair center and sell quite a few systems. About 95 percent of all of our computer sales have been Athlons. Mostly because when you tell a person the price difference, they will usually opt for the AMD.

Out of hundreds of AMD systems sold, we have never had any chips burn up or go bad. Stability wise, they have all been rock stable systems. The main system I use at work is an Athlon 1.33 on an old ASUS AMD760 DDR board. I crunch lots of data, have multiple log-in sessions doing crap in the background, and the system never has crashed, spontaneously rebooted or anything.

Anyway, in response to the original question, I say either platform is fine. Obviously right now, Intels have their overclocking advantages. If I had the cash, I probaby would get a nice ABit or ASUS i865 board and overclock the hell out of a 2.4C or whatever.

However, if price is a concern, AMD is the only way to go. I currently run an AthlonXP 2700+ on an ASUS A7N8X nForce2 board, Geforce4 Ti4200, and it runs everything great. Games are super smooth and everything is rock solid as far as stability goes. I always felt the P4 platform was rather "clunky" feeling until the recent good Intel chipsets such as the 845PE and now the 865/875.

Good luck with whatever you choose!