Should I go with AMD or INTEL based gaming machine?

[beavdabomb]

I'm trying to decide if the more expensive Intel based systems are worth shelling out the extra loot over an AMD system.

Would there really be a noticable difference in game play, in say, Doom 3 if I was using a 9800 pro gpu? I mean, the first thing Id tell someone about my computer is that its 9800 pro based because Im pretty sure a CPU doesnt help much after a point.

So Ive got my eyes on these two core systems...

Gigabyte GA-8KNXP w/
Intel Pentium 4 / 2.6CGHz HT
Total: $400

or

ABIT NF7-S ,nForce2 SPP chipset
AMD ATHLON XP 2500 "Barton" 333 FSB
Total $200

Money is tight and I dont want to spend 200 more bucks if its going to make an undectable difference.

Anoter quick question. Would an Intel based system that would costs $200 (for the mobo and cpu) be better or worse than the AMD system listed above?

I plan on doing some basic OCing.

I could wait a few months if theres going to be any breakthrough price cuts that would be to my advantage. Know of any? I dont really NEED this computer until games like Halo and Doom 3 come out.

[Commander_Kang]

I could wait a few months if theres going to be any breakthrough price cuts that would be to my advantage. Know of any? I dont really NEED this computer until games like Halo and Doom 3 come out.

I would wait for those games to come out and then decide what to buy.Prices will be lower by then so I would not buy now.

[JerkasaurusRex]

Probably in a few months when the 64 bit processors come out, all the 32 bit processors will have price cuts because they are now "old" technology. P4 and Athlon XP are 32-bit processors by the way.

[Lithan]

The intel system would be a little faster with dual ddr (another cost you'd have to factor in)... I doubt you would notice it though. You can't really say until you see what kind of setup doom 3 really needs.


"Another quick question. Would an Intel based system that would costs $200 (for the mobo and cpu) be better or worse than the AMD system listed above?"

The 200$ amd would demolish the 200$ intel and when the intel user asked for the amd users' insurance info, the amd user would cram him into a garbage can and push it down a hill.

[beavdabomb]

Originally posted by Lithan

The 200$ amd would demolish the 200$ intel and when the intel user asked for the amd users' insurance info, the amd user would cram him into a garbage can and push it down a hill.

:D Then why do people buy Intel?

[LBJGH]

Anything over 2.6ghz/ 2500+ will give you enough performance for the upcoming games... spend your money on the best video card you can find.

[Mr. $T$]

Chip wise their the same, An Advancment in one processor is opposed by an advancment in the other, basically saying there are almost the same, however Intel has the Slight processor speed advantage. But what sets Intel apart from AMD is the Chipsets. Because intel makes there own chipsets they can taylor them to there chips and because they have this advantage Intel makes the better chipset, and on the AMD side they only have VIA, SIS and now nVidia. VIA is the major producer of AMD processor chipsets and at best they are only 75-85% of a simular Intel chipset. The advantage VIA has over Intel is that there chipsets are cheap. And that is why a AMD motherboard is from 80-100 USD. The good thing is that VIA is now starting to pick up the pace (thanks to the nForce kicking them in the rear), there early K7 and Socket 370 chipsets were horrable my 800p3 setup gets at best 750MB/sec Memory bandwidth and my former 667 p3 setup got about 1.2GB/sec and that ran off an intel i815e chipset. Now VIA makes decent chipsets for the Athlon XP processors and they are now more stable then before, but like the past they lack preformence compaired to intel. As for the nForce chipset they are more stable then VIA's and a little faster, as for an AMD platform they look to be the best. I have no hard data on the exact preformence difference but I know it is still less then Intel's however more then VIA's. Hope I got all my data right :p

[Lithan]

Originally posted by beavdabomb


:D Then why do people buy Intel?

Hey, If I knew that I would have mentioned it. :D

Two biggest reasons are probably...

1. They want max speed at any cost and paying 750$ for a mobo/cpu seems natural to them.

or...

2. They are not too bright/ are intel fanboys.

The smaller third reason is that they actually believe the garbage about intels running cooler (They haven't for awhile), or being more stable (They never were).

The reason that's not really a reason at all, but is likely the reason most users on these forums want to believe is that they are getting much better speed for only twice the cost. These are the ones who would buy the 2.4C's and whatever the best pentium motherboard is. Brag about only paying 350$ (or whatever it would cost) which is less than xxxx+ AMD chip that just got released and noone is buying because our 40$ chips can get the same speeds... then go and spend 250$ to get a pair of top of the line 256meg sticks so they can run 1:1 and beat my 150$ setup with an 80$ stick of 512Megs by 5-10% in a few benchmarks... then get half the eyecandy I get in games because they can only afford a ti4200 while I'm on my 9700 325/310 stock.

Hell if benchmarks mean more to you than games, or if you're willing to pay 200-400$ more to keep up in games and beat amd users in benchmarks, then by all means go intel. But that doesn't mean you will ever enjoy better performance than I will (Again, maybe in doom 3 you will... it's all speculation until we see it. I speculate that you won't) And it sure doesn't mean you will save more money in the long run, as both our setups will be obsolete about the same time.

[Mark Larson]

AMD++

[funnyperson1]

Originally posted by Mr. $T$
Chip wise their the same, An Advancment in one processor is opposed by an advancment in the other, basically saying there are almost the same, however Intel has the Slight processor speed advantage. But what sets Intel apart from AMD is the Chipsets. Because intel makes there own chipsets they can taylor them to there chips and because they have this advantage Intel makes the better chipset, and on the AMD side they only have VIA, SIS and now nVidia. VIA is the major producer of AMD processor chipsets and at best they are only 75-85% of a simular Intel chipset. The advantage VIA has over Intel is that there chipsets are cheap. And that is why a AMD motherboard is from 80-100 USD. The good thing is that VIA is now starting to pick up the pace (thanks to the nForce kicking them in the rear), there early K7 and Socket 370 chipsets were horrable my 800p3 setup gets at best 750MB/sec Memory bandwidth and my former 667 p3 setup got about 1.2GB/sec and that ran off an intel i815e chipset. Now VIA makes decent chipsets for the Athlon XP processors and they are now more stable then before, but like the past they lack preformence compaired to intel. As for the nForce chipset they are more stable then VIA's and a little faster, as for an AMD platform they look to be the best. I have no hard data on the exact preformence difference but I know it is still less then Intel's however more then VIA's. Hope I got all my data right :p


What you forgot to mention is that now AMD has the nforce2 chipset. Which is still not expensive around 100$ for a decent Nforce2 board by ASUS or MSI.

IMHO, nforce2 is just as stable as comparable intel chipsets and performance wise he would not see the difference between the two systems outlined. Sure 3dmark would show a difference and so would other benchmarks. But he isn't going to sit there and be like well this one gets me 65fps in DoomIII and the AMD system only gets me 60fps.

Imho for the price AMD cannot be beat. If you are willing to spend 300$ on cpu and mobo then buy Intel.

[Lt. Max]

i dono.. i think intel does better for gaming because video cards get more powerful and they need more memory bandwidth to work well and less pure processing power so intel would be good as a long term investment imho...
and call me an intel fanboy but my friend built and amd system a while ago and we have been messing with it so much i quietly made an oath to never buy an amd chip for my main computer.. dont ask me the reasons.
these kinds of threads never end well.. i prophesize a war in a few more replies.

max

[Socko4Life]

I think that if you are low on cash, go AMD. If not, go the extra mile and get Intel. Get a 2.4C or greater and overclock to around 3.2. Then spend whatever extra on the videocard (maybe a 9700 or 9800).

[Mizzery]

You'll probabally be able to overclock the 2500 to 3400 speeds and the 2.6 to about 3.4GHZ with intense air cooling. The P4 setup will be likely %10-%15 faster. If thats worth $200 to you than you have your answer. I'd take the amd and put the saved money towards a good video card.

[LBJGH]

I got my first socket 'A' setup in the summer of 2000. Go figure AMD kept the same socket design so that the consumer didn't get screwed into buying a new motherboard for each new CPU.

My buddy is going to plug a 2400+ into an Asus A7V and run the chip at stock speed.

How many 3 1/2 year old Intel motherboards can you plug a 200mhz fsb Intel chip into and get to work?

Just the other day I stuck a $75 AMD chip in my old KT333 motherboard and am getting better performance than the fastest (stock speed) P4.

I spent my money on a good video card rather than 'make do' with a cheaper card.

[MetalStorm]

From what I have seen in terms of doom 3 alpha benchmarks, the graphics card is the limiting factor on high end systems, but having said that, CPU speed is only irrelevant if the graphics card is the limiting factor - i.e doom 3, and probably HL 2 but in things like UT2k3 where good cards can kick out over hundreds of fps and they are not the limiting factor at lower resolutions then the CPU is very important.

With something like UT2k3 its best to look at the botmatch benchmarks, because the cards can easily kick out those fps, and bots do use more CPU juice than anything else...

I hope that was of some use!

[Lithan]

Of course... Odds are Doom3 will need assloads of bandwidth between agp and memory... which means memory bandwidth will come into play. Hmm. Maybe buy a hammer? ;)

[Steve978]

I dunno about that whole intel running cooler thing I believe it... My friend is running a 3.0 GHZ and he gets around 28 degrees celcius when overclocked to 3.4 on aircooling (SLK-900U) Thats impressive its at idle mind you but still wow thats cool

[MetalStorm]

Steve978 I think that is because of Intels heatspreader, if you look on the heatsink and waterblock rankings on the front of overclockers.com you will see that on an intel chip the 800U gets 0.15 C/w but on an athlon its 0.25 - so quite a difference and I think that can only be due to the heatspreader...

[gamefoo21]

My post is completely contained lower down in this thread. I might as well save some bandwidth while looking really stupid. :D
oh and i forgot the faster chip goes the more heat it produces as it switches transistors on and off. duuuh but damn it i hate the spoon!

[Lithan]

Originally posted by gamefoo21
hmm hammer is more expensive than p4 hmmm so much for amd being cheap :P.

Ever heard of a joke?


as for saying that amd's and intels have always had the same stability is just a load of ****. i'm sorry too many bad experiences with amd's not running at there stock speeds or getting ungodly hot. Apparently someone doesn't know how to put a system together.

and that crack about people buying intel because they are stupid... well den go to the intel boards and say that. i am quite sure alot of those guys are very knowledgable. but yes the equal priced intel would get beat down by the equal priced amd.

Perhaps you need english lessons. I said that was one of the possible reasons.

also of note i've seen alot of converts saying that running on an intel platform things seem alot crisper and faster.

Ask someone who just spent 30,000$ on his SUV if it handles better than his old 13,000$ Neon and he might say it does. People often try to justify their frivolous expenditures by deluding themselves as to nonexistant superiorities.

also of note if amd's do run cooler why do they have the higher vcore for the same style o core eg. 13um more power means more heat.

Please tell me this is a joke and you aren't actually this delusional/ignorant. It isn't up for discussion. Recent intel chips run hotter than amd's. Your flawed reasoning that voltage=heat output can't change that. There is a spoon, like it or not.

yes i posted this in a thread that is populated by intel haters for a reason. should never have one vantage point on a topic.

I don't hate intel. But I'm also not going to try and validate intel users with statements that are nothing more than lies about amd's running hotter or with less stability or intels being magically "crisper" (What the hell does that mean anyway). If disputing B.S. about nonexistant weaknesses of amd chips means hating intel in your book, perhaps you need to stop frothing at the mouth and realize that your opinions aren't facts because you say they are. Noone is judging intel based on anything other than fact here. Intel doesn't have the price/performance of low end amd chips. Recent intel chips put out more heat than amd's. These are facts.

[JoJoMoJo]

Biggest reason I made the swap from an XP2600@2.6 with a NF7-S abit board to the intel side was the hope to gain better stability at high fsbs. Was it worth it? With the amount of money I spent trying to find a decent platform I think I should of went Intel alot sooner. I ended up keeping my Abit NF7-s and XP2600 as a backup combo. Was it noticeable? Yes, multitasking and stability were day and night above the AMD platform. Everything felt snappier and the major difference I saw was in multitasking. I am a gamer and the thing I liked the most after the change is when playing my favorite online game I can alt-tab to the vnc program to control the server, or the team speak server and there is no hang ups. The platform is night and day more stable. The higher FSBs that the intels are capable of brought out the best in my graphics card. Ive spent more of a price difference in the past to get lesser gains. I guess if money is your biggest importance go AMD. Thats what I did. Until I added up the prices of all I spent and realized I should of went Intel long ago.

[Chris_F]

I'll always say that Intel is better, but if your on a budget, get an AMD. The $200 you save will help you get a 9800. :)

[drewthomas14]

lol. crisper....:rolleyes: Lithan-1 ,gamefoo21-0

[[EXC]DDan]

This is my vision on it

Reasons to buy Intel:
-Stability
-Compatibility
-Support
-Overclockability (Will definately clock higher and perform better than a similar AMD and similar cooling)
-Good core protection (heatspreader)

Reasons to buy AMD:
-Higher performance at lower speeds (IPC)
-Lower cost compared to similar Intel CPU's (keeping IPC in mind)
-Overclockability

Reasons not to buy Intel:
-Somewhat high cost compared to similar AMD CPU's
-When overclocking, the P4's might die of SNDS when overvolting

Reasons not to buy AMD:
-No core protection for most CPU's
-Possible stability issues

With only these points in mind (probably forgot a couple), I can't really say which way to go, the Intel system you suggested will definately be faster than the AMD system after overclocking, and it will be noticable.
I wonder what memory you'll be running though, Intel chips like to have a lot of bandwidth, so If you're not going to buy new ram, that might be a reason to go AMD.
Think Im going to agree with what Chris_F said, you said in your post you're on a budget, then go with AMD and save some money for other hardware.
About waiting, wait as long as you can until you really need the system, you'll be saving yourself some extra money or you'll be able to buy more state-of-the-art equipment at the same price :D

[Lithan]

Ok... Because you don't know how to build a system and your computer crashes isn't amd's fault. Get that through your skulls. My computer doesn't crash. I'm running amd and the only crashes I ever get are buggy pieces of software locking up which I simply kill. How do I know it's the software? Every single time, with the next patch the crashes stop. My buddy is running a k6-2 server on a cheap mobo with linux. It hasn't been rebooted once since he built it (Excluding power outages and when it was being moved or updated.) If your systems aren't stable it's your own fault. I wouldn't use a cpu that caused instabilities and I sure wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Instead of investing in intel parts, invest in a tech who knows what he is doing to fix whatever you screwed up on your system.

Happy Monkey.

[Commander_Kang]

Hey guys try not to get beavdabomb's thread closed.This about the system he wants to build not what cpu you feel is better.

[UnseenMenace]

All the people replying in this thread obviously have their opinion on what processor is the best. Arguments debating this matter do nothing to help the user asking the question.. Why not tell him/her the reason you purchased the system you have and your own experiences with the subject.
Digging up the old arguments is pointless its never solved anything and nothing is ever proved.. It simply comes down to this.

Show me any $50 Intel Processor which matches the performance of a $50 AMD Processor.
Likewise show me any AMD processor which can match the speed of the top of the line Intel Processor..

Simply put both processors have a lot going for them, Why argue about it !!!
The real question is how much money is going to be spent on this gamimg machine as performance is across the complete system and not just the processor as anyone with a P4 running on SDRAM knows....
Spending money wisely for the best performing system is whats desirable, a fast processor will still be held back with slow memory or a slow IDE drive with little cache

[L337 M33P]

I'd say that if he was building a gaming machine then the most important part would be the graphics card. Save $200 on the comparable AMD CPU+mobo and splash out on a graphics card.

If however Intel and AMD systems are still in your price band with a $200 graphics card, consider this:

If you want AMD-crushing bandwidth, go with a 2.4C and a good dual channel motherboard. 1200FSB for the CPU mmmmm.... The CPU will do 3.2GHz on good air cooling, maybe more.

If you want to save a load of money, go with AMD. There really is no argument on the basis of stability or speed, as both are not a problem. The AMD chip (Barton) will OC to the same level of speed as a 3.2GHz P4, but with less bandwidth. Still plenty though.

[Chris_F]

If it's a gaming machine, both AMD and Intel will be fine. The graphics card is the most important thing. As long as you processor is 2.0-2.2GHz+, it should be fine. You should look into a Radeon 9800 np/pro.

[funnyperson1]

Alright I will follow UnseeMenace's suggestion.

I picked up a cheap Shuttle mobo for 63$ and a 44$ 1700+ and 66$ stick of Mushkin3200. Right now it is running at 2.07 GHZ with 230fsb with its unlocked multiplier. So for around the price of a 2.4C JUST BY ITSELF with no mobo and ram I have comparable performance. You cannot argue with that price. As for stability, it hasn't crashed once when I wasn't trying to push my oc to extremes.

Also if you actually believe that the Intel systems feel "crisper" then that is probably due to HT. Most dually owners will tell you that dually's feel more crisp and guess what. You can build an AMD dually for the same price as a single P4 system.

This is my first AMD rig and I have not been dissapointed one bit. Sorry but the P4's are just too expensive for my tastes.

Cheap, and proud of it.

[Mr. $T$]

Originally posted by funnyperson1



What you forgot to mention is that now AMD has the nforce2 chipset. Which is still not expensive around 100$ for a decent Nforce2 board by ASUS or MSI.




Yes I did.

[TheGr8s1]

I went Intel because I like the feel of power. Enough said!

[AS3]

GAMING-AMD(HANDS DOWN)
BUSINESS-INTEL(HANDS DOWN)

just my .02
as well as another 100 ppl's .02 ""that i know of"" that would agree

[]-[itman]

I would definitely wait until the new batch of graphically intense games comes around. AMD's tend to do better on some games(UT2k3 engine) while Intel's tend to do better on others(Quake3 engine). I'd wait for HL2 and Doom3 to come out and see which chip performs better on those games. There will probably be a lot of games based on those two engines. If you're on a bit of a budget, I'd go AMD, you won't notice much performance gain, if any, by buying Intel, but you'll have money in the bank for future upgrades.

[kaltag]

I have built many systems around AMD and Intel and I can honestly say that NO Intel system will compete with an AMD at the same price PERIOD. However If you need the FASTEST processor on the planet at stock speeds then go intel. As mentioned before though you'll pay as much if not more than the cost to build dual processor AMD system that will be 10-15% slower. For those of you saying Intel has the "OMG SO FAST FSB" are you forgetting the thing still uses pc3200 the same as the 3200 or any AMD running at 200fsb? Intel is just quadpumping their bus to get big numbers again. Both the AMD and Intel should talk between the processor and the RAM at the SAME SPEED. Between both types of systems I have not seen ANY stability issues as long as both processors are kept under their rated temps and solid software is used. I am currently using the system in sig and has been running, except for power outages, 24/7 for 5 months now. If that's not stable what is? One thing to consider as well is that if you want to move to serial ATA anytime soon then the intel has the advantage on the Abit IC-7 using the IC-H5. Using Raptors some people are getting insane speeds. Not that it's SIGNIFIGANTLY slower but something to think about. Also for future upgrading remember that AMD has just released their new "hammer" line of processors which means not alot more XPs will be released and the new processors won't fit the old boards so you'll need a new board and proc. Intel on the other hand has a few more releases left of their current line of procs so they will most likely have a bit more longevity in terms of faster procs being released that will fit their current boards.

Both systems have their weaknesses and strong points. IF it were me in you're situation I would get the AMD and a 9700 or 9800 pro. You can always go Intel but it's your money. Either way I don't think you'll dissappointed at all!!! Have fun with it and let us know how it goes.

[JoJoMoJo]

These arguments get so lame. kmart shoppers go to the left isle there is a blue light special. The ferrari guys go to the right.

[LBJGH]

... Intel and AMD are using 200mhz fsb right now. For advertising purposes Intel calls it 800mhz and AMD calls it 400mhz.

AMD actually had 166mhz fsb long before Intel caught up with the 200mhz fsb.

[funnyperson1]

Originally posted by JoJoMoJo
These arguments get so lame. kmart shoppers go to the left isle there is a blue light special. The ferrari guys go to the right.

Sorry but that is a horrible analogy.

How about some people buy $10 Kmart Brand Jeans and some people buy $50 Calvin Klein jeans. They both do the same thing but one looks nicer and uh "crisper" lol.

[JoJoMoJo]

ya I know it was just a joke. And yes they both are 200fsb chips. However if we are talking about stock fsb speeds I could see where you are coming from. The intels though are consistently hitting above 265fsb stable on there platforms. Just the main reason I went intel. Chip for chip I love AMD. Throw the motherboard companies in the mix in regarding the supporting chipsets though.........Im so happy with intel. The same ram in my AMD system wont come close to my Intel system in regards to FSB overclock. Everyone has there own reason for chooseing chip companies. Mine was for overclocking and the stability at high FSBs I could reach with intel based platforms. Just put together another rig myself. A dual processor motherboard running dual AMD 1800MPs. Its a great rig for the price. In regards to what I meant by things being more crisp<---LOL. The programs react and execute faster on my Intel system especially with more than one program running. Yes I think its the HT that is responsible for it. Like I said though previously and like the person who started this thread I am a gamer. With the high FSBs the intels are capable of it has brought the best out of my graphics card. With peak frame rates now at 460 fps Me so happy hee hee.

[OnDborder]

Originally posted by funnyperson1

I picked up a cheap Shuttle mobo for 63$ and a 44$ 1700+ and 66$ stick of Mushkin3200. Right now it is running at 2.07 GHZ with 230fsb with its unlocked multiplier. So for around the price of a 2.4C JUST BY ITSELF with no mobo and ram I have comparable performance. You cannot argue with that price.


Cheap, and proud of it.

Good illustration....

Save the money on the cpu and invest it in a good video card and ram.

[verbatim]

Thats TWICE the price! Am I going to spend DOUBLE the money on 10-15% improvement? Hell no!
In this situation we're not even talking about top of the line. These are both middle (decent) of the road, price concious systems. The saving is almost half the price of a 9800. Threre is no question which way to go.

Where did this "stability" c**p come from?

[ol' man]

Originally posted by Lithan
2. They are not too bright/ are intel fanboys.


Hmm I did not know it was alright to insult on these forums. That avatar with Intel Inside IDIOT OUTSIDE is nice too. Keep up the great forum. Glad to see mods doing their jobs.

[Southpaw]

I am also thinking of moving to the Intel platform on the next big go around.....It was always the AMD price that kept me with them.... FOr now my XP1700+ is doing fine at 1909Mhz...

think a Barton 2500 would increase my output any?

[Steven4563]

well i wont be going to intel any time soon im happy with what i got and the p4 downstairs is such poor performance compared to my comp

[Power Unknown]

well i have been thinking about the switch myself. i'm on an amd system and i know my bottle neck is my gpu. so we don't have to worry about me not knowing that. but the real reason is the fact that intel has not only the chipset but also HT. yes amd has the nforce2, but my real reason for getting that was the MCP-T.which can be negated with an audigy2. and yes both have DC, but intel is using a pump twice as powerfull if we were to compare it to watercooling. need i say more. but i am not going to make the switch just yet. if 64bit is around the corner i'm going to wait to see what that has to offer. well really i'm waiting for pci-x with the r420. so that means i will wait till next summer. hopefully amd will get ride of the rating system they are using and go back to the mhz war. but i doubt it.

[AS3]

hopefully amd will get ride of the rating system they are using and go back to the mhz war. but i doubt it.

god i wish that would happen.
ex. AMD athalon xp 3.2 ghz as opposed to the deceiving 3200+

god that would make things better for amd too because more than 75% of people dont know how amd's PR rating works or that "they even have one" they just get intimidated and run away to intel.

geez, i don't know what type of dumbasses are working for amd but whoever they are F (_) ( |< em.
__________________________________________________
when im saying 75% of people i obviously am implying the type of people who purchase computers

[funnyperson1]

Do you really feel that strongly against AMD's PR rating? Yes it was stupid of them to try and bs the latest ratings but for the most part I think it was a good idea. The fact is that the Athlon cpus are faster clock per clock and if a 2GHZ Athlon is as fast as a 2.4 P4 in most applications I think it is only fair to use the PR rating.

Most people are too stupid (well actually ignorant) to understand the concept of IPC and if AMD's top chip was called a 2.4 Athlon XP well then most people would go for the 3GHZ P4, because more is always better right?

Of course I think AMD would have been better off if they had stuck to accuracy in the rating system as once someone is able to discredit it it means nothing at all.

[ol' man]

I see so many shops write stuff like this on their adds.

XP 2000+MHz

When it really is 2000+ 1.67GHz.

That is false advertising.

I have seen this in two shops in my area.

A guy came to me thinking about buying the 2000+MHz system until I told him it really was a 1.67GHz.

Funnyperson, as I have shown above people are too stupid anyway about any of it.

People think that the PIV IPC is a ripoff but that pr rating is the real rip off. It no longer holds water.

The 3.2C smokes the 3200+ badly. Even the 2.4C beats the 2400+ quite well.

O now it is intels fault for raising the IPC of their machines again and invalidating AMD's PR bs.

[star882]

"Just the other day I stuck a $75 AMD chip in my old KT333 motherboard and am getting better performance than the fastest (stock speed) P4."
Since AMD > Intel, AMD me.
http://www.uploadit.org/files/150803-Athlon%20XP.JPG

[Chris_F]

My god, is everyone an AMD fanatic?

[q149]

AMD is alot faster for the money. Intel is faster. If you have to have the best 3dmark scores or the extra money dosen't mean anything to you go Intel... otherwise go AMD.

[ol' man]

Originally posted by q149
AMD is alot faster for the money. Intel is faster. If you have to have the best 3dmark scores or the extra money dosen't mean anything to you go Intel... otherwise go AMD.

Maybe in the low end but in the mid to high end Intel is king. Even the fastest Opteron is way more expensive than the fastest PIV which it still cannot hold a candle to.

I don't just have to have the best 3dmark scores I also have to have the best system I can pretty much buy. I need something that can multitask better than AMD processors. Hyperthreading gives me that. I need something that doesn't go crackly crunchy when installing heatsinks. The IHS gives me that. I need something that does not start the house on fire if the HS becomes disattached. Intel gives me that. I need something just simply better than a AMD. Intel can give me that.

LOL:D

PBR me ASAP. Get that AMD junk outa here.

:D

[Lithan]

Originally posted by ol' man

I don't just have to have the best 3dmark scores I also have to have the best system I can pretty much buy. I need something that can multitask better than AMD processors...

I need something that doesn't go crackly crunchy when installing heatsinks...

I need something that does not start the house on fire if the HS becomes disattached...

I need something just simply better than a AMD...


... Dual amd processors gives you that.

... Not being incompetent gives you that.

... Not being incompetent gives you that.

... If better means "idiot-proof", because that's the only real advantage of intels that you've made clear. If you are killing cpus putting heatsinks on, or having heatsinks you've put on fall off... you should be heading to gateway country when you want a new computer... not newegg.

Furthermore... I don't know what is giving you all so much trouble with multitasking. The only hesitation I get on my amd machine (No HT, natch) is the video pause when a resolution change is needed... and I'll guarentee you that Hyperthreading can't fix that.

[daweav]

I think that anybody buying a system should come up with a number, the ammount of money there are willing to spend. For gaming especially, pick the video card first. Go with a 9800, or a very good card either way. Then pick the other parts you want. If you want a good speaker system, choose the speakers, choose the sound card, etc. Most people will tell you to choose mb and proc first, but for the most part the other cards are compatable with both. In the end see how much you have left. If you can afford higher clocked intels, do that. do a price by price comparison, don't go with looking at numbers. You could look at a 2.4 ghz p4, and a 2400+ and says that is a huge price difference. But the true comparison, at least in my eyes, is a price by price comparison. Look at a $100 amd processor, and then a $100 p4. Then compare. at around $200 and up, or the "high-end" processors, intel takes the cake as far as performence goes. However below $200 amd teaches intel some respect.

That is how i have built all of my systems, and they all worked just fine. Just as a note, if you plan on having more than one application running at a time for a lot of the time, consider going dual proc mps vs ht intel. If you are like me, you are afraid of dinking around with the connections on the processor, so i don't like unlocking xp's for smp or unlocking the multiplier, so i would buy mps. If that doesn't bother you then use xp's for the price comparison.

Just my two cents. Hope your system rocks. Good luck to you!

[ol' man]

Originally posted by Lithan


... Dual amd processors gives you that.


For what price and how many hoops using what chipset? Is there a dual CPU DC nforce2 chipset? Can I run dual 1700+ tbreds without a solder job?

As for being idiot proof? I guess AMD has decided to copy intel and make their CPU's idiot proof again like the K62 on the opteron. But the difference is the Opterons have a IHS that looks much more reminiscent of the Tualatin/PIV IHS though.

Why do you think they put a IHS on the opterons?

AMD gives you something and that is value but then again so did Yugo:D Remember the $3000 car?

Here are the prices of the cheapest MP processors off pricewatch.


$238 - Athlon MP 2800
$181 - Athlon MP 2600
$139 - Athlon MP 2400
$125 Athlon MP 2200
$193 - Athlon MP 2100
$122 - Athlon MP 2000
$147 - Athlon MP 1900


So cost would be roughly say $125 x 2(2200+MP's) + $150 x 1 (Dual sock A mobo) = $400 for a dual AMD mobo/CPU.


Cost of single hyperthreading 2.4GHz.


$165

You can get a decent i865 mobo for around $100 + $165 = $265 for both and the AMD rig would still not match the hyperthreaded PIV in alot of apps.

Are you suggesting he get a dually AMD gaming system? How well will those older AMD 761 mobos run games?

You think they will do it better than my 3.2GHz 1067MHz FSB hyperthreaded PIV?

I got my 9800 for $299 at a local best buy. For a Gaming rig that is a good place to start but if you have a XP1700+ behind it that will be a gaming bottle neck hardcore. Best put it on a AGP 8X with ultra memory bandwidth like the i865/i875 has. We are talking in excess of 5000 mb/s.

A mid to low end 2.4 PIV-C and a 9800 pro would be a pretty ultimate gaming system. Especially when you start to OC that PIV. Nothing available can really touch it AMD wise without exotic cooling etc........ which defeats the purpose of having a $50 cpu in the first place. Spend $50 on the CPU and then another $600 on a prometia. That makes alot of sense. For the money you spent on a 1700+ prommie system you could have bought a top of the line i875 chipset, 2.8 GHz PIV, and 1GB of ultra fast RAM. Hitting 3.3GHz with a 2.8GHz seems to be a given. Most 2.4C's hit 3.3GHz also with stock HS.

[funnyperson1]

The dual amd System would be faster in the same apps in which hyperthreading would give a performance boost as it is true dual cpus.

As for the price. All you need to do to run an XP in MP mode is connect two dots with a pencil. I saw some of the crazy **** you did with that poor 1.2 tualatin and I know that you are very capable of doing a mod like this :).

AMD gives you something and that is value but then again so did Yugo Remember the $3000 car?

I think that is being unfair to AMD without having used their chips. Yes they are cheap, are they lacking in quality or performance or capabilities? Sure there is no IHS, take a couple extra minutes to be careful when putting on a heatsink. 10-15% slower? Sure it is but and Athlon can do anything a P4 can do and chances are you wouldn't notice the difference.

Here is why I like AMD chips right now, not a fan as I only prefer bang for buck. The AMD chips are priced similiarly to the Celeron Tualatins and Celeron P4s while steadily outperforming them. I came from a Tualatin 1.1a@1.67 and my 1700+ at stock speed performs much better because of the DDR ram. And overall the price of Mobo+cpu+Ram is still cheaper. As for P4 Celerons, theyre a joke. Nice for running up the mhz, but performance is crap.

[ol' man]

Originally posted by funnyperson1
Yes they are cheap, are they lacking in quality or performance or capabilities? Sure there is no IHS, take a couple extra minutes to be careful when putting on a heatsink. 10-15% slower? Sure it is but and Athlon can do anything a P4 can do and chances are you wouldn't notice the difference.



Yes they are inexpensive.

The IHS does more than protect it when you apply a HS. It has many functions. It also enhances thermal shutdown features incase say your cat knocks your computer tower over and your 5000lb heatsink rips your lugs off. With the PIV/tualatins you know that it will have enough time to shut down as the IHS is actually pretty heavy and takes awhile to heat up. Even with thermal shutdown the athlon as tomshardware had shown burns up pretty dang fast.

I at first really disliked the IHS(which was obvious) but now I consider it a definate worthwhile investment for intel.

The only thing it really does not do is really spread the heat better except maybe with an aluminum HS.

THey should have called it an integrated core cover or ICC.

[funnyperson1]

That is true. But I can buy three 1700+'s and it would still be cheaper than one 1.6a.

But the truth is I guess that this argument will never cease. Because some people would prefer saving money and getting something that is almost as good, while some will pay a premium for the best.

[tot31]

My AMD running 2.5Ghz performs identical to dual P4 3.2Ghz period.

http://www.hardsoftsolutions.net/amd/axp2500sandram.jpg

[climbski]

Then again when you OC the 3.2 It can't touch it.

[Fallen Phoenix]

If the original poster hasn't already decided...

Since you said "money is tight" go for the AMD system, no question. You won't see enough difference to warrent the extra money if it's tight.

I'll stay with Intel just because I think the AMD leadership is uhhh 'lacking'. I haven't seen a commercial (aside from Dell and laptops) mentioning an AMD proccesor in several years. That is the reason they are cheaper though, and it seems to work for them.

[Mark Larson]

Originally posted by ol' man
For what price and how many hoops using what chipset? Is there a dual CPU DC nforce2 chipset? Can I run dual 1700+ tbreds without a solder job?
So you want to specify chipset as well? Why not get it over with and specify the motherboard, integrated LAN and heatsinks you want to run too. :rolleyes:
Oh, and good luck getting P4s to run in dual mode because you evidently don't want to buy SMP-capable CPUs in the first place.

As for being idiot proof? I guess AMD has decided to copy intel and make their CPU's idiot proof again like the K62 on the opteron. But the difference is the Opterons have a IHS that looks much more reminiscent of the Tualatin/PIV IHS though.

Why do you think they put a IHS on the opterons?
Because its a server CPU? And the value of IHSs has been proved? Is that bad?

AMD gives you something and that is value but then again so did Yugo:D Remember the $3000 car?
Yawn. Car comparisons are bull**** and overdone. Bring some actual contention to the discussion next time and prove how an AthlonXP is a worse chip. (Other than the lack of marketing buzzwords and higher numbers, oh and AN INTEGRATED HEAT SPREADER OH MY GOD INTEL REINVENTED THE COMPUTAR!!!!!1111111

Here are the prices of the cheapest MP processors off pricewatch.



So cost would be roughly say $125 x 2(2200+MP's) + $150 x 1 (Dual sock A mobo) = $400 for a dual AMD mobo/CPU.


Cost of single hyperthreading 2.4GHz.

The dual 2200 will blow away the SMT 2.4 in actual usage and quite a few apps. If you live and die for benchmarks, well...


You can get a decent i865 mobo for around $100 + $165 = $265 for both and the AMD rig would still not match the hyperthreaded PIV in alot of apps.
Care to name a few apps that benefit from SMT that wouldn't benefit from SMP? You're forgetting that with SMT, the actual processing power is divided by two, while in SMP, the actual processing power is multiplied by two. (Not quite but you get my drift)

Are you suggesting he get a dually AMD gaming system? How well will those older AMD 761 mobos run games?
While it would be pretty stupid to get a dual AMD system to run games, an AMD761-based platform would actually do pretty well in many games.

You think they will do it better than my 3.2GHz 1067MHz FSB hyperthreaded PIV?
Probably not. But then they have different strengths.

I got my 9800 for $299 at a local best buy. For a Gaming rig that is a good place to start but if you have a XP1700+ behind it that will be a gaming bottle neck hardcore. Best put it on a AGP 8X with ultra memory bandwidth like the i865/i875 has. We are talking in excess of 5000 mb/s.

So you're saying that an AGP 8X system with >5000MB/s memory to CPU bandwidth will outperform an AGP 8X system with <5000MB/s in all cases? You have a lot to learn, starting with how bandwidth is not the be-all and end-all of computing.

A mid to low end 2.4 PIV-C and a 9800 pro would be a pretty ultimate gaming system. Especially when you start to OC that PIV. Nothing available can really touch it AMD wise without exotic cooling etc........ which defeats the purpose of having a $50 cpu in the first place. Spend $50 on the CPU and then another $600 on a prometia. That makes alot of sense. For the money you spent on a 1700+ prommie system you could have bought a top of the line i875 chipset, 2.8 GHz PIV, and 1GB of ultra fast RAM. Hitting 3.3GHz with a 2.8GHz seems to be a given. Most 2.4C's hit 3.3GHz also with stock HS.
Or you could have bought a 1700+, an SLK-800, and a 9800/9700 Pro for maximum cost-effectiveness. After all, games aren't a slide-show - you have to play them, not just watch them. And with the leftover money, you could get both an LCD and a CRT for dual-head goodness.

[Lithan]

"Spend $50 on the CPU and then another $600 on a prometia. That makes alot of sense. For the money you spent on a 1700+ prommie system you could have bought a top of the line i875 chipset, 2.8 GHz PIV, and 1GB of ultra fast RAM."


Yeah and that intel system will be crap in two years when your prommy would still be kicking ass and taking names. I don't own a prometia. Nor am i about to spend 600$ on one to get 5% more on benchmarks. Why? Because if I was, then I'd be the same as those precious few who insist that intels are worth the extra money because they are a little faster. The ONLY reason to buy a prommy is for the thrill of the overclock. Just like the ONLY reason to buy intel for a gaming rig is for the thrill of bragging about your sandra scores. Period. End of sentence. You will NOT see a performance increase in games by spending 475$ on intel mobo/cpu/ram over spending 225$ on an amd mobo/cpu/ram. You like deluding yourself to believe that you do? Go right ahead. But I'm going to tell you that you are full of it if you try and delude others into spending their hard earned money on fantasies.

[Janissary]

I never had the big money, if I had I would of course buy the top PIV 3.2 system, no question, But if you have a limited budget than you have to choose every little part very carefully to get the most juice for your money.
I switched actually from Intel to AMD because if you have a limited budget, the best thing you could do is to choose the best price/performance parts available and sorry Intel guys this is AMD theritorry for now. But I am not sticked to AMD and depending on my needs and my budget I would switch back to Intel or VIA or Mac or to whatever. :rolleyes:

[dreammmatt]

there was too much thread to read when i thought of something towards the begining - - hammer's memory controller runs full-speed....as in, if the cpu is 2GHz the memory controller is 2GHz too...so...say, with 500MHz DCDDR...wouldnt that take care of the bandwidth thing between Intel-vs-AMD? I mean, a 1.8GHz Hammer can match a 3.2GHz P4 in UT2k3 (not sure if those were exact speeds...)

[funnyperson1]

Originally posted by dreammmatt
there was too much thread to read when i thought of something towards the begining - - hammer's memory controller runs full-speed....as in, if the cpu is 2GHz the memory controller is 2GHz too...so...say, with 500MHz DCDDR...wouldnt that take care of the bandwidth thing between Intel-vs-AMD? I mean, a 1.8GHz Hammer can match a 3.2GHz P4 in UT2k3 (not sure if those were exact speeds...)

The problem with hammer is that AMD will lose its price advantage. Hammer is not going to be cheap.

[Lithan]

Originally posted by funnyperson1


The problem with hammer is that AMD will lose its price advantage. Hammer is not going to be cheap.

That is why I've trained my army of ninja monkeys to break into your homes at night and loot all your piggy banks.

MWA-YAH-KYAH! Fear the ninja-monkeys.

[funnyperson1]

Originally posted by Lithan


That is why I've trained my army of ninja monkeys to break into your homes at night and loot all your piggy banks.

MWA-YAH-KYAH! Fear the ninja-monkeys.

Ill soon be in college son, me thinks your monkeys won't find anything in my piggy bank :p .

Another factor to consider is how well will the opterons oc with the memory controller. As for me my 1700+ should hold for a couple more years....of course thats what I have said about the last two systems I had in the last 2 years or so lol.

[fhpchris]

Ok, This is getting Stupid.

I am posting this on an Iwill KT266/1700+(Dad's)

I had a Dual 2000+ AMD system. It died when I chipped something off the motherboard when I tried to remove heatsinks that did not want to come off...

I had two 3.06s on E7205 Mobos
I have HAD my 3.0/i875 up to 3.61

My Dual has not even been comparable to any one of my three PIVs.

Back at the Barracks Lan, while my dual 2000+ still lived, everyone there had AMD stuff. Cost effective indeed. We are Marines, we do not have alot of money! Slowly, people started upgrading as we started playing BF 1942 w/ Desert Combat. The more we all upgraded, the more we all used Intel. Not everyone did, some people found out that the cost difference was a good DVD burner or so and decided to stay with AMD.

See, Even though we do not make alot of cash, we can find the extra 300-400 dollars to get the proc/mobo/ram/video card we want. Money is not really an issue at that level, as we all have constant income.

The dual 2200 will blow away the SMT 2.4 in actual usage and quite a few apps.

Mabye if you surf the net/check e-mail. Not in the REAL world.

AMD stuff does do more per clock cycle, but if you want to get down to the number of execution units per processor, it is not that great of an ammount of work. Were not going to talk about cache or other things like this are we?

Can your single AMD handle two threads at once?

Compare a 1700+ to a 3.4GHZ 2.4C that is DOUBLE the clockspeed. Is there a price difference? Yes.

Will that forementioned 2.4C kick my dad's KT266/1700+ combo?

Personally I believe that if you purchase a i865 mobo, the extra cost of the processor is not that big of a deal. It is only 100$, which is what? 10% of a cheap computer? RAM is where cost can become an issue, but you have 3:2 and 5:4 deviders so you can run normal DDR400 at higher clocks.

I have 2GB of Mushkin PC3500 Level II Black sitting on my desk.

Do not argue cost to me. Speed Costs.

If you are a High School kid, or in other school, you probably cannot waste money on computer parts. Thems the breaks.

I have a Epox i875 on the way with some OCZ PC 4000 and a 2.4C if you want to get down and even. What video cards Do I run? I use my trusty FX9500 Ultra/9700P/GF4 TI4800SE combo. I would give you benchies, but UPS destroyed my computers as I ended my tour with the USMC in Japan. If you want digital picture proof, just ask and I'll take some pics for you.

[Mark Larson]

Yeah, i made the decision to go to college instead of starting work fresh out of high school. I don't think i should be penalized for that. Supporting myself isn't easy with a full credit load and 40+ hour jobs, and costs matter to me, be they computer-based or otherwise.

Maybe when i graduate and get a real job i'll have the budget to build the best, speed demon-type computer around. Maybe i'll just buy a Dell workstation. However, from what i've seen of the computing world so far, i already feel like a consumer *****, upgrading every few months. Might not even get a conventional system (Apple, SGI, here i come!)

All i'm saying is that being in college is an acceptable excuse for buying cheap, and if that cheap is good for the job, it'll have to do. That's why i bought AMD and second-hand nVIDIA. After all, what overclocker worth his electronic salt would have a video card three generations behind?

[fhpchris]

I agree with you, and I respect your honest and well-thought out decision.

Many people in this forum do not understand that and cannot make a decision such as that.

I grow tired of this AMD VS Intel Debate. Everyone acts very childish.

Many more things are more important than computers.

Remember that :)

I saw in the "DOS" japaneese magazine an awesome Gigabyte AMD 8000 chipset motherboard. I personally think a good Dual Opetron w/ PCI-X and the dual memory comtrolers will own everything. Because, after a point, does clockspeed really matter?mabye. 64Bit procs with 1MB L2 cache each can give up some clock cycles IMHO.

I hear that TYAN will make one too.

The cycle never ends.

How Horrible :(

[funnyperson1]

Originally posted by fhpchris
I agree with you, and I respect your honest and well-thought out decision.

Many people in this forum do not understand that and cannot make a decision such as that.

I grow tired of this AMD VS Intel Debate. Everyone acts very childish.

Many more things are more important than computers.

Remember that :)

I saw in the "DOS" japaneese magazine an awesome Gigabyte AMD 8000 chipset motherboard. I personally think a good Dual Opetron w/ PCI-X and the dual memory comtrolers will own everything. Because, after a point, does clockspeed really matter?mabye. 64Bit procs with 1MB L2 cache each can give up some clock cycles IMHO.

I hear that TYAN will make one too.

The cycle never ends.

How Horrible :(

Of course this is only if AMD can convince the software companies to make x86-64 software.:p

I agree with many of you who say this debate will never end. Some people think performance/cost is most important while some must always have the best. I happen to be from that school of though which thinks that spending more money than needed is a waste in many cases. That's just the way I was raised.

The way I see it upgrading to a P4 and expensive motherboard won't help my game playing, it won't help my work, so why upgrade? The truth is that we are slaves to benchmarks. If we see a cpu or card getting 10 more fps we assume its a lot better. Imho you won't notice the difference. The difference between 100fps on a 1700+ overclocked and 140fps on an overclocked 2.4....unoticeable to most humans.


The dual 2200 will blow away the SMT 2.4 in actual usage and quite a few apps.

He was comparing a dual 2200+ to a single 2.4P4, in mutlthreaded tasks the dual Athlon would be significantly faster. Hyperthreading is not a good substitute for an actual dual processor system.

[fhpchris]

To clarify, I encode.

The difference to me in speed means my time. I have HAD a dual athlon, it was only a 2000+(real MPs btw), and it was not even close in speed to any of my pentium 4 stuff.

It was more stable in the fact that you can overload the processor with work, and try to open more applications that also tax a computer, such as encoding and using photoshop. when I did that, it was not fast, but it would not do the HT "single proc crash" thing the HT procs do. when you overload the HT stuff, you can crash a single processor. It is not easy to do, but because it is not a true dual, it can be done.

My dual 2000+s started running at the brink of 60ºC in the summer when it was used 24/7 on the stock heatsinks. In my book that is unacceptable. The AMD 760 chipset had other issues.
If you are fine with single channel DDR266, go for it. I think that dual channel DDR433 running at 2-2-2-6 works for me. :)

EDIT: for my crappy spelling

[Mark Larson]

Originally posted by fhpchris
My dual 2000+s started running at the brink of 60ºC in the summer when it was used 24/7 on the stock heatsinks. In my book that is unacceptable.
So you had crashes and instability etc from the temps?
It also happens in OEMs - Welcome to the world of OEMs and Dells, where it happens regularly (not so often now, as technology progresses).

[fhpchris]

It still ran well. Hot, but well.

[bulk88]

If your going with old games (quake 3) or old engines, go with athlon XP. They were designed to run on the p3/pM/XP cpus, not the super scalar P4. If your going with modern games based on modern engines, get the p4.

[funnyperson1]

actually QuakeIII excels on P4s, look at any of the reviews and the P4s burn in QuakeIII because it is very bandwith intensive.