[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.

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

[Lithan]

Originally posted by beavdabomb


Then why do people buy Intel?

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

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

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.
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.