-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Amd Vs. Pentium
- Thread starter triflux
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2001
- Location
- Edmonton, Alberta
OK, first off, its AMD vs Intel
LOL
ok, here we go again...
My vote...
AMD
why? Because AMD has a better price/performance ratio!
AXIA
LOL
ok, here we go again...
My vote...
AMD
why? Because AMD has a better price/performance ratio!
AXIA
- Thread Starter
- #3
sorry about that but though I have a AMD XP 2000 I think Intel's P4/Northwood its much more stable. Used on servers etc. and currently the speed is unbeatable (2.4GHZ) AMD is nice too but if I new of the speed of intels new line I would of went intel
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2002
- Location
- SC
AMD without a doubt. There’re cheaper, they o/c good and they look cooler. Also every Intel pc that I’ve used (from 166mhz to 1.800mhz) stank big time IMO. And I’ve used a bunch of them too. IBM, HP Dell Packard Bell, Gateway, Toshiba, Compaq and more. None of them were very good. On the other hand, all of the AMD PCs that I’ve worked on were very nice.
BTW speed is not everything.
BTW speed is not everything.
ok well if you buy an HP Dell Packard Bell, Gateway or Compaq i wouldn't expect any performance at all
Intel Northwoods (1.8ghz and maybe 1.6ghz) at the moment have the best performance/price ratio and they overclock really well. AMD XP 1800+ and 2000+ are also very good but I always prefer Intel in the end of the day, as motherboards for the Intel IMO are superior to the AMD one's.
Intel Northwoods (1.8ghz and maybe 1.6ghz) at the moment have the best performance/price ratio and they overclock really well. AMD XP 1800+ and 2000+ are also very good but I always prefer Intel in the end of the day, as motherboards for the Intel IMO are superior to the AMD one's.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2001
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
I'd go with AMD as well...better performance and optimizations.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2001
- Location
- Mount Vernon, WA
Intel is the overclockers friend (dont flame me please, just listen). i know their multipliers are locked, but intel has had the most successful overclocking cpus. 300a, 600 cellery, p3 700e, p3 800e, p3 1000e (cD0), p4 1.6a, etc.
They all reach high speeds successfully. Intel chipsets are also more stable and their memory bandwidth ownz
Shouldnt this be in debates?
(dont flame me please, just listen). i know their multipliers are locked, but intel has had the most successful overclocking cpus. 300a, 600 cellery, p3 700e, p3 800e, p3 1000e (cD0), p4 1.6a, etc.They all reach high speeds successfully. Intel chipsets are also more stable and their memory bandwidth ownz
Shouldnt this be in debates?
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
Intel all the way and no one will ever change my mind yes there more expensive, but you know what you pay for what you get enough said 
- Thread Starter
- #11
I also read somewhere that if intel wanted they could total AMD's business. This brings me to the conclusion that in the near future Intel will have faster and more appealing chips.
If it is money then I ask all you overclockers how much did you pay for your heatsink?
If it is money then I ask all you overclockers how much did you pay for your heatsink?
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2001
- Location
- Port Charlotte, Florida
Yes Intel could easilly destroy AMD. They have the customer base and the money to do it. But they wont. At least not anytime soon.
Each brand has it's place. Each it's own price. Each it's own flaws.
Have you ever watched "The Fast and the Furious"? The drag race at the end between the rice burner and the dodge? That is the best representation of Intel vs. AMD.
The Intel is the Dodge. Big, heavy, and a ton of horsepower. But it's outdated drive train is wastefull and inefficient. But the gobs of horsepower make up for that. It needs a solid platform to get that power to the ground to take advantadge of it though.
The rice burner is the AMD. Small, Light, decent horsepower. But it's new drivetrain is very efficient making better use of the available horsepower. And a high revving engine makes the torque curve broader giving good power and throttle responce at most RPM.
Each brand has it's place. Each it's own price. Each it's own flaws.
Have you ever watched "The Fast and the Furious"? The drag race at the end between the rice burner and the dodge? That is the best representation of Intel vs. AMD.
The Intel is the Dodge. Big, heavy, and a ton of horsepower. But it's outdated drive train is wastefull and inefficient. But the gobs of horsepower make up for that. It needs a solid platform to get that power to the ground to take advantadge of it though.
The rice burner is the AMD. Small, Light, decent horsepower. But it's new drivetrain is very efficient making better use of the available horsepower. And a high revving engine makes the torque curve broader giving good power and throttle responce at most RPM.
Cooler666 said:ok well if you buy an HP Dell Packard Bell, Gateway or Compaq i wouldn't expect any performance at all
Intel Northwoods (1.8ghz and maybe 1.6ghz) at the moment have the best performance/price ratio and they overclock really well. AMD XP 1800+ and 2000+ are also very good but I always prefer Intel in the end of the day, as motherboards for the Intel IMO are superior to the AMD one's.
I don't think Intel mobos are any better than AMD. I've heard the 845ds aren't that stable. How do you come to this conclusion?
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
I prefer AMD. I like the price to performance ratio, and their lastest cpus don't produce much heat, and if they still do the Northwood with cranked voltage puts out as much heat as the AMD do. Although, I like Intel as well, just that their pricing is a little wack. Their P3-S 1.26 are 210 dollars, while a P4 1.6a is like 160 dollars! Their Celeron are great as well, just that they don't benefit from the programs I use one is major : SETI. I prefer DDR Ram to get better times. Their Northwood series was very good.
Yodums
Yodums
Price and performance ratio. AMD! Although prices for Intels CPU seems to be dropping too. Ive heard many stability issues with Intl chipsets too.
You dont understand what you got yourself into by asking this question. These guys will go nuts over debates like this, its like throwing raw meat to two lions! Its a neverending debate!! NO It has begun!!!!!
You dont understand what you got yourself into by asking this question. These guys will go nuts over debates like this, its like throwing raw meat to two lions! Its a neverending debate!! NO It has begun!!!!!
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2001
- Location
- Port Charlotte, Florida
I'm offended that everyone always seems to leave out Cyrix....
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2001
- Location
- ft wainright
oh yeah cyrix , i have a 6x86 laying around 200+ gp runs @ 2x75 for 150
woo hoooo
and really AMD used to be rather crapy
im mean k6-2 really blows even when i was able to hit 133 fsb with one it still sucked
it wasnt till after the k6-3 when the durons and athlons on the slot 1s came out that amd started kicking some but
i have a project in plan that is to take a k6-2 (cxt) to 6 x 133.1/3
so ill see what an 800 mhz k6-2 maybe , if i can hit that speed
last time i did 133 fsb the mobo lasted a week , RIP
woo hoooo
and really AMD used to be rather crapy
im mean k6-2 really blows even when i was able to hit 133 fsb with one it still sucked
it wasnt till after the k6-3 when the durons and athlons on the slot 1s came out that amd started kicking some but
i have a project in plan that is to take a k6-2 (cxt) to 6 x 133.1/3
so ill see what an 800 mhz k6-2 maybe , if i can hit that speed
last time i did 133 fsb the mobo lasted a week , RIP
