• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

My jump from AMD to Intel

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Status
Not open for further replies.
henesse said:
LOL, your funny dood. im not the type that causes problems but you have some serious superiority complex. tell you the truth i dont care who ur and im sure most of the other users feel the same way. If your going to help me with something, ur going to help me. if not im sure the other guys here would love to help someone out. chill out and smoke a joint and keep ur superiority with your family.

Chill out. This is not a place to do battle, it is a place to help people. I would suggest you put whatever "issues" you have at rest and move on.

cw823
Forum Moderator.
 
I have to say with regards to AMD vs Intel, I built my rig about a year and a half ago, originally 1.4GHz Xp1600+ CPUs/512MB RAM/etc and after using my old rig I was thoroughly impressed by the speed jump. At the time I wanted to go dual (if I hadn't I would have waited for the first batch of Barton CPUs).

I moved from a single Tbird to a dual XP system and the difference was pretty damn good. Not so much in games but I felt the SMP helped load times and the like. Most of that, however was probably me just feeling happy at having a new rig, I had the same sort of feeling of speed when I went from a 650 Duron to my 1100Tbird. The speed difference wasn't that noticeable, except in games.

Don't get me wrong, my rig is probably faster than many XPs at 2.4GHz (two 1.73GHz CPUs) and the like for encoding (not sure about P4s, as I'm sure they are quite a bit better than AMD for encoding) but really, the "OMG SO FAST" feeling for a large part was due to a fresh install and generally feeling happy with a new PC.

I'm glad you feel happy with your PC, and at the end of the day benchmarks to me could really matter less. I know my PC isnt the fastest around, but its fast enough for me, I can do what I need to do on it, with no hassle :).

PS: Re: Senior Members
Sorry if anyone took offense to anything a senior member has said. We try make sure we avoid any flaming so sometimes if a senior member thinks a thread is possibly going to go downhill then they will often make a small post reminding people to keep things on topic. If someone has a problem with such a post it would be much appreciated if they could PM the senior member concerned. We've been around for a while, we do our best to help out, but we arent perfect. If we do post in a thread in such a manner as trying to avoid flaming then we do so because in our opinion it would benefit the thread. AMD vs Intel is always a discussion I keep my eye on as I have seen so many threads on the subject go downhill before.

CircuitBreaker: Enjoy your rig. If you can game, use your apps, whatever you use your PC for, then don't worry if other people dont like it, or have faster rigs. And whether you go for an OCed Pentium 4 machine or an Athlon64 you will have one hell of a fast rig, and should enjoy every minute you spend building, setting up, and using it.

:)
 
Last edited:
CircuitBreaker8 said:
athlons DONT beat P4's in games though. Ever see stock vs. stock benches?? a 3.4C..or even a 3.2C will smash any athlon XP out there. Trust me, I dont hate AMD, infact, im getting a socket 939 later this year, but im just saying from personal experience, the intel p4 northwoods are a hell of a lot faster the xp's. And AMD-Me, that is the most BS score i've ever seen. People with A64's barely break 11,000...

and why is his score bs?
 

Attachments

  • sandrascore.JPG
    sandrascore.JPG
    61.7 KB · Views: 107
Because Sandra doesn't accurately represent gaming... no one said your score was bs. the point was that some here don't care about benches and just would rather see thier apps open faster and gameplay smoother.
 
I HATE it when intel fanboi's are like "Well yeah? how about we compare my 2.6C against your stock 2600+. Oh yeah, see what I mean, intel is just so much better!"
The 2600+ was out in the market WAY before the 2.6C was out. It was competing with the intel without hyperthreading running at the 133Mhz bus. Second of all, what sort of losers compare their cpu's at stock speed when they have them overclocked so high?

I recently set up two computers for the jrotc at my school, I use them all the time, and they are 2.6C and 2.8C and neither of them "feels smoother" than my barton 2500+, or any of the amd machines at either my mom or my dad's house. I was actually planning on getting myself a p4 C, but after realizing that they felt the same as my current rigs, it would be a waste of my money.
 
if a 2600+ isn't supposed to be like a 2.6C why is it rated to "be the same" by amd. im not trying to attack amd users cause i really don't care which i use, but we have two people just in this thread who will vouch for it being smoother...
 
You will be Happy coming from the deadly cheap AMDS to The all mighty INtel.


I love Intels and Will Never buy a AMD Processor. Even if Intel went out of Business, I would just buy Cyrix chips or I would get a Apple Computer
 
if a 2600+ isn't supposed to be like a 2.6C why is it rated to "be the same" by amd. im not trying to attack amd users cause i really don't care which i use, but we have two people just in this thread who will vouch for it being smoother...

Like they said- its rated to be the same as a 2.6B at 533fsb with no HT. They cant be changing the name of a cpu if its the same thing.

You want smooth?
We should quit arguing and go dualies :D

I love Intels and Will Never buy a AMD Processor. Even if Intel went out of Business, I would just buy Cyrix chips or I would get a Apple Computer

???
 
stan03 said:
if a 2600+ isn't supposed to be like a 2.6C why is it rated to "be the same" by amd. im not trying to attack amd users cause i really don't care which i use, but we have two people just in this thread who will vouch for it being smoother...


Ahhh yet another who is uninformed. :rolleyes: The idea of the power rating is not the equivalent to intel chips at a certain speed, it is to the difference of the AMD xp and thunderbird chips. A 1700+ runs at 1.47Ghz, which is what a 1.7Ghz thunderbird would have to run at to get the same performance.

I for one will not and cannot vouch for my intel being smoother. My AMD is my primary rig, and is an all around better system. But like everyone here, it is always due to preference. I like and use my Intel system, but have had better performance and luck out of my AMD system. I can't convince anyone that 1 is better then the other, it has to do with personal preference.

Remember no one opinion is right. People on both sides of the fence that have had better success. In the end, I wish everyone with their own choices sucess! :) :thup:
 
Dylruss said:
Ahhh yet another who is uninformed. :rolleyes: The idea of the power rating is not the equivalent to intel chips at a certain speed, it is to the difference of the AMD xp and thunderbird chips. A 1700+ runs at 1.47Ghz, which is what a 1.7Ghz thunderbird would have to run at to get the same performance.

everyone knows this, but when AMD positions themselves as competition to INTEL, that's who their PR rating are eventually going to stack up to.

why don't they base it off of k6-2? give a 1.47ghz XP a pr rating of 4000+? because that would make no sense.

the PR rating STARTED out being a comparison to the thunderbirds, not any more.
 
if someone would like to donate me a XP2500+ Mobile and an ABIT NF7 i would be glad to form my own opinion on this subject :D.

vinny77 have you ever had an AMD processor before? why on earth would you make a comment like that?
 
henesse said:
I bought an AMD A64 3200+ and I forced my little brother to buy an Intel 3.0e. AMD with an Epox ep-8kda3+ and Intel with the p4c800e - Deluxe. Everything else is the same for both systems.

The sad story was that even though the AMD had better benchmarks in most areas (not by much). the intel based system was noticeably quicker when opening up programs and even gaming screens. its so smooth even in games compared to the AMD cluncker.

Shouldn't have listen to all these guys saying that the amd was kick ***. My *** it is! Their ignorance was my loss. Don't waste your money, get something reliable. Intel all the way. :attn:

My c0 revision is at 49c after 2 hours of prime95 at stock.
code: SL79L
fpo#: L410B320

Its safe to say that the intel CPU is mine now. :D

I would have to say that its a driver problem, not your hardware.

On the subject, everything can be very smooth and responsive on both platforms. What it really comes too is how well people take care or their windows installations, as far as defragging, cleaning out spyware, and some other maintence. If it is left alone, forgotten, it will beign to bog down. It really just runs down to the users personal preference.
 
Last edited:
come on people,its silly to compare athlon and P4 by boot and apps
loading time ;) winxp has this "prefetch" thingie that optimizes
loading ;) it doesn't matter if its P4 or athlon,the first time an apps
loads it hangs a bit while "prefetch" optimizes loading,then after
that apps loads almost instantly for both athlon and P4 ;) loading
time also depends how fragmented your Hardrive are.
 
Duesman said:
I would have to say that its a driver problem, not your hardware.

On the subject, everything can be very smooth and responsive on both platforms. What it really comes too is how well people take care or their windows installations, as far as defragging, cleaning out spyware, and some other maintence. If it is left alone, forgotten, it will beign to bog down. It really just runs down to the users personal preference.


what do you want me to do? :bang head
give my pc a cooky well its installing xp? :confused:

there werent any driver problems and your talking to a guy that formats his OS hard drive every 1 - 2 monthes. bios updated and all the drivers up to date. no conflicts what so ever.

I've been using AMD xp systems for a long time and i could tell you this much. they suck! I thought maybe the A64 would be a kick *** cpu. it is but just not the same as the Intel.
 
j3lly said:
come on people,its silly to compare athlon and P4 by boot and apps
loading time ;) winxp has this "prefetch" thingie that optimizes
loading ;) it doesn't matter if its P4 or athlon,the first time an apps
loads it hangs a bit while "prefetch" optimizes loading,then after
that apps loads almost instantly for both athlon and P4 ;) loading
time also depends how fragmented your Hardrive are.


what are your system specs?
 
henesse said:
your talking to a guy that formats his OS hard drive every 1 - 2 monthes

I've been using AMD xp systems for a long time and i could tell you this much. they suck! I thought maybe the A64 would be a kick *** cpu. it is but just not the same as the Intel.

As im sure the Mod's have noted, your comments are ignorant, biased, uninformed and plain old inflamatory and serve zero purpose in helping anyone. Besides being absolutely rediculous. I would suggest you subscribe to a different forum. Anyone who needs to reinstall his OS every other month should be taking notes and not offering opinions.....
I apologize in advance to the members, Im usualy better at not responding to obvious flame-bait. :eh?:
 
I hate repeating myself but lets please calm down. Otherwise this thread is in danger of getting locked.

Please, if you have a problem with someone then take it up in PM as a lot of the bickering is not relevant to the thread.

Thanks.
 
stan03 said:
Because Sandra doesn't accurately represent gaming... no one said your score was bs. the point was that some here don't care about benches and just would rather see thier apps open faster and gameplay smoother.
i didnt say anyone said my score was bs. But saying his score was bs would mean mine would be bs since its higher. I know sandra doesnt mean anything.
 
henesse said:
what do you want me to do? :bang head
give my pc a cooky well its installing xp? :confused:

there werent any driver problems and your talking to a guy that formats his OS hard drive every 1 - 2 monthes. bios updated and all the drivers up to date. no conflicts what so ever.

I've been using AMD xp systems for a long time and i could tell you this much. they suck! I thought maybe the A64 would be a kick *** cpu. it is but just not the same as the Intel.

All Im saying is before you jump to conclusions, just make sure that your os and drivers are a ok. I had problems with my system being jumpy, but when I uninstalled/reinstalled the video/system drivers, my systems ran, and still is running smoother than ever. I usually end up reformatting my drive as much as you. All my systems have been axps, and i have 2 intel machines in my house as well, and additional one other axp machine. All run great.

Thats my suggestion. By the way this thread is turing out, it might help if you keep your opinion to yourself, or atleast give more reasons than axps suck.

I think we can all agree that both have their benefits. And congrats CircuitBreaker8, its good to explore both sides.

For the sake of not becoming really stupid, lets not continue this flame war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back