Intel & AMD issue

[Remote_Access_]

Greets everyone..
I know there's a thread somewhere on the on going debate over which processor is the best but I've got some news for you. Intel has cut it's prices to give AMD a run for their money.
The majority of you chose AMD on the last thread cause it was cheaper but now Intel has made their product cheaper to stay in the game. Based ONLY on performance, which processor would you chose and why?

Remote_Access_

[Terr]

To some extent, I don't really care. I mean, the whole price/performance thing is an issue in and of itself, and it's hard to get a good idea what you're buying, but since actual performance has so many possible factors... If they're about the same power, about the same price, I don't care that much, although upgradability and the availible good motherboard combos are issues. I think I would go AMD for now, just because I hear good things about it :p

[the_JinX]

The cheapest processor I run in to...

although for ripping (mp3 and divx) I'd use an AMD, couse I can make a realy fast optimized ripper for AMD's 3dnow!

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

Another site I frequently visit has banned the word Intel. If you aren't talking about AMD they just don't wanna know! LOL...Performance has little do with it though, it seemed to be more price orientated.

[KorpDeath]

When you get down to it, the name on the chip has less to do with performance (nowadays) than the mainboard, the memory , etc. etc.

With Intel. AMD, you might want to look at the actual specs but what does that really tell you about the processor performance......nothing.

Just get the least expensive and fastest one you can get.

I would choose AMD XP processors for the fact they don't overheat (when heatsinked properly,etc.) and per clock cycle get more done than their counterpart over at Intel.

[Remote_Access_]

Performance has little do with it though, it seemed to be more price orientated.

- Exacally!.. That was the reason I was posting this thread.
Not many people seem to notice the performance but rather base their opinion on
which ever one is cheaper.. I can't blame you there.. If price wasn't an issue I'd go with Intel.
..But price s an issue and I'd chose AMD also. :D
IFIntel and AMD processors cost exacally the same would you still chose AMD?
I've looked up the differences between the two processors and one article said that
Intel is slightly faster than AMD although no one could really tell the difference. ;)

Remote_Access_

[the_JinX]

I read somewher that higher speed is more necessary for windows, while more memmory is more valuable for linux..

dunno if this is true though...

[KorpDeath]

Originally posted by the_JinX
I read somewher that higher speed is more necessary for windows, while more memmory is more valuable for linux..

dunno if this is true though...

HUH?

They are kinda both important for any OS. Where do you come up with these?

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

With Intel's P4 now reaching the 2Ghz range I'd have to say "I'll take one of those thank you very much!" I'm not sure if AMD have reached those kinda speeds yet?

[Louie]

I used to have a P4 1.8ghz with 256mb RDRAM (RAMBUS ShIT) with ATA100 the whole shot and I have a AmD ATHLON XP 1800+(1500mhz), 256 DDR RAM.

Both used ASUS boards, same hard drives, video cards etc. Seeing that RDRAM was speced at 800mhz or whatever it is, I would of assumed the P4 would have been faster.

I was running Windows 2000 and let me tell you, The Intel was slower in most of the things I did such as booting up, games, office apps etc. Based on performance alone I would buy the AMD.

Price makes no difference, its all about raw computing power!

[nsiox]

AMD has Socket A.

How many socket types does Intel have?

I say stick with one.

[Remote_Access_]

Price makes no difference, its all about raw computing power!

Yup.. It's all about POWER!

...Intel's P4 now reaching the 2Ghz range...

I have to agree. I don't know if it was the OS, useage of too much memory,
too many open applications, or what ever but I agree with conf1rm3d_k1ll..
And I'd also have to say "I'll take one of those thank you very much!"

BTW, memory, RAM, and other factors affect the over all speed of your PC..
not just what processor you use.

Remote_Access_

[KorpDeath]

AMD has processors out now that beat out Intel's best offer. But it's done with allot less brute force. Intel wastes CPU cycles like nobody's business that's why they won't win out over AMD.

In other words GHZ is not the performance base it used to be.

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

What about the pro's and con's of Celeron? Would you even consider that in the same league as the other two?

[Louie]

I run Linux on my piece of shit Emachien that has a 900mhz Celeron. It's actually pretty fast. Though it only serves files.

Celeron is fine for Word Processing and Basic Internet.

For Graphics and shit though, get an AMD or INTEL>......Though I recommend AMD

[KorpDeath]

Celeron is just a whimped out Pentium. What was it that it was missing? An NPU or something.. hehehe

Celeron will be fine for your mom, but will it be right for you?

Do you play games or do any CAD or 3D rendering? Maybe not.

But in any case, Intel better wake up and smell the CPU burning!!!

[smirc]

I've seen a number of articles on the web comparing AMD and Intel that compare the two using various benchmarks. The concensus seems to be that when you compare two "equal" chips (ie. P3 1000Mhz vs Athlon 1000Mhz), AMD still performs faster. Just what I've seen around.

Check out http://tomshardware.com for heaps of cool stuff on this, including the new Pentium 3 Gigahertz!!!

[{P²P}Apocalypse]

I used to be a diehard Intel fan. No more. My personal machine is an AMD Athlon (Thunderbird) 1.0 GHz OC'ed to 1.3. With 512MB of RAM (Crap load of fans by the way, but still runs cooler than an OC'ed Intel). My roomate has an AMD Athlon 950 with 256 MB of RAM. His brother has a P4 1.5 GHz with 512MB of RAM and my AMD runs circles around it. So I go with AMD. It's cost effective and has the power. Why would I spend more for a name? Intels are good for a server from the machines I have worked on. I have not got to try any Athlon XP's in a dual proc server yet. If anybody has. How do they perform?

[ANTI-HACKERS]

I would have to go with AMD it,s got the price and the power. But i seen some testing results on the 2 of them and there was not to big of a difference in the speed of there processors. But i still go with AMD. :bigsmile:

[ANTI-HACKERS]

Come on who gave me a neg Anti points for my post above? There was nothing wrong with that post and if there was should have put your name so i know who gave it to me.





ANTI-HACKERS

[cgkanchi]

Right now, I'd probably go with Intel, if price wasn't an issue, coz their new northwood core kicks A$$! But AMD's gonna have their say soon, and I'm willing to bet that it betters Intel!

[hot_ice]

AMD has Socket A.

How many socket types does Intel have?

I say stick with one.

That's what I say too. AMD sticks with one socket for ages so that you can upgrade easily without having to buy a new motherboard everytime you just want a higher clock speed. Intel changes it everytime. I got a Celeron 400MHz and I cannot buy a P4 - the most I can get is some Pentium II's. If I were to have purchased a PC with an AMD processor - I could have upgraded to the Athlon XP 1800+ or whatever without changing anything else.

Greg

[deByte]

lots of valid points posted. i will go with intel.

rgds
de

[ANTI-HACKERS]

I still say AMD and you can give me all the negative ant points you want who ever you where :)







ANTI-HACKERS

[micael]

I found a interesting article on LinuxHardware.org about Pentium 4 "Northwood" vs. Athlon XP 2000+.


Source:
"LinuxHardware.org has just published their results in the
Pentium 4 verses Athlon XP war. The full review can be found here. (http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/23/1016241&mode=thread)


When reading this review I'm forced to choose AMD instead of Intel. But I'm still thinking of compability issues and the most of all reviews are only considering speed and benchmark tests. I'll probably continue to use my old P3 processor since I know it's compatible with most of plattforms and hardware :D.

[KorpDeath]

Originally posted by micael
I found a interesting article on LinuxHardware.org about Pentium 4 "Northwood" vs. Athlon XP 2000+.



When reading this review I'm forced to choose AMD instead of Intel. But I'm still thinking of compability issues and the most of all reviews are only considering speed and benchmark tests. I'll probably continue to use my old P3 processor since I know it's compatible with most of plattforms and hardware :D.

It's all good. There are no compatibilty issues to speak of. I use everything from word processors to 3D renedering programs and I have found no issues.

[antihaxor]

I have built many systems using both chips..... If price wasn't a factor I would choose intel and heres why...You can take a 2 gig intel chip...forget the fan, forget the thermal grease and forget the heat sink and that baby will go all the way thru post before the thermal protection shuts it down. The chip will still be good. If you take a 1.5 gig AMD and try the same thing..well you have a cooked chip. I know from exp. I believe AMD is still the best $ value...intel is by far the most reliable...IMHO

[Tortured Spirit]

hot ice, what socket were u using with that Celeron? 370? if so and depending on ur mobo..you should have been able to upgrade to a p3 since they use the same socket.


Disclaimer: Everything stated below is just my opinion and should be taken as such


As far as the difference between Intel P4s and AMDs...the speed difference is minimal when using ram that is the same. but when you test it using the ram that is recommended thats where the difference shows.


P4s with RDRAM have a built in latency lag that slows them down. tho it isnt near as bad if you go ahead and get the i840 chipset, which is better optimized for RDRAM. Besides, if RDRAM is all that great why is Intel mating DDRAM with their high-end server products running P4s?

AMDs with DDRAM do not have the lag, latency is just about the same as with SDRAM but with a much faster clock speed. (133 versus 266)

Memory bandwidth at 266Mhz is supposed to be about 2GB/sec.. versus about 1.5GB/sec from the PC800 RDRAM (Note: these numbers are approximate)

It takes more than a Mhz rating to be able to tell what processor is faster,there are way too many variables to take into account. I have no argument that Intel makes a reliable chip but I have known someone who (accidently) didn't put heatsink or fans on a Athlon and even tho it shut down while booting from the floppy, it wasn't fried(still works to this day)..so I'm not sure how valid of a test of reliability that is. I have built many systems with both Intels and AMDs and don't see a noticable difference between them other than price.

There's alot more to this than I have stated but I dont have the time right now to go intoo further detail...


On a personal note, If I were building a dream system, I would go with AMD for no other reason that they aren't in bed with Satan. :D oh yea, and the cheaper price never hurts.

[casper3699]

Originally posted by Remote_Access_
Greets everyone..
I know there's a thread somewhere on the on going debate over which processor is the best but I've got some news for you. Intel has cut it's prices to give AMD a run for their money.
The majority of you chose AMD on the last thread cause it was cheaper but now Intel has made their product cheaper to stay in the game. Based ONLY on performance, which processor would you chose and why?

Remote_Access_

Based on performance I will always go for AMD. I have had the the best luck. I have an AMD 200 that runs faster than an Intel 300 that I use. I am running DVD almost perfectly on a AMD 200 that the minimum system requirements is supposed to be a Pentuim II 400

[antihaxor]

Here is the latest lowdown on overclocking specs from both chips:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020128/index.html

[the_g_nee]

Personally I go with AMD.

Why?

Because my AMD Thunderbird marginally outperforms the equivalent Intel.

Though at the end of the day for the average home user, does a few extra

floating point calculations make all that difference? Aren't we all just buying

into the image?

[tridentrue]

Most people think "Yeah look at my awesome 2.2Ghz processor I jsut got!', butt little deos he know that Mhz isnt the only factor in processor speed. While comparing many benchmarks I notices that the Athlon 1900+ and the 2.2 P4 Intel have similar performance specs even though the AMD is only running at 1.6 Ghz. This is because the performance of a CPU is determined on: (work per cycle) * (clock speed (Mhz)). This means that if a 2000Mhz Intel does a work of 4 units per cycle and an AMD running at 1400 Mhz does a work of 7 per cycle, you'll notice that the Intel scores 8000, while the AMD scores 9800. This is why AMD can have a cpu running at a lower clock speed than Intel and still have the same amount if not more performance.

http://www.cybermart.ca/images/benchmark.jpg

[protocool]

i still consider a fanatic of intel based processor. almost of my computer uses intel processors
because of the concept they build the first computer processor in the history of mankind. still, i they were the first to build the processor they know how the things work properly. even though amd is mucj more higher in the field of benchmarking intel is still the best because they provide stability and durability (as what my concept knows). not to mention the floating point error of the intel processor (pentium 90) way back the processor build. but they fix it quickly and trying to sell pentium 100. ;)

[Toxic]

Dont people know that the frequecy has nothing to do with the real preformance? It is all about the RPM's, AMD kicks Intels ass any day, you could buy a 1.6Ghz AMD and even though the frequecy is less then the Intel's 2.0Ghz the AMD would still be better. I will try to get the bechmarking page to prove it.

[freeOn]

errr AMD runs to hot, P4 nice and cool!