# Which CPU brand do you choose?



## ian

*AMD vs Intel*

On the one hand AMD seems to be the first to release the latest advances, however Intel is in a much stronger financial position.
I have swayed towards Intel for the processors on the computers I have bought.


----------



## zkiller

i preffer AMD. and no, they are not the first to go 64 bit. apple/mac beat them to it.


----------



## [tab]

I like the Intel tune... doo doo doo doo.


----------



## zkiller

[tab], that just didn't sound right.


----------



## ian

3 people here, who holds the deciding vote? Has to be [tab]


----------



## zkiller

come on [tab], don't cross over to the dark side.


----------



## Christopher

I prefer Intel


----------



## zkiller

that's like saying i like microsoft out loud at a linux convention!


----------



## Christopher

Hehe, image if someone did that? They would get beaten... A lot...


----------



## cptnwinky

AMD are just faster chips. The P4 is too slow because of the large L2 Cache. Since AMD hasnt brokent he 256 mark they are alot faster. I think Intel has learned from their mistake though and brought the L2 Cache from 512 back down to 256.


----------



## [tab]

Don't ask me, I've got a Celeron...


----------



## charly

i guess intel was the better one, but still it's a matter of cost. so AMD is a lot cheeper and with the new 64, AMD is leading with a new structure. like i read on tests microsoft is also responding to it's technical structure and they will support 64Bit from AMD.

after some calculations i did INTEL systems are cheaper than AMD in case of needet cooling systems (like I use 7 fans to cool down without CPU cooler). finally with the 64 AMD they got on 1st place. i still preferre AMD's, and i still have no prob with coolers. getting a watercooled CPU this month should solve that problem like the system i made for my friend who has a CPU temperature around 30°C. 

cooling down is the best way to make speed, so i still re- arrange and replace coolers to get best results. the original watercooled here in europe cools down do 42°C and the one i did works with 27°C or at highest 30°C just because changing and replacing fan's positions and rpm.

for the common people AMD is the best, if your pocket has money left go for the INTEL ... if you wanna waste your money

ciao, charly


----------



## Aleksey

I'd say that AMD has a better value for price. Intel adds $100 just for the name. Also, If you order a 512 cache for AMD, it WILL be more productive than an Intel, unless that too has a 512 cache. But then, they would make it cost over $1000 wich is pathetic.


----------



## AainaalyaA

as long as it works, i don't mind either, but I'd prefer Mac anytime


----------



## zkiller

yeah, i would love to have a new mac! very powerfull for graphic and animation purposes.


----------



## Christopher

I'd love to have a mac too  But I'd probably still need a PC on the side for other stuff...


----------



## Aleksey

I hate macs. They're jsut cheap. Sure, Lunix is a great OS, but you odn't have to have a Mac to operate on that.


----------



## zkiller

what's a mac have to do with linux? the standart os on a mac these days is "OS X Panther". *shrug* also, a lot of the newer technology comes from apple. for instance usb and firewire came from them. also, mac's are 64-bit already and thereby once again were the first to move up in technology. i guess in a sense i wish mac's were cheap, so that way i could afford one!   but each his or her own, i guess.


----------



## AainaalyaA

they're cheap here... so if any of you wanna get one, just tell me, and i'll get them shipped to you...


----------



## zkiller

how cheap is cheap?


----------



## AainaalyaA

you sound so asian now 

how cheap do you want to go?


----------



## zkiller

i was just thinking that your perception of cheap might be different from mine. for a new apple G5 with just a 1.6 Ghz cpu they want 1900 euro over here. the next higher one is nearly 2600 euro, but it comes with dual 1.8 Ghz cpu's!


----------



## ian

speaking of EURO's the euro is quite strong, I recall when it used to be approximately the same as the US dollar.
MAC's are very expensive here as well.


----------



## Aleksey

By cheap, I meant their hardware. I persoanly have never seen a mac that could even compete with an IBM-tpe comp, let alone beat it.


----------



## AainaalyaA

You haven't coz you' haven't met one yet... i started with mac, and moved on to sgi's and then to netvista, and a plethora of other pcs.. i'd say, the best for you would either be sgi's or raptors, {they're a bunch between mac/pc} but mac does the job well ahead of the rest, esp. in mmedia/design/3ds and all... just because you haven't tried any of them {the higher end ones} doesn't mean they're terrible. 

Test drive and own one first, then talk


----------



## zkiller

Aleksey said:
			
		

> By cheap, I meant their hardware. I persoanly have never seen a mac that could even compete with an IBM-tpe comp, let alone beat it.


depends what you want it to do. mac's aren't made for to play games or the likes. makes are actually best used for doing things such as animation for video editing. mac's outperform pc's in most benchmarks. they also make great servers, being that they don't have a command line and are nearly impossible to hack into therefore. it always depends on what you are doing with it.


----------



## Advanced Microprocessing

*Advanced Microprocessing Devices!*

Advanced Microprocessing Devices are the only Processor Designers to make a 64 Bit Home Processor, in this they are the best.   Intel are the Kings of the 32 Bit Processor, but I fear that Advanced Microprocessing Devices will start ahead of Intel when it comes to 64 Bit Home Processors.


----------



## zkiller

wrong, the latest cpu's by apple are 64-bit also and are available for purchase.


----------



## Rick G

I agree with AainaalyaA, Macs are best and fastest, now if only the mainstream programmers would make the apps run on Mac's I'd be in heaven.  AND they make the absolute best monitors, period. Unfortunatly only 10% of the available programs run on a Mac, except that Mac now does have a MS emulating addition via a add in card but I don't know what computers it fits in. 

I have started a massive thread on another forum dedicated to this question AMD or Intel?  So far just about 600 hits and over 70 replys.  Very interesting comments about both systems.  

I have four P4 systems and now am in the research and planning stages to build a new Athelon 64 machne just so I can make my own comparisons and play around a bit. Check pout the overclocking and such, maybe play a game or two, etc.

If anyone is interested in the other forum thread, e-mail me and I'll give you the URL.


----------



## Lord Kalthorn

Rick G said:
			
		

> I agree with AainaalyaA, Macs are best and fastest, now if only the mainstream programmers would make the apps run on Mac's I'd be in heaven. AND they make the absolute best monitors, period. Unfortunatly only 10% of the available programs run on a Mac, except that Mac now does have a MS emulating addition via a add in card but I don't know what computers it fits in.


Mac make thje best processors?   Does it not show you something that they are so bad that they have to put in two of their G5 to keep up with Intel and AMD?   Even Via and Transmeta!   When you need to fill an entire case up with processor to equal your competitors you know you're not good!

Best monitors!   I think not!   The i-Mac looks like a piece of metal on a twig stuck in a pile of i-Poo.   The twig will and does brake, the monitor is no better than a flat screen of equivilant size and price - and a normal one you can move on to another system; an i-Poo Monitor is stuck; although you could just snap it off, it wouldn't work!



> I have started a massive thread on another forum dedicated to this question AMD or Intel? So far just about 600 hits and over 70 replys. Very interesting comments about both systems.
> 
> I have four P4 systems and now am in the research and planning stages to build a new Athelon 64 machne just so I can make my own comparisons and play around a bit. Check pout the overclocking and such, maybe play a game or two, etc.
> 
> If anyone is interested in the other forum thread, e-mail me and I'll give you the URL.


My god man!   Get a grip on yourself!   You show me proof that the G5 is faster, singly, than any competitor, and I will put on a reasonable Avatar!


----------



## littlenicky

Intel... cuz they own! And because amd has a more boring name.


----------



## buni

I like AMD alot more than Intel, their technology is much better in my opinion


----------



## littlenicky

Vote Intel...nnooooooo


----------



## Lexonrin

I go for AMD b/c they r cheaper than Intel ones.
I also heard that AMD are about 5% slower than Intel Chips... is that true?

Oh, just to let you know... i am new


----------



## silicon-thumb

I am no expert on anything involving cpu's but i prefer Intel just because of the ease of use and understanding the specs, and because of their popularityl... but ive heard that AMD and others are much stronger based on their cache but they have lower processing speeds


----------



## kalson

amd is faster!!! my 2500 is faster then a P4 2.8ghz sometimes -.- , i wonder how ... my friend has the 2.8 =O and i load things faster than him most of the time


----------



## wesa

this salesman told me that an AMD Athlon XP at 2.2GHz is comparable to a P4 at 3GHz. Anyone think he's right?


----------



## kalson

yep , my amd 2500 is 1.833 ghz, it beated a p4 2.6 ghz in loadin mostly everything


----------



## 4W4K3

i prefer AMD. can buy a $100 processor(2.0ghz stock) and take it to 2.6+GHz on AIR no problems 45Cload. try that on an intel lol. i really like intel though because they seem alot more stable. ive never had a stability issue with THIS AMD. but my earlier ones were a bit tipsy. my friends 2.6C is ROCK stable, and i love it too. cost too..he payed like $1000 for his rig when he bought it, i payed like $500 (maybe a lil' less if u get detailed). his vid card is better than mine. other wise same ram and we both have "good" boards for each intel and AMD. plus i can overclock an AMD MUCH easier than an intel. intel takes a lil' more work for me cuz u got all the ratios and such. plus locked multis suck. AMD is free multis all the way. intel just vamps up the fsb which requires you to buy $$$$ ram like PC4200 if you want over 1K fsb. intel is pretty high maintenance if you want it to run 1:1 ratios nad have MAX performance.


----------



## Praetor

> i preffer AMD. and no, they are not the first to go 64 bit. apple/mac beat them to it.


And Alpha beat the both of them 

Until Intel comes out with a chip that (a) is OC friendly, (b) doesnt cost (relative to it's class) a fortune and (c) has 64bit support, AMD will be my proc of choice. 'sides AMD systems (even the A32 platform) is far more affordable leaving room for the "other things" that matter like the memory and video subsystems.



> i prefer AMD. can buy a $100 processor(2.0ghz stock) and take it to 2.6+GHz on AIR no problems 45Cload. try that on an intel lol.


I used to think that (and still do -- i'm stubborn). Intel has really gotten it's act together since the P4B and the temps are quite low -- until the P4E debuted, AMD was the heatbucket ... although for average Joe's, heat wasnt a problem and for those interested in OCing, they are aware of the requirements for cooling and so there isnt really a problem for them either.


----------



## Viper_86

zkiller said:
			
		

> [tab], that just didn't sound right.


hahaha...i agree...at least have a reason other than the catchy tune


----------



## Viper_86

Lexonrin said:
			
		

> I also heard that AMD are about 5% slower than Intel Chips... is that true?
> 
> Oh, just to let you know... i am new


im prolly gettin annoying using games in all of my posts...but thats how i decide wut i like to go with. anyway...amd's kick ass the category of gaming...but if ur more of a general computer user...or ur in2 video production then intel have very strong chips.

and dont worry...we all gotta start somewhere


----------



## darkd3vil

yeah look at me just stick around here lexonrin and u will gain alot of knowledge


----------



## Faux_carnival

Intel...


----------



## Jimbob1989

In the beggining, AMD were thought of a knock off copy of Intel. AMD were made in sweat shops were as Intels were made in the US. There probably both made in sweat shops now.

Jimbob


----------



## Praetor

Yep... where they sew togther CPU chips....


----------



## kb1ghc

*cooking AMD's*

I prefer Intel, i never had a problem with an Intel
i will never buy an AMD after seeing this video: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/200...wnload_the_first_toms_hardware_test_lab_video

My friend bought 4 AMD motherboards w/ processors and heatsinks put on at the factory directly from AMD.

A cooling fan on the processor failed and 1 processor fried up.
then another fan failed, and the processor fried.
then a very hot summer day, one fried.
now he's down to one working AMD processor, that he got a water cooling system on. so it's ok now.

and he never OC'ed the processors, they were set at the factory, and never messed around with. 

now, i have run Intel Processors under some very abusive experiments. they still work. 

I still have 386's in my basement that work. I never had an Intel chip fail on me.

however, AMD's are a bit cheaper, and i've heard they are easyer to OC. but i can't afford to have a processor fry on me. so i stick with intel.


----------



## 4W4K3

kb1ghc said:
			
		

> however, AMD's are a bit cheaper, and i've heard they are easyer to OC. but i can't afford to have a processor fry on me. so i stick with intel.



out of my 4 different AMD chips (a 500mhz chomper, 2000+, 2400+, and 2600+M) i have never fried a single one. not only that...but i have never fried ANY part of my computer...ever with an AMD. i think your friend is incredibly unlucky, or maybe the sinks he bought for the chips were incredibly lousy.


----------



## Praetor

The thing I dont get about people who see videos of Athlons frying is that .. who in their right mind would run a modern CPU regardless of its calibre? Sure there are experimenters and such but realistically who is that stupid to do so for their "real" computer for real use? Furthermore, the odds of CPU fans failing are incredibly low for any given user with neither Intel nor AMD fans being exceptionally worse than the other


----------



## zkiller

i have never had a AMD chip go bad on me and my computer runs 24/7 and it's hot as shit in my dorm room (3rd floor sucks). however, i have fried a intel chip and it was not overclocked. then again i did have a celeron 266 that i did overclock and never had a problem with. everyone makes their experiences and bases their opinion on them. in reality, it really doesn't matter which you choose for your home system. both will get the job done and with todays processors, they will both perform pretty well at that. however, buying intel is kind of like buying a mercedes. you pay extra for the name, which quite frankly to me isn't worth a dime. therefor i stick with AMD's chips.


----------



## kb1ghc

yeah, well he bought the CPU and heatsink already on the MoBo, directly from AMD. But he only bought them because they were on-sale really cheap, AMD prolly tryed to ditch a whole bunch of crappy chips.


----------



## smadge

im clueless. i only lean towards amd cause there cheaper


----------



## nomav6

AMD is my pick 


			
				smadge said:
			
		

> what's a mac have to do with linux? the standart os on a mac these days is "OS X Panther".


The Mac OS is based off of unix, and is running unix in the background.


			
				smadge said:
			
		

> they also make great servers, being that they don't have a command line and are nearly impossible to hack into therefore. it always depends on what you are doing with it.



Macs do have a command line, and they're just as easy to hack into as a pc server.

not trying to attack the mac lovers I wished I had a mac also, but I would still keep my PC as my main computer, also someone said something about macs having cheap hardware, I would have to disagree on that one unless your talking about the iPOD battery thing lol, but I would have to say that they overcharge for their hardware, and they're just as bad as microsoft on limiting competition, microsoft does it by trying to limit what software you run, and mac limits it on the hardware side, so in my eyes both are evil, but I can't live without them


----------



## Praetor

> yeah, well he bought the CPU and heatsink already on the MoBo, directly from AMD


AMD doesnt sell mobos... nor do they do "combo deals" like Intel.



> AMD prolly tryed to ditch a whole bunch of crappy chips


Yes and if they did so they'd get sued 



> I would have to say that they overcharge for their hardware


Yep!


----------



## nomav6

I forgot to point out this last time sorry


			
				Jimbob1989 said:
			
		

> In the beggining, AMD were thought of a knock off copy of Intel. AMD were made in sweat shops were as Intels were made in the US. There probably both made in sweat shops now.
> 
> Jimbob



Im guessing you read this from the thread about hacking when someone post the link about "is your son a hacker" the stuff that was said on the "is your son a hacker" page was all fake and was just there to make us (computer geeks) laugh at how people sterotype the people that they dont understand, so Im hoping that when you posted the above quote that you was making a joke, and didn't believe anything that was said on that page.


----------



## Praetor

> Im hoping that when you posted the above quote that you was making a joke, and didn't believe anything that was said on that page


Of course....


----------



## AIRIFLE

well AMD is better and the intel is rubbish i've got an AMD athlon 3.4 GHZ and the Intel only has the new P4 which is only about 2.4 GHZ the AMD has more choice of speed than the intel


----------



## Grimulus

My barton rules.  AMD's are so much better at multitaking and gaming IMO.


----------



## Jimbob1989

Yeah, maybe i should have put that in quotes.

Jimbob


----------



## smadge

nomav6,
i didn't post those just to tell you. either the systems messed or your confused  .
-smadge


----------



## Praetor

> well AMD is better and the intel is rubbish i've got an AMD athlon 3.4 GHZ and the Intel only has the new P4 which is only about 2.4 GHZ the AMD has more choice of speed than the intel


As much as i love AMD and stuff, you're quite incorrect: AMD is the one with the 2.4Ghz chips and Intel, the one with the 3.4Ghz


----------



## 4W4K3

Praetor said:
			
		

> As much as i love AMD and stuff, you're quite incorrect: AMD is the one with the 2.4Ghz chips and Intel, the one with the 3.4Ghz



lol yes i think he heard it backwards. i would like to see an AMD overclocked to 3.4GHz without some kind of crazy expensive hardware/cooling. whats the highest overclock for AMD...i think i seen 3.1 a while ago. its probably been topped by now.


----------



## nomav6

smadge said:
			
		

> nomav6,
> i didn't post those just to tell you. either the systems messed or your confused  .
> -smadge


sorry Smadge, I have no clue why I posted that as your quote, it was zkiller that posted the quote about the macs not having a command line, sorry


----------



## nomav6

I always mess up on some monday detail. LMAO


----------



## God (2)

Are they both made in 3rd world countries now?

God (2)


----------



## Praetor

> Are they both made in 3rd world countries now?


Probably not but maybe.


----------



## 4W4K3

most AMD XP chips say made/manufactured in malaysia. but im not sure if the newer chips are the same. all my XP chips say that.


----------



## Nephilim

Any thoughts on the new dual-core processor Intel has in store? I like the idea 

As far as introducing newer and better technologies (64 bit desktop proc, on die memory controller) Intel has been getting spanked so it's about time they rectified the situation.


----------



## nomav6

AMD is now put out their new cheaper chip thats going to be in the walmart HP's so it looks like AMD is trying to win over the everyday computer users now and enter the mainstream.


----------



## Praetor

Which cheaper chip? The A64-Clawhammer?


----------



## Praetor

> Any thoughts on the new dual-core processor Intel has in store?


Decent idea but ....I still think the Dual Core shouldnt be their primary focus for (for now)... the single core still has quite a bit of life in it still (espcially with the smaller process) and if they can get the Dual Core workin on the backburner and focus on maximizing the single core to its limit, they can pop out the Dual Core quite the weapon....

Another thought.... with plans to phase out HT ... might Dual Core be just an improvement/replacement for that?


----------



## Nephilim

> with plans to phase out HT ... might Dual Core be just an improvement/replacement for that?



It strikes me as a definite inprovement over HT. HT is a great thing but it seems a bit "half-assed" to me whereas dual core is the real deal. Of course dual core won't reach it's full potential until the majority of software is written to take advantage of it, similar to the situation when HT first came out.






> I still think the Dual Core shouldnt be their primary focus for (for now)... the single core still has quite a bit of life in it




Maybe on AMD's side but with the heat issues Intel's having with Prescott I don't blame them for moving to dual core. Dumping time and money into making overheated single core design workable doesn't make much sense especially when they're close to having a workable dual core chip, not to mention the opportunity to be the first to market with a dual core chip.

Intel's been playing catch up with AMD for a while so it seems they're trying for the leap frog with dual core.


----------



## Praetor

> Maybe on AMD's side but with the heat issues Intel's having with Prescott I don't blame them for moving to dual core. Dumping time and money into making overheated single core design workable doesn't make much sense especially when they're close to having a workable dual core chip, not to mention the opportunity to be the first to market with a dual core chip.


Very true .... I guess this is GFX5800 syndrom? Works superbly on paper but fcks up in practise LOL



> Intel's been playing catch up with AMD for a while so it seems they're trying for the leap frog with dual core.


Too bad they couldnt get the P4EEs into the mainstream market... that would have been a killer. Of course the Caterwood/Springdale did wonders at staving the AMD onslought.


----------



## Nephilim

> Too bad they couldnt get the P4EEs into the mainstream market... that would have been a killer.



I totally agree but personally if I paid that much of a premium for the extra cache I would've called a rape hotline when I got home from the store.


----------



## zkiller

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> most AMD XP chips say made/manufactured in malaysia. but im not sure if the newer chips are the same. all my XP chips say that.


malaysia is not a 3rd world country.


----------



## zkiller

nomav6 said:
			
		

> sorry Smadge, I have no clue why I posted that as your quote, it was zkiller that posted the quote about the macs not having a command line, sorry


it was about time someone called me out on that. and no, i'm not a mac lover. i have nothing against them either. a lot of good things have come from apple and hope to see more of them in the future. 

btw, that thing about the command line is something a friend told me a long time ago and it made me laugh. not sure where he had gotten it from though.


----------



## 4W4K3

zkiller said:
			
		

> malaysia is not a 3rd world country.



i thought it was...let me rephrase "across the pond country" lol.


----------



## nomav6

zkiller said:
			
		

> it was about time someone called me out on that.


its cool, most people don't realize macs are unix based computers, I dont like macs myself but Im glad they're out there to put the pressure on Gates to keep pressing the market, even though apple only controls about 2% of the industry they still pose a threat to microsoft, all they have to do is lower their prices and release an office suit(I heard the bought the rights for Open Office).


----------



## nomav6

ok, I'll quit trying to turn this thread into an Apple/Microsoft thread lol.


----------



## nomav6

Praetor said:
			
		

> Which cheaper chip? The A64-Clawhammer?


the Sempron, it'll be in the HP computers that you can buy at walmart, some might call it selling out, but once your a major corporation I see the term sellout as being a little contradictory


----------



## zkiller

nomav6 said:
			
		

> its cool, most people don't realize macs are unix based computers, I dont like macs myself but Im glad they're out there to put the pressure on Gates to keep pressing the market, even though apple only controls about 2% of the industry they still pose a threat to microsoft, all they have to do is lower their prices and release an office suit(I heard the bought the rights for Open Office).


i have seen lot's of Mac's running a dual boot with Mac OS and a flavor of Linux.


----------



## Super_Nova

What do you prefer?


----------



## Lorand

I bet AMD will win...


----------



## SFR

probably...


there are a lot of gamers and overclocker's on these boards....


----------



## Lorand

I have chosen AMD mostly because their processors were cheaper. But the best computer I ever had was a 75 MHz Pentium. Never had any problems with it...


----------



## jancz3rt

*Lol*

I fell in LOOOOVE with my Amd Athlon XP 1800+ Throughbred B (YES! B!). I love how far one can clock it without changing the Vcore. I got it from 1500 to 1920 just by raising the FSB. LOL. You see why I like AMD processors ....

JAN


----------



## 4W4K3

^that's a freaking old processor lol.

i like AMD cuz of price, ease of overclocking.


----------



## dansilva

i prefer Intel Pentium (4) coz of it's HT techonology pretty good at games too it's bit expensive that AMD that's why AMD so popular.


----------



## 4W4K3

dansilva said:
			
		

> i prefer Intel Pentium (4) coz of it's HT techonology pretty good at games too it's bit expensive that AMD that's why AMD so popular.



alot of people turn HT off...why is that?


----------



## jancz3rt

*Ok ok...*

Hey I like AMDs better cause they simply are better. Let's not get into an argument down here   . Anyway I know that there will always be people who simply like AMD better than Pentium and vice versa. I guess that's why these companies are still here. Brand loyalty is what we call it in business. Anyway AMD has posted its results and has returned back to profit thanks to strong sales of its now superior pruduct line. Competing with intel is a hard nut to crack so ta say!

JAN


----------



## Praetor

> Hey I like AMDs better cause they simply are better.


Well its not quite THAT simple 



> Brand loyalty is what we call it in business


Bingo!


----------



## Blue

I've never fallen for that brand loyality crap-o-la .. I just buy what I think is the best bang for my buck ..


----------



## [KoG]^wEaZel

hey i like amd's better because there just better for overclocking and much much cheaper also im a gamer


----------



## Praetor

> and much much cheaper


Are they?


----------



## 4W4K3

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-492&depa=1

$900 for a CPU. That chip is worth more than my desktop and used laptop combined...sheesh!


----------



## Praetor

Yeah but you and i both know those chips are [a] overcharged and * catered to a specific market and [c] priced that high so that the mainstream chips can also be slightly inflated *


----------



## 4W4K3

i can see the price dropping in half when intel introduces there 64bit lol. it will be all intel until we've figured out what is better at what and stuff...


----------



## superflysmith

I prefer Intel although I've never used anything but an Intel. My computer is used for video editing and the only gaming I do on it is solitaire   I've read that pentiums are the best for video editing so I never really tried amd's.


----------



## Praetor

> I've read that pentiums are the best for video editing so I never really tried amd's.


Quite true that has been 'tradition' although the A64s are making a hard run for Intel territory here (especially with 64bit support in some video apps).


----------



## Super_Nova

I'm an AMD fan. I feel dirty because my server has a 1Ghz Pentium 3 in it I got for free. I think when I get around to redoing it I'm going to put my old 800mhz athlon in it. I did a benchmark and it actually beat the 1ghz pIII so I should be better off. Plus I can put more RAM on it.


----------



## computerdude2004

I like Intel processors.


----------



## SFR

AS an AMD hater (only kidding!!!.. but... I do like Intel) I looked at my first PC made by Cybermax in I think 96 or 97 and low and behold.. its an AMD and I loved that old machine!



I think for games AMD seems the to be the choice but for servers I will never use anything but Intel Xeon.


----------



## 4W4K3

I traded my AMD 450mhz for my sisters P3 600mhz. the AMd lag's like crap..and i have no idea why. the Intel flies...faster than the 900mhz laptop lol. i can't figure it out.


----------



## computerdude2004

Of the 4 computers that I use in this house. All have Intel processors. Intel, to me, seems so much faster than AMD as well.


----------



## 4W4K3

My AMD system beats any of the computers in my house lol. But the fastest Intel we have is a 1.2ghz i believe. the other 12 are older or also AMD.


----------



## Blue

> I traded my AMD 450mhz for my sisters P3 600mhz.



That's an old chip eh? .. Just curous as to what model amd chip that is?


----------



## Praetor

> I traded my AMD 450mhz for my sisters P3 600mhz.


Nice trade


----------



## 4W4K3

Praetor said:
			
		

> Nice trade



yah she wanted my AMD...for w/e reason. Got a fully loaded P3 600/512MB PC133 now running XP Pro SP2...folding right now

The AMD was an AMD XFA475-K62 (65C/2.2v/321pin ceramic PGP/475mhz) i think she'll be mad at me bcuz it runs so slow.


----------



## Praetor

> alot of people turn HT off...why is that?


A lot people vote...........  (and to answer ur question, it seems disabled in BIOS by default by some boards)



> I think for games AMD seems the to be the choice but for servers I will never use anything but Intel Xeon.


Your loss


----------



## ZER0X

I'd love to get my hand on an AMD CPU anything above 2400mhz
but I got a cheap "BUT still good" cpu Intel Celeron 2700mhz


----------



## Praetor

> I'd love to get my hand on an AMD CPU anything above 2400mhz


You mean 2400+ right? (cuz im sure we'd all love to get a FX55 )


----------



## SFR

Praetor said:
			
		

> Your loss










LOL!





YOU ARE definitely smitten with AMD...









I have nothing bad to say about AMD.  But I love my little (well not so little) HP.  She works hard and never complains... But when I mess with her.. she does bite!


----------



## Praetor

> YOU ARE definitely smitten with AMD...


Well between a Xeon and an Athlon in a home environment ... not a hard decision  Even for smaller servers, i tend to route Opterons. The Xeons dont really flex their might until you get some really big SMPs like Sharcnet (http://www.sharcnet.ca/about.php), an inter university project


----------



## SFR

Praetor said:
			
		

> Well between a Xeon and an Athlon in a home environment ... not a hard decision  Even for smaller servers, i tend to route Opterons. The Xeons dont really flex their might until you get some really big SMPs like Sharcnet (http://www.sharcnet.ca/about.php), an inter university project


 
Yes but we are not talking about a home environment..


My HP is going to be taking the place of two of my older computers that run a network and a website with a small (but growing) database .


----------



## Praetor

> Yes but we are not talking about a home environment..


I was


----------



## SFR

yeah yeah yeah...


Who do you think you are!?!??! ADMIN?



....


....





I dont see a real need for a high performance server in the home environment anyway.



...lol


----------



## 4W4K3

SFR said:
			
		

> I dont see a real need for a high performance server in the home environment anyway.l



I do...if its monitoring 15 other computers, an email server, a website, remotely accessing work, acting as a filter/firewall, so much more...i would want it to be fast. We have 2 dual P3's doing that and they're at there limits lol.


----------



## Praetor

Or if you have a mini-renderfarm


----------



## SFR

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> I do...if its monitoring 15 other computers, an email server, a website, remotely accessing work, acting as a filter/firewall, so much more...i would want it to be fast. We have 2 dual P3's doing that and they're at there limits lol.


 
okay that is a little more than an everyday home computing environment.

(I should have used the word "everyday" home user.. because for most people they are not even close to needing the kind of resources you need.)



Hey I finally got my Mandrake 10.1  installed on my older HP.  Finally I can start messing around with it!


----------



## ZER0X

Praetor said:
			
		

> You mean 2400+ right? (cuz im sure we'd all love to get a FX55 )



Yer thats wot I meant  2400+


----------



## Pyotr

Lorand said:
			
		

> But the best computer I ever had was a 75 MHz Pentium. Never had any problems with it...


I have to second that. (I think, haven't read all pages really  ) My old 75 Mhz just keeps rolling. I could probably throw the computer from my second floor window and it'd keep working. And that's not just the CPU.

On topic, I like AMD, mostly because the Pentium my mother owns sucks. And it sucks a lot.


----------



## Super_Nova

I'm suprised to see it so evenly divided. It's like we were voting for president or something!


----------



## aqsg72

My computer is an OEM Medion with Intel P4...3 years old now I think (is it really that old?!)?! Either way, my hands are slightly tied as the comp before that had a P2. When I build my next computer however, I'll probably take AMD. Seriously these threads do nothing but provide a ground for fanboy vs fanboy bouts


----------



## ak_hitman_47

I love my Intel P4.  Its more of an all around processor.  AMD I think is more of a gaming processor.


----------



## 4W4K3

ak_hitman_47 said:
			
		

> I love my Intel P4.  Its more of an all around processor.  AMD I think is more of a gaming processor.



i dunno...depends on what "all around" apps you use. i don't even game and i would still choose AMD, but that's just my opinion. i don't do anything like photo edit (yet...waiting on camera ) that would require a really fast computer anyways....i'm waiting to upgrade b4 i get into anything intense.


----------



## Lorand

Don't worry, you can do photo editing on an AMD the same way as on an Intel processor. And you don't even need very fast processor for that... only a lot of RAM.


----------



## 4W4K3

Lorand said:
			
		

> Don't worry, you can do photo editing on an AMD the same way as on an Intel processor. And you don't even need very fast processor for that... only a lot of RAM.



i was planning on another 512MB tick for my main rig. but i really wanna upgrade to 64-bit, so i think i'll save the money for that...plus i would be losing DC-moode which is alot of performance on a Athlon XP setup....migth hinder Overclock as well running full DIMM slots.


----------



## Praetor

> I love my Intel P4. Its more of an all around processor


How so?



> plus I would be losing DC-moode which is alot of performance on a Athlon XP setup


Not really man. A socket754 setup will eat a socket462 setup virtually hands-down. Dual channel doesnt mean jack considering the mem controller is on-die


----------



## 4W4K3

Praetor said:
			
		

> Not really man. A socket754 setup will eat a socket462 setup virtually hands-down. Dual channel doesnt mean jack considering the mem controller is on-die



lol you misunderstood, or perhaps i type bad. i meant that i didnt want another 512mb stick as i would lose  DC-mode. AND i wanted to save for an A64 rig...if i got another 512mb stick i would be that much farther away from an A64 rig and i would have lost performance (i couldn't take advantage of 1GB with what i do).


----------



## Praetor

Ah i see ok that makes sense.


----------



## ak_hitman_47

*Is Intel processor really that bad?*

It seems like every where I gom I keep seeing that amd is better than intel.  Why is this?  Is it a preference thing?  Which do you prefer and why. Thanks.


----------



## flakpanzer

AMD processors are simply just far more efficient with a given clock speed:
Intel processors manage 5 intructions per clock cycle whereas AMD can manage 9 but if you want raw power the Apple G5 can pull off a stunning 12.

However clock speeds and instructions per clock cycle are not all that can affedt the performance of a processor: various own brand technologies such as HyperThreading and 3Dnow! make a difference

This figures may have changed since a last checked, but I think they're correct.


----------



## Praetor

<rant>Ok enough with the bloody intel/amd polls ... think! read! study! .... ok im obviously preaching to the wrong generation .. even though i am a part of that generation</rant>

<rant>even still... a bit of searching would have located a trillion of these things .... sigh</rant>

Ok so this is now the official "Intel/AMD-I-want-to-know-what-everyone-else-thinks-and-likes-so-I-can-make-my-decisions-based-on-their-opinions" thred


----------



## flakpanzer

AMD, because out of the two x86 platforms it is the most effficient: 9 instructions per clock cycle as opposed to Intels average of 5. However the G5 is the definition of raw power 12 instructions per clock cycle or "pulse".

AMDs HyperTransport technology is a serious winner as well.


----------



## Praetor

> However the G5 is the definition of raw power 12 instructions per clock cycle or "pulse".


Because of the dual config eh?


----------



## N0RMAN

*What processor do you use?*

Pentium 4!


----------



## Praetor

Next time have a look at the sticky threads


----------



## Cromewell

flakpanzer said:
			
		

> AMD, because out of the two x86 platforms it is the most effficient: 9 instructions per clock cycle as opposed to Intels average of 5. However the G5 is the definition of raw power 12 instructions per clock cycle or "pulse".
> 
> AMDs HyperTransport technology is a serious winner as well.



your processor choice should be depend on what you use your pc for.  AMD may be more efficient but Intel still takes them to town on media applications.  Now gaming and most business apps are the the inverse, AMD wins everytime but, business pretty much all run Intel because they buy their computers bulk from dell and most tech guys that work for the big corporation still think AMD is insable.


----------



## Praetor

> AMD may be more efficient but Intel still takes them to town on media applications


Oh so very true however AMD is starting to grab territory here (got a whiles to go for sure, even after SSE3 becomes available to the A64 platform next year). Now it is also important to note that multimedia benchmarks which everyone puts so much faith into often compare the flagship products (like the FX55/560/EEs) and thats what people see/remember ... when you get down to the more common chips ... video ops are still Intel territory (for single CPU configs at least)



> most tech guys that work for the big corporation still think AMD is insable


Heehee ... you and i both know how useful them tech guys are


----------



## vanp1992

Amd's 64 Top of the line  , Anyway future processors will run at 128bits Even more, so get the 64 bits and imrpove your 32bit programs.

How do i know even though i have an Xp? My dam Brother stole my money and bought the 64


----------



## schmeggin

Problem with P4 Presscots is they run so hot. It gets to 40degreesC where I am and with the heat from the CPU and Southbridge, this is pretty close to the recommended limit.

AMD have a better design to get the same performance at lower clock speeds. I think having the memory-CPU link being more effective is part of how they achieve this.

P4 and AMD cost exactly the same in Australia.


----------



## Praetor

> Anyway future processors will run at 128bits


True but thats not a very useful statement



> Even more, so get the 64 bits and imrpove your 32bit programs


Got any documented proof of this? Even AMD isnt that bold to outright say that.



> Problem with P4 Presscots is they run so hot


You should qualify that as P4E-Socket478s. The P4E-Socket775s run nice and cool


----------



## schmeggin

> You should qualify that as P4E-Socket478s. The P4E-Socket775s run nice and cool


This mob think that the P4 775 3.6 can get pretty hot. 
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041114/index.html
The 3.8 has some features to keep it cool while idling though.


----------



## Cromewell

temp of P4Es in the 478 package vs temp of P4Es in the 775 at equal clockspeed = 775 running very cool


----------



## Blade

for my part, i like my P4...for the sheer fact that it doesnt run at 60 degrees as aposed to my athlon 2600+


----------



## Praetor

Youve not run a first generation prescott have ya?


----------



## ecomp401

The New Athlon 64-FX55 is Really fast, however i havnt seen a comparison for the 3.8Ghz P4 Prescott, and in laptops the AMD Athlon 64 LP is awsome, as you can see in an acer ferrari 3200 and 3400.


----------



## mgoldb2

ecomp401 said:
			
		

> The New Athlon 64-FX55 is Really fast, however i havnt seen a comparison for the 3.8Ghz P4 Prescott, and in laptops the AMD Athlon 64 LP is awsome, as you can see in an acer ferrari 3200 and 3400.



comparison of 3.8 p4 can be seen here

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041115/pentium4_570-11.html 

p4-570 stands for the new 3.8 p4.


----------



## danny_e

p4 sucks!!!


----------



## Cromewell

danny_e said:
			
		

> p4 sucks!!!


 Way to bring rational discussion into this.
All those benchmarks on THG show is that sheer clock speed isn't the big performance boost people think it is.  This and the heat issue of running a prescott at 4.0GHz is why Intel cancelled the chip.  Yet you see the "sucky p4" posting the best video encoding times and best rendering time in 3dsmax.  Not to mention the top score in 3dmark05 CPU benchmarks and the P4EEs do better than the FX55 in the graphics portion of 3dmark05


----------



## ZER0X

danny_e said:
			
		

> p4 sucks!!!



Give a descriptive reason why?


----------



## Bobo

danny_e said:
			
		

> p4 sucks!!!



Someone finally hit the nail on the head!!!

How fast is the AMD Athlon64 FX?


----------



## Praetor

> p4 sucks!!!


Hmmmm... 10 years old .... 11 years old .... 12? :rollseyes:



> Way to bring rational discussion into this.


12 year old ... rational-discussion .... nah realistically you and I know this is just a case of karol-syndrome 



> All those benchmarks on THG show is that sheer clock speed isn't the big performance boost people think it is. This and the heat issue of running a prescott at 4.0GHz is why Intel cancelled the chip. Yet you see the "sucky p4" posting the best video encoding times and best rendering time in 3dsmax. Not to mention the top score in 3dmark05 CPU benchmarks and the P4EEs do better than the FX55 in the graphics portion of 3dmark05


Indeedy ... I onder if anything will change when the A64 'E" and 'F' procs come out SSE3 or if 3dMark really is designed for a superscalar proc.....



> Give a descriptive reason why?


Short of a copy-paste ... that's not gonna happen.



> Someone finally hit the nail on the head!!!
> How fast is the AMD Athlon64 FX?


1. Well we know you're not 12 at least (btw just because ur account is reactivated doesnt mean you can go on like before )
2. Again ... _why_ does the P4 "suck"


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> 2. Again ... _why_ does the P4 "suck"



Unefficient clocks

How come AMD doesn't do anything faster than 2.4GHz? bc the FX is better than the p4 3.8?  Or is it?

I would say definitely it is....duh

But I don't understand how something that is only 2.4Ghz can be better than something that is 3.8GHz

Like I said, inefficiency


----------



## Praetor

> Unefficient clocks


1. "Inefficient"
2. Care to elaborate? (or can?)
3. Inefficient clocks means nothing when you've got a zillion clocks to play with. Its the same dealy with GDDR3 -- the clocks there are inefficient but you dont see people running around complaing about GDDR3.
4. If it's so inefficient than why hasnt AMD, with its "super efficient chips" and on-die ultra low latency memory controllers userped the P4 in the multimedia/production section?



> How come AMD doesn't do anything faster than 2.4GHz? bc the FX is better than the p4 3.8? Or is it?


1. They do. Helps the credibility if you do the reasearch beforehand (and also avoids the fanboy image)
2. Do you know the FX is better than the 3.8 or are you just reading what THG says and taking it for gospel?




> I would say definitely it is....duh


Opinions are one thing and thats fine but fanboysim, that's another 



> But I don't understand how something that is only 2.4Ghz can be better than something that is 3.8GHz


1. It doesnt destroy the P4 hands down
2. You ever ride a bike? Think about gears
3. No.... no you dont. That was apparent. 

But seriously, have a thought about my comment about the P4s owning the multimedia/production arena -- not to mention the architecture is far more scalable as well as the GDDR3 comment.



> Like I said, inefficiency


Well not quite 'inefficiency'


----------



## Cromewell

> Unefficient clocks


 why are they inefficeint?  They have completely different architectures.  And if you want efficeincy why not get a RISC?


----------



## 4W4K3

Cromewell said:
			
		

> why are they inefficeint?  They have completely different architectures.  And if you want efficeincy why not get a RISC?




well comparing it to AMD's architecture it is alot less efficient, and that's why it gets a negative image from people who only look at it in that perspective. But then look at the benefits...its better with video editing and mulit-media apps, and it will generally run alot cooler than the AMD. So it's just a matter of what you need and what you can afford.

it's kinda like comparing a street racer to a SUV. The street car is faster and smaller (AMD/less clocks/more efficient). The SUV is alot larger and slower in speed, but the engine is designed for a different purpose (Intel/more clocks/less efficient). So the street car is of course the better buy yes? NO! If you live in the mountains, the streetcar will do horrible (Workuse/video editing). And if you are a racer, the SUV will not cut it(Gamer). I think that makes sense...lol.


----------



## Praetor

> well comparing it to AMD's architecture it is alot less efficient


Yes but the same could be said about the Athlon64s being horribly inefficient compared to the Pentium3.



> it's kinda like comparing a street racer to a SUV. The street car is faster and smaller (AMD/less clocks/more efficient). The SUV is alot larger and slower in speed, but the engine is designed for a different purpose (Intel/more clocks/less efficient). So the street car is of course the better buy yes? NO! If you live in the mountains, the streetcar will do horrible (Workuse/video editing). And if you are a racer, the SUV will not cut it(Gamer). I think that makes sense...lol


A superb analagy


----------



## Cromewell

> So the street car is of course the better buy yes? NO! If you live in the mountains, the streetcar will do horrible (Workuse/video editing). And if you are a racer, the SUV will not cut it(Gamer).


 what if I put a turbo charged engine w/NO2 injectors in my SUV? 
I actually know the differences between the 2 and the so called efficeincies/inefficeincies of the architecture and was just being difficult but that is a good way to put it.  And at least there is no fanboyism there, you realize the strengths and weaknesses of the 2 and admit it, none of this 'intel is crap' and 'amd is crap' crap


----------



## Bobo

OK, I don't know totally what I'm talking about, but the Intel is inefficient for what I do.  I never bothered to look at it from a different point of view, bc I never used a cpu for multimedia...etc

So for multimedia, maybe Intel is better....but I don't care about that.

I'm just a kid, I'm learning as fast as I can.

What AMD CPU is faster than 2.4GHz?  One site I saw said that the Athlon64 3500 was 2.65GHz, but another said it was 2.4GHz.


----------



## Praetor

> What AMD CPU is faster than 2.4GHz? One site I saw said that the Athlon64 3500 was 2.65GHz, but another said it was 2.4GHz.


The FX55 which weighs in a 2.6GHz.


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> The FX55 which weighs in a 2.6GHz.



Oh OK.  But that is still 1.8GHz off oh Intel's top freq


----------



## double-dragon

however eg. the 3200+ can do the same amount of tasks as a P4 3.2GHz but at a slower clock speed.


----------



## Bobo

double-dragon said:
			
		

> however eg. the 3200+ can do the same amount of tasks as a P4 3.2GHz but at a slower clock speed.



But if you take an AMD proc and put it at 3.2GHz imagine how much better it would be...


----------



## double-dragon

thats the idea of oc-ing


----------



## Bobo

double-dragon said:
			
		

> thats the idea of oc-ing



But how much better would it be?

On a scale from 1-10, that intel being a 5, where would it be?

So how come AMD doesn't make procs that fast?


----------



## 4W4K3

Bobo said:
			
		

> But how much better would it be?
> 
> On a scale from 1-10, that intel being a 5, where would it be?
> 
> So how come AMD doesn't make procs that fast?



...heat, and technology limits. that and the chips would probablt be as big as your fist. or they might just make them thicker, who knows. the processors would get so hot you'd HAVE to have water cooling or better just to keep it running.


----------



## Praetor

> Oh OK. But that is still 1.8GHz off oh Intel's top freq


Yes but as both Intel and AMD have said and you have been hitting around, clock speed doesnt make or break a processor.



> however eg. the 3200+ can do the same amount of tasks as a P4 3.2GHz but at a slower clock speed.


Not a chance. The 3000+ and 3200+ were really *really* misleading PR ratings (much more grieviously so for the 3200) ... if you compare the chips:
3200+ = 2.2GHz, 15 stage pipe
3.2GHz = 3.2Ghz, 20 stage pipe 
Note that the P4 isnt *that* much more inefficient per clock ... and its got a massive clock advantage ... moving on.
nForce2-400U = 200MHz --> DDR400 bus
i875P =200MHz --> QDR800 bus
Not a chance in hell the AMD boards are gonna be able play here ... efficient or not.

Now if you factor in PRICE then AMD is looking a lot better but still nowhere near the performance of the P4-3.2GHz chips



> But if you take an AMD proc and put it at 3.2GHz imagine how much better it would be...


I took my proc to 3.2GHz and it promptly didnt like me. While the extra 2 stages on the A64 do give it some more leeway, I dont suspect it will be certfied past 3.0GHz. The 31 stages on the Prescott will allow it to scale to insane clocks (provided they deal with the heat/voltage problems -- which they have/are working on).



> thats the idea of oc-ing











> On a scale from 1-10, that intel being a 5, where would it be?


Comparisons are not that clean-cut (for better or worse). Too many dependencies to consider.



> So how come AMD doesn't make procs that fast?


The first open-minded response yet  ... because AMD's architecture is not-superscalar and their design limits the number of stages in the pipe.


----------



## computermaineack

I'd have to say Intel only becuase I have never tried AMD. I have heard many good reviews on it, though. I probably would have gone AMD if Dell offered it. I chose Delll because I trust their computers and I think they are good, capeable machines. After my last HP, I was staying far away from HP and compaq.


----------



## Bobo

computermaineack said:
			
		

> I'd have to say Intel only becuase I have never tried AMD. I have heard many good reviews on it, though. I probably would have gone AMD if Dell offered it. I chose Delll because I trust their computers and I think they are good, capeable machines. After my last HP, I was staying far away from HP and compaq.



What kind of reasoning is that?

why no HP/Compaq? I got a Compaq, the only thing I don't like is the messed up mobo and bios

HP is the best computer accessory maker, everything we have except our computers are HP


----------



## Cromewell

that's not _real_ bad reasoning. he says intel is better only because he has never tried amd.  he isn't saying intel is better or worse, only that he hasn't used amd so there is nothing for him to compare.

OT: your sig quote is wrong, Yoda said "Do or do not, there is no try"


----------



## Lorand

Cromewell said:
			
		

> OT: your sig quote is wrong, Yoda said "Do or do not, there is no try"


Or change it to what Sinatra said: "Doo-bee-doo-bee-dooo..."


----------



## Bobo

Cromewell said:
			
		

> OT: your sig quote is wrong, Yoda said "Do or do not, there is no try"



http://www.thinkarete.com/quotes/by_teacher/yoda/  I was close enough.  It has been a while since I have watched that particlar movie, it is the only one we don't own


----------



## Bobo

Lorand said:
			
		

> Or change it to what Sinatra said: "Doo-bee-doo-bee-dooo..."



No way, man!(or woman)  Yoda rox my sox!


----------



## cooldude3552000

*Intel vs amd*

Well I am building my first computer and was looking for a recomendation on a processor.  I was going to go with intel because I always though they were better performance wise.  Then someone told me that AMD is cheaper and that a 1.8ghz amd would be faster than a 2.6 ghz intel.  I want to build somthing with no less than 1.8 ghz.  I want either and AMD athoon 64 or a intel pentium4.  I will NOT be overclocking or playing many games at all.  I will just be using the included cooling fans so if it is know to over heat please don't recomend it.

Thanks,
Colin


----------



## Picklee

AMD is nice if your going for a good budget but you have to have the motherboard to support it. intel is probably the best sicne most people use the intel scale. and a 1.8 GHz AMD isn't faster than a 2.6 GHz intel


----------



## kappa4184

Well since you are not going to be gaming much I would get a P4. From what I have seen they tend to run multiple processes better than an AMD. If you can afford it get HT technology too, right now I have a 3.0 P4 with 800Mhz FSB and HT and that only cost about 190.00 on newegg.com. But of course you could find a 2.4 or something with the same features for less than that.


----------



## Cromewell

can you even buy a non-HT P4 anymore?  for non-gaming PC I'd recommend this motherboard or something similar with integrated graphics http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-121-196&depa=0
and for processor, since you want a P4 not a celeron http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-157&depa=0


----------



## Memory Remains

actually a 1.8Ghz s939 amd 64 will smack around a 2.6Ghz p4 any day of the week. 

Amd is typically cheaper to build, and has WAY more bang for the buck, only real difference i see for Intel is the Hyperthreading, and the ability to multitask good and their good memory bandwith but memory bandwith it's really a huge deciding factor, just the frosting on top of the cake.


----------



## SFR

Memory Remains said:
			
		

> actually a 1.8Ghz s939 amd 64 will smack around a 2.6Ghz p4 any day of the week.
> 
> Amd is typically cheaper to build, and has WAY more bang for the buck, only real difference i see for Intel is the Hyperthreading, and the ability to multitask good and their good memory bandwith but memory bandwith it's really a huge deciding factor, just the frosting on top of the cake.


 


Frosting is the best part!


----------



## Cromewell

yeah, who eats cake with no frosting?  Thats like pie with no whipped cream. Or bomb with no nuclear...

And a 1.8GHz Athlon64 real advantage is for gaming not office type applications so it "smacking around a p4" is debatable.  I find AMD is only the cheaper build if you are going for "top of the line" otherwise they are about the same


----------



## hbcao2004

Intel is really a stable and multi-tasking CPU. And AMD is a gaming CPU at a low price. But since you don't play game, I would highly suggest a Sempron 3100+. http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=19-104-207&DEPA=1
only $115.00 at Newegg.
Sempron 3100+ is actually very different from the rest of the Sempron family. It is 15% better in average performance than the Sempron 3000+. Researcher proved the average of the Sempron 3100+ is better than an AMD XP 2800+. And the Sempron 3100+ has almost reached the P4 2.8. I would high suggest you to get the AMD Sempron 3100+. It is fast and cheap, beside you dont use it for gaming anyway.


----------



## Cromewell

hbcao2004 said:
			
		

> And AMD is a gaming CPU at a low price. But since you don't play game, I would highly suggest a Sempron 3100+.


...so your saying AMD is a gamers CPU and since he doesn't game you recommend an AMD  
lol that will really limit the confusion


----------



## Praetor

> can you even buy a non-HT P4 anymore?


Yes.... you want one? 



> actually a 1.8Ghz s939 amd 64 will smack around a 2.6Ghz p4 any day of the week.


Except that's a meaningless comparison because you're comparing cross-generation machines.



> and their good memory bandwith but memory bandwith it's really a huge deciding factor, just the frosting on top of the cake


1. Memory is everything
2. If intel has such good memory bandwidth ... why reccomend AMD?



> I find AMD is only the cheaper build if you are going for "top of the line" otherwise they are about the same


I concurr with the exception of the the low end chips maybe ... Semprons and Cel-Ds are about evenly priced.



> Intel is really a stable and multi-tasking CPU. And AMD is a gaming CPU at a low price


1/ Both are stable CPUS
2/ AMD is more of a business oriented platform if you think about it ... there's more uses for 64bit stuff (at least now) for work-related apps than for games 



> Sempron 3100+ is actually very different from the rest of the Sempron family. It is 15% better in average performance than the Sempron 3000+. Researcher proved the average of the Sempron 3100+ is better than an AMD XP 2800+.


You could have just said 'the Sempron3100 is a Socket754 part' 



> And the Sempron 3100+ has almost reached the P4 2.8. I would high suggest you to get the AMD Sempron 3100+. It is fast and cheap, beside you dont use it for gaming anyway.


Compared to the other semprons the mobo for the 3100 is significantly more expensvie


----------



## lumpa22

*Damn AMD Headz!*

Just cause you are low in money don't buy into the hype!  I have to deal with actual humans that buy this crap and they yell and curse when they buy AMD (non 64.)  Check the global charts friends, the regular, non geek tweaked AMD is not fairing well.  I had a 71 year old who wanted to just get E mail return their Semperon from my biz (A $200 dollar tower) cause it couldn't get up and go to their MSN!  Remember not every one is a geek that visits these boards.  If giving advise act like the reciever is eight untill you can get proof they know what they are up too.  (by the way some of yall done told persons to come see this here forum and ticked em off when you over-geeked the answers.  sorry no offense but get outside and stop typeing long enough to see the world is not ones and zero's.)  Have a nice day.


----------



## 4W4K3

lumpa22 said:
			
		

> (by the way some of yall done told persons to come see this here forum and ticked em off when you over-geeked the answers.  sorry no offense but get outside and stop typeing long enough to see the world is not ones and zero's.)  Have a nice day.



some of us are here a matter of minutes in the day. i jsut got back from seeing "christmas with the kranks" and last night i went to see the play "a christmas carol" in downtown dallas. it's a busy time of year. Just cuz' we know alot about computer doesn't mean we spend every waking minute on them. im sure you realize this...but for a first post it seemed somewhat vague as to who you were addressing.

welcome to the forums i'm sure you will find useful information when you want it.


----------



## SFR

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> Just cuz' we know alot about computer doesn't mean we spend every waking minute on them.


 
... I do.


----------



## 4W4K3

SFR said:
			
		

> ... I do.



lol, well you might have a good reason to be on a computer all the time. i don't...yet


----------



## SFR

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> lol, well you might have a good reason to be on a computer all the time. i don't...yet


...besides being a hobby of mine... ...its my job


----------



## Praetor

> Check the global charts friends, the regular, non geek tweaked AMD is not fairing well.


If you check the "global charts" whetever the hell those are, non geek tweaked Intels arent fairing well either. Why? Because you cant tweak a processor.



> I had a 71 year old who wanted to just get E mail return their Semperon from my biz (A $200 dollar tower) cause it couldn't get up and go to their MSN!


You started off seemingly with some technical knowhow but now I have to ask... are you a techo-weenie or a sale-rep? Cuz any techno dude would know a CPU has no bearing on the ability to connect to MSN



> If giving advise act like the reciever is eight untill you can get proof they know what they are up too.


Which is why im asking you if you have any technical knowhow whatsoever



> sorry no offense but get outside and stop typeing long enough to see the world is not ones and zero's


Just because you enjoy the outside world doesnt mean everyone else has to live the way you do.


----------



## lumpa22

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> some of us are here a matter of minutes in the day. i jsut
> 
> oooops you typed too fast beatche!  sorry but you still need t tell the masses why AMD is better.  All though this is esentialy a personal choice we need to expand.  Are you really a post surgical trans....sorry.... tell us the truth about your stats.  I would like to see to contrast what AMD has given to me.


----------



## 4W4K3

lumpa22 said:
			
		

> 4W4K3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some of us are here a matter of minutes in the day. i jsut
> 
> oooops you typed too fast beatche!  sorry but you still need t tell the masses why AMD is better.  All though this is esentialy a personal choice we need to expand.  Are you really a post surgical trans....sorry.... tell us the truth about your stats.  I would like to see to contrast what AMD has given to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???you make no sense???
> 
> you called me something...but i don't know what.
> 
> You asked me to "explain my stats"...you mean my signature? It's a Mobile 2600+ running at 2.4-2.6GHz (tweaking as PSU is giving out, currently 2.4GHz)
> 
> You want to know why AMD is better? Or why i chose it myself personally? I chose AMD because it is cheaper than Intel, and gives me ~the same performance for what i use. It was also what was popular at the time of purchase so i was convinced to go with a Mobile XP chip. Now i might have gone with a P4 if i REALLY knew about computers at the time and had a bigger budget, but i was eager to get an overclocking setup. At this time i still am a big AMD fan and am saving for an A64 rig, becasue they are fast, then next wave of technology, and probably will be the standard in years to come.
> 
> And it's not my job to "tell the masses" just because i am an AMD customer. I buy my products for myself and hold my opinion on no one. If they ask, then i will tell, but i don't need to convince them or convert them to buy AMD for any reason...
Click to expand...


----------



## Corsair

I have been an Intel guy until I bought this puter. I originally started out with a 60 mhz pentium if you can believe it. I actually got one of the ones that had the floating point error in the original pentiums. Intel replaced it free of charge. 

I have never had problems with any of my pentiumn chips, and the only reason I bought this is price. I have no brand loyalty but if I have problems with this Athlon XP ill probably get brand loyalty and go back to Intel.

B4 this comp I always had the impression that Intel chips were the bulletproof ones, now I dont know what to think. If this athlon holds out and the prices stay lower than the prices of comparable Intel chips ill probably become an athlon man.

My 2 cents...


----------



## Praetor

> I actually got one of the ones that had the floating point error in the original pentiums. Intel replaced it free of charge.


LOL sweet!



> AMD Athlon XP 3200 (2100 mhz)


Yell at HP... the XP3200 should be running at 2.2Ghz

@Lumpa
Get your act together or you're a goner


----------



## lumpa22

Which is why im asking you if you have any technical knowhow whatsoever

Hmm Praetor... lets see...

I work for a good size Chain store that sells off all things this thing called a computer.  I have been working with computers for several years and at times like to get all geeky and "mess" with the system.  I have at times taken a broken down, old model, otherwise time watch and played with it till it ran numbers then chernobled.  I may not sound like I's got da knowledge and stuff but then as the tag says I is a "newbie" and as such gosh tookering I may be not as hard edged and knowledgforth as you.  Actually in some sense I may know alot but worry when people place too much emphasis on brand ownership versus actually enjoying the use of a computer.  So sorry if I offend but isn't the whole reason that we tinker with these stupid boxes is to see who can do the best with what?  Oh well back to the hater state and be blasted for thinkin.  Buh bye!  (oh yeah I am not a sales person for a processor or do I sell chips.  I do have a soul.)


----------



## lumpa22

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> ???you make no sense???
> 
> Sorry 4whatever I did not mean to confuse you.  Add some xmas chear and 'hiccup' I was a ready to play.  Well kid I'm glad you buy your product and don't steal em like the other urchins out there.  But alas I seem to have offended you and as a good ol human (that was born in Fort Hood) I will apologize.  I accept that you bought what you could and such but like the others out there be carefull if you tell others to do this and that.  Some dumb arse like me might hear it.  And if you had at the time just spent 45 minutes with some one that asked too many questions and couldn't be convinced that Dell was robbing them blind then you may also have fealt the pain.  (you know that some _ell employees admit that their 20% return for defective goods is real and by reg white box to get around this.)  Oh well I have speant my ten minutes here and must be there.  I'm not OCD I have to pee.


----------



## 4W4K3

lumpa22 said:
			
		

> 4W4K3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???you make no sense???
> 
> Sorry 4whatever I did not mean to confuse you.  Add some xmas chear and 'hiccup' I was a ready to play.  Well kid I'm glad you buy your product and don't steal em like the other urchins out there.  But alas I seem to have offended you and as a good ol human (that was born in Fort Hood) I will apologize.  I accept that you bought what you could and such but like the others out there be carefull if you tell others to do this and that.  Some dumb arse like me might hear it.  And if you had at the time just spent 45 minutes with some one that asked too many questions and couldn't be convinced that Dell was robbing them blind then you may also have fealt the pain.  (you know that some _ell employees admit that their 20% return for defective goods is real and by reg white box to get around this.)  Oh well I have speant my ten minutes here and must be there.  I'm not OCD I have to pee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Apology accepted.
> 
> Something about me convincing someone else not to buy Dell? I have 1 custom computer and 2 manufactured (emachines and HP), i am not biased towards any company just cuz' i hear it's bad. I don;t prefer Dell cuz' when i ordered my Axim, it took over 3 months to get delivered, there customer supprot hung up on me 1 time, and the overall quality of there products is below what i expect. Samll points to some maybe, but they really turned me off from Dell...
> 
> Something about Dell's return policy...and you having to pee?
Click to expand...


----------



## Praetor

> I work for a good size Chain store that sells off all things this thing called a computer. I have been working with computers for several years and at times like to get all geeky and "mess" with the system. I have at times taken a broken down, old model, otherwise time watch and played with it till it ran numbers then chernobled. I may not sound like I's got da knowledge and stuff but then as the tag says I is a "newbie" and as such gosh tookering I may be not as hard edged and knowledgforth as you. Actually in some sense I may know alot but worry when people place too much emphasis on brand ownership versus actually enjoying the use of a computer. So sorry if I offend but isn't the whole reason that we tinker with these stupid boxes is to see who can do the best with what? Oh well back to the hater state and be blasted for thinkin. Buh bye! (oh yeah I am not a sales person for a processor or do I sell chips. I do have a soul.)


Thats all very well and nice and your idea of "give advice like you're talking to an 8 year old until otherwise noted" is a semi-good idea except when you flip the perspective around (hypotehtically of course), why should I belittle people to the point of an 8 year old? Or another perspective: not all 8 year olds are technologically inept as you make them out to be.



> Actually in some sense I may know alot but worry when people place too much emphasis on brand ownership versus actually enjoying the use of a computer.


1. Execept you were the one to tell us to look at the global charts....
2. Given your somewhat apparent technical background, you should be quite aware already that the ability to MSN is not related to the processor present on the system....


----------



## JooK

I havnt use anything besides an AMD so I just picked AMD...


----------



## lumpa22

Hey when you have to pee then...  Well 4, and bye the way you are well scripted for a 16 year old, sorry if you bought an E machine but hey at least you learned.  And the same for Dell, dude you get burned once then you learn but then again learn to type or at least relax when replying cause you typed like drunk 30 year old (gulp....ahhh) when you replied to me.  Nice sig by the way.  Kinda confusing, over geeking,  but also weird.  Have fun Buddy.


----------



## lumpa22

Are you an MSN dealer?  I wonder as you place alot of your info as such.  But really I apologize if you or another 8 year old took offense to the whole 8 year old thing.  Just an inside joke gone wrong I think.  What is up with your rig?  

ASUS A8V Deluxe, Athlon64-3500 @2.65GHz
Kingmax 1GB PC3700 OC'd PC4200
640GB [4x160GB, 7200, 8MB] 
XFX GeForce6800 GT 256MB 

Do you have a life outside the web or do you only live via an rg45 connection?  Holy cripes I wonder why any living person would need a rig like that.  The Processor OK.  The RAM OK. But what the heck do you do to need the space of half a terabite to store?  And call me lame but XFX why?  Sorry bud but someone had to ask.  Why not spend some bucks on reality, not virtual reality?

Oh and as a human you should, if you deal with other human beings, know of actual human beings that go into stores and "gasp" ask about internet services.  Even if you don't think that the Processor has little to do with the use of the web then at least realize that other people can not see that and look at the numbers as a guide line to see what  they need.  Heck Dell sells alot of computers to people that bought em due to one guy saying "Dude it's a Dell."  Come back to square one buddy.  I'm not the enemy I am here to shed light.  'wink' 'wink'  Eyes are watchin!


----------



## 4W4K3

lumpa22 said:
			
		

> Hey when you have to pee then...  Well 4, and bye the way you are well scripted for a 16 year old, sorry if you bought an E machine but hey at least you learned.  And the same for Dell, dude you get burned once then you learn but then again learn to type or at least relax when replying cause you typed like drunk 30 year old (gulp....ahhh) when you replied to me.  Nice sig by the way.  Kinda confusing, over geeking,  but also weird.  Have fun Buddy.



I try to act mature...most of the time 

I got the Dell laptop and E-machines absolutely free (laptop from friend and e-machines from garbage.) I sold the laptop recently for $100, and still have the e-machines. I think free is a good deal unless i have to pay to fix it (which i didn't...both worked perfect as they were in pretty good condition)

My sig is formatted so advanced computer users can look at it and see exactly what i have and how fast it is. This cuts questions like "what type mobo you have that RAM running on" and all that stuff.


----------



## 4W4K3

lumpa22 said:
			
		

> Do you have a life outside the web or do you only live via an rg45 connection?  Holy cripes I wonder why any living person would need a rig like that.



He has a nice quality computer...and you accuse him for it? Hardly reasonable. I have seen better computers (no offense Praetor) and the owners have more of a "life" than alot of people i know. If he can afford nice hardware, enjoys working with it, and also likes to help people online...where is the problem? He's a college guy and makes good grades (from what i know) and certainly his computer is not #1 on the list. I wouldn't go assuming things about his life and personality based on the parts in his computer.


----------



## Praetor

> Do you have a life outside the web or do you only live via an rg45 connection? Holy cripes I wonder why any living person would need a rig like that. The Processor OK. The RAM OK. But what the heck do you do to need the space of half a terabite to store? And call me lame but XFX why? Sorry bud but someone had to ask. Why not spend some bucks on reality, not virtual reality?


1. Professional digital photography. When each pass uses 1GB raw and each shoot goes through 3-4GB you'll start to understand
2. When you do professional DVD encoding and have to process 20DVDs a week you'll also understand a bit more.
3. As for XFX ... you got a better card for me? I'm sorry if im not the richie rich like you to get a ASUS V9999U



> Why not spend some bucks on reality, not virtual reality?


Fool, next time when you flame make sure you know what you're talking about -- like how much i spent on it.



> Oh and as a human you should, if you deal with other human beings, know of actual human beings that go into stores and "gasp" ask about internet services. Even if you don't think that the Processor has little to do with the use of the web then at least realize that other people can not see that and look at the numbers as a guide line to see what they need.


1. Yes but im not talking to the [supposedly] ill-informed -- im talking to you -- which is why I asksed you originally if you knew anything about computers.
2. I dont tell you how to live your life -- dont tell me how to live mine.

Now if you intend to flame -- come out and do so directly.



> I have seen better computers (no offense Praetor)


LOL none taken ... to be honest this was actually a budget system  The upgrade [from the last one I had] only costed about 700CAD.



> I wouldn't go assuming things about his life and personality based on the parts in his computer.


Indeed as that'll land you in the big land of banned real fast


----------



## SFR

lumpa22 said:
			
		

> Do you have a life outside the web or do you only live via an rg45 connection?






r*j*-45





			
				lumpa22 said:
			
		

> But what the heck do you do to need the space of half a terabite to store?






At work each database is about 1 terabyte ... and there are about 45 databases...


----------



## Tokinbudz

I had decided to switch to an Intel 3.4 from the 1800+ that i have right now, then read many different benchmarks comparing Athlon to Intel and realized that wasnt the way to go at all. I told the store I decided i didnt want what i had ordered (P5AD2 Deluxe, Kingston DDR2, 3.4 550) and paid 60 bucks restocking fee. Instead I got an Asus Nforce4 SLI, an Athlon 3500+ and a Gig (512x2) of Corasir Twin-X Dual Channel PC3200 LL. The Asus Star Ice 4 in 1 CPU cooler ended up being huge that i also got, I recommend buying this if you're gonna overclock a lot, it has a nice copper back and mounting. Now i just need a Geforce 6800GT or Ultra in Pci-E so i can put all this together.


----------



## Praetor

> The Asus Star Ice 4 in 1 CPU cooler ended up being huge that i also got


But its a hell of a cooler man  Only a few coolers can match it


----------



## ldburroughs

I just completed rebuilding my home pc.  I upgraded from an old HP Pavilion (8776c AMD Athlon 1000Mhz).  Over the years I have been upgrading part by part and now nothing of the original remains (except the hard drive which is now a basic storage drive for infrequently accessed files and such).  I could have saved a little and just replaced the whole thing when it was all said and done but it was a nice challenge to get everything working.  We also have two laptops in the house ... a centrino based and P3 based processor.  Both work great but I am happiest with my home pc which I use for video editing and digital photography.

I ended up chosing the AMD Athlon 64 3000+ along with the ASUS K8N and 1536GB 3200 DDR400 ram.  I also chose an Antec Sonata case and All-in-wonder card.  So far it is working perfectly and is far better than my original.  The reason I chose AMD this time around was because I had such a great experience with my last pc.  It was just too slow for my applications.  It appears many are chosing based on brand loyalty and I suppose that's okay.  I guess I sort of did the same thing.  Price was also a very important factor in my decision making process.


----------



## Ashmole

I'm no processor guru but I have been researching porcessors for a while before I buy a new computer and while most say AMD is better for gaming, there is not a gigantic difference when looking at benchmarks. The processors I was comparing were the Intel 3.2 E and the AMD 64 3400. There was not a HUGE difference,maybe around 5 frames.

I do agree with ak Hitman 47 slightly but if i did have the chance I would buy an AMD FX hands down.


----------



## mgoldb2

Ashmole said:
			
		

> there is not a gigantic difference when looking at benchmarks. The processors I was comparing were the Intel 3.2 E and the AMD 64 3400. There was not a HUGE difference,maybe around 5 frames.



The difference is a little bigger then that.  On low resoultions you wont notice a difference but lets say on 1280X1024 the athlon has a 228.1fps vs 209.4fps advantage on a open gl game like quake 3

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-13.html#opengl 

In a direct x 9 game it also has a advantage a example farcry 1280X1024 the athlon has a 182.3fps vs 152.0fps advantage.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-15.html#directx_9


----------



## Praetor

> The difference is a little bigger then that. On low resoultions you wont notice a difference but lets say on 1280X1024 the athlon has a 228.1fps vs 209.4fps advantage on a open gl game like quake 3


Perhaps its bigger but people contesting between 228 and 209 fps are just lookin for a pissin contest.



> In a direct x 9 game it also has a advantage a example farcry 1280X1024 the athlon has a 182.3fps vs 152.0fps advantage.


This isnt anything special due to "DirectX 9" mind you, its simply due to the damn near nonexistent latencies with the memory controller


----------



## mgoldb2

Praetor said:
			
		

> Perhaps its bigger but people contesting between 228 and 209 fps are just lookin for a pissin contest.



 that proberly true but the point remains if you buying a computer for gamming it probery better to go with athlon 64.

Now on the other hand if you buying a computer for more professional stuff you proberly should go with pentium.


----------



## Bobo

mgoldb2 said:
			
		

> that proberly true but the point remains if you buying a computer for gamming it probery better to go with athlon 64.
> 
> Now on the other hand if you buying a computer for more professional stuff you proberly should go with pentium.



I don't know about that...Athlon64 is stabler, more efficient, doesn't that sound more businessy?

Athlon64 is good for gaming, but if you want sheer speed, Intel is better


----------



## Praetor

> I don't know about that...Athlon64 is stabler, more efficient, doesn't that sound more businessy?


Who cares what it sounds like 



> Athlon64 is good for gaming, but if you want sheer speed, Intel is better


Sheer speed is useless without performance


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> Sheer speed is useless without performance



precisely


----------



## double-dragon

Hang on...Praetor just proved you wrong and you agree with him...

By the way mgoldb2 - its probably not proberly, lol

*Human Dictionary*


----------



## Bobo

double-dragon said:
			
		

> Hang on...Praetor just proved you wrong and you agree with him...



I think I might be a little more than a little confused


----------



## mgoldb2

double-dragon said:
			
		

> By the way mgoldb2 - its probably not proberly, lol
> *Human Dictionary*



spelling never been one of my strong points


----------



## Bobo

mgoldb2 said:
			
		

> spelling never been one of my strong points



Apparently neither has grammar.

Spelling HAS never been one of my strong points.

heeheehee, I love picking on people

No offense, of course

Back to topic

Praetor, what exactly did you mean?  I am confused


----------



## Praetor

> I think I might be a little more than a little confused


More thinking less impulse-posting 



> Praetor, what exactly did you mean? I am confused


I meant exactly what I said. "Speed" is utterly useless without "performance". Notice how ATi video cards, with a 100+ MHz core advantage dont cleansweep nVidia? Notice how Intel, with a 1GHz advntage dont cleansweep AMD? Yes, well thats speed vs performance for you ... and speed mean jack all overall


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> More thinking less impulse-posting


I have trouble with that, if you havn't noticed




> I meant exactly what I said. "Speed" is utterly useless without "performance". Notice how ATi video cards, with a 100+ MHz core advantage dont cleansweep nVidia? Notice how Intel, with a 1GHz advntage dont cleansweep AMD? Yes, well thats speed vs performance for you ... and speed mean jack all overall



OK, now I (think I) understand


----------



## 4W4K3

you could substitute "performance" for "efficiency", i think they mean the same thing in this analogy.


----------



## Praetor

> I have trouble with that, if you havn't noticed


 And I also noticed the application for mod.... 'sides werent you supposed to be some GPA4.5 kid? 




> you could substitute "performance" for "efficiency", I think they mean the same thing in this analogy


Yes pretty much


----------



## Bobo

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> you could substitute "performance" for "efficiency", i think they mean the same thing in this analogy.



I getcha now


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> And I also noticed the application for mod.... 'sides werent you supposed to be some GPA4.5 kid?



I thought we had dropped that......

I didn't expect to be a mod, but it doesn't hurt to try......what happened to my application?

How do you get to be a VIP mamber?


----------



## Praetor

> I thought we had dropped that......
> 
> I didn't expect to be a mod, but it doesn't hurt to try......what happened to my application?


1 "We" didnt do anything.
2 Denied, mostly due to reasons that should be apparent to you



> How do you get to be a VIP mamber?


Off topic (and already answered elsewheres)


----------



## Geoff

I think P4 HT is better then AMD for gaming, business, home use, and theres alot more software and hardware thats compatible with intel vs AMD.


----------



## Bobo

geoff5093 said:
			
		

> I think P4 HT is better then AMD, probably not for overclocking, but for every other use.  You can find more motherboards that support Intel and there is mroe compatible hardware for Intel vs AMD.  Although i never had an AMD, i cant say which one is better for gaming.



There are more mobos because there are more socket types

For ocing, some intels are good, but some run amazingly hot.  The AMD Athlon64 3500 socket 939 cpu is a great one for OCing


----------



## Praetor

> I think P4 HT is better then AMD, probably not for overclocking, but for every other use. You can find more motherboards that support Intel and there is mroe compatible hardware for Intel vs AMD.


I will grant you that HT is a novelty I wish AMD would sucker up and license from Intel (or make their own). But in all reality HT isnt all that useful unless you plan to do multiple high intensity tasks .. uh ... all at once .... so how many people play Doom3 and encode DVDs? 

As for OCing you've got it backwards  The significantly longer pipeline structure of the P4 allows it to OC much higher than AMD. As for the number of mobos ... perhaps there are more mobos for P4s (i dont think so but im not debating that), but as long as both sides have at least 6 mobos (which they do), to cater to first-second choice for high end, midrange and budget ... who cares about the other motherboards? Quality and performance over quality 



> For ocing, some intels are good, but some run amazingly hot.


True but heat doesnt limit the OC threshold 



> The AMD Athlon64 3500 socket 939 cpu is a great one for OCing


Only if you've got nice memory (cuz thats the bottleneck now, rather than the mobo) :|


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> True but heat doesnt limit the OC threshold



unless you have crappy cooling and blow it up


----------



## Praetor

1. Crappy heating doesnt stop you from setting the clock to whatever frequency nor does it stop you from actually saving those settings.

2. Common sense does (hopefully )

3. Even systems with awesome cooling, CPUs die all the time -- it's the voltage that takes them out rather than the heat


----------



## jesbax

i prefer the AMD


----------



## Geoff

I thinks its pretty funny that no one has voted for power pc, even though they suck ;-)


----------



## Bobo

geoff5093 said:
			
		

> I thinks its pretty funny that no one has voted for power pc, even though they suck ;-)



never heard of them


----------



## Yeti

Bobo said:
			
		

> never heard of them



Power PC is just a Mac thats compatible with IBM format (is that still the format to call it?)


----------



## OS Dragon

I have *always chosen Intel* because I know where I stand with Intel, and now that they're closing the gap between themselves and AMD I think that its gonna be a good battle of the chips.


----------



## magicman

Definately, any competition is great for us consumers. (AMD still for me though)


----------



## OS Dragon

Intel has been making quite a lot of breakthroughs in their technology with dual core, 64bit processors and the move to a 45nm process in two years time. I recon everyone (UK) will be on 4.4Ghz or more by the end of the decade.


----------



## SFR

OS Dragon said:
			
		

> I recon everyone (UK) will be on 4.4Ghz or more by the end of the decade.


 
First off, Intel stopped working on the 4.0GHz processor so they could devote their time to the dual core.  And remember, not everyone (not just UK... but the rest of the technologically advanced countries) owns a computer.  And out of those who do, not everyone has a Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon ... many people have older computers, and a decade from now the same will be true.


----------



## Praetor

> Intel has been making quite a lot of breakthroughs in their technology with dual core, 64bit processors and the move to a 45nm process in two years time


You have a collision of verb (and noun) tenses....


----------



## dave597

i use athlon 64, though my previous two sucky comps were pentium 2s. maybe i should post my specs on my sig...


----------



## FalKon

Im a gamer and wanted to overclock my cpu so i went with AMD heard there best for gaming and my model (Barton 2500+) is easy to over clock so i went with that, if i were going for something other than gaming though i would go for Intel........errr no i wouldnt


----------



## Praetor

> and my model (Barton 2500+) is easy to over clock


How so? The 3200 is a locked chip, last of its line and the 2.2Ghz is a a stretch for the 15 stage pipe ...


----------



## Phippsp

I've heard that Pentium is way being anything that amd is doing.  And that amd just can't match the power of the amd overall.


----------



## SFR

Phippsp said:
			
		

> I've heard that Pentium is way being anything that amd is doing. And that amd just can't match the power of the amd overall.


 


What???... Maybe its too early in the morning for me to understand


----------



## Praetor

> What???... Maybe its too early in the morning for me to understand


There's no point in trying. Multiple verb collisions and self-contradition disintigrate the entire comment


----------



## tomprice43

AMD is obdviously gonna win this, Intel is far to expensive for the quality it gives, also with the amount of overclockers and gamers on this forum and the Athlon 64 range Intel dont stand a chance.


----------



## SFR

tomprice43 said:
			
		

> AMD is obdviously gonna win this, Intel is far to expensive for the quality it gives, also with the amount of overclockers and gamers on this forum and the Athlon 64 range Intel dont stand a chance.


 

Intel *does not* stand a chance...

 


Hey, Intel still has 39.06% of the votes (as of 01-28-2005)... which is about 39% more than I thought Intel would get... based on logic similar to yours...


----------



## Praetor

> AMD is obdviously gonna win this, Intel is far to expensive for the quality it gives


Uh ... considering mainstream P4s are cheaper than mainstream Athlon64s I dont see how you can say that ... and what exactly do you mean "quality"?



> also with the amount of overclockers and gamers on this forum and the Athlon 64 range Intel dont stand a chance.


Yes but never has "overclockers and gamers" ever represented the majority of a marketshare -- unfortunately forum votes like this dont actually matter much considering that neither AMD or Intel get a profit from it.



> ntel does not stand a chance...


Oh that's open-minded.


----------



## SFR

Praetor said:
			
		

> Oh that's open-minded.


 
Did not clarify, I was just helping tomprice43 with his grammar.




			
				Praetor said:
			
		

> Yes but never has "overclockers and gamers" ever represented the majority of a marketshare -- unfortunately forum votes like this dont actually matter much considering that neither AMD or Intel get a profit from it.


 

True. Just like in politics.. 90% of a group of people might vote one way, but that group only represents 10% of the total population. That still does not take away from the opinions of that group. This forum poll helps show us that many people are infact interested in AMD chips for all of the reasons mentioned in the past 168 posts... yet I am still surprised that 40% voted for INTEL based on a trend I have seen throughout these boards..


----------



## Bobo

SFR said:
			
		

> Hey, Intel still has 39.06% of the votes (as of 01-28-2005)... which is about 39% more than I thought Intel would get... based on logic similar to yours...



I agree

I think that the # of poeple buying intel will go up after they come out with their double core procs, b/c non computer people think "Oooh, double core means double the fast, so it is really 6GHz!" 

Not that that is a good thing, but it is what I predict will happen


----------



## Praetor

> Did not clarify, I was just helping tomprice43 with his grammar.


LOL hehe bad grammar is just white noise to me 




> I think that the # of poeple buying intel will go up after they come out with their double core procs, b/c non computer people think "Oooh, double core means double the fast, so it is really 6GHz!"
> 
> Not that that is a good thing, but it is what I predict will happen


It 's looking like Dual Core is gonna hit the market first by AMD ... granted it'll be Opteron based but 90% of "hardcore" users will take that and run wildly with it ... even though they have no intention of buying server chips.............  As for the "double the fast", dual-core, for all intents and purposes, will be just that (ok its definitely not a 100% improvement but prolly 93% +/- 3% improvement. Intel does have a significant advantage if they decide to implement HT on their dual-core procs though.


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> LOL hehe bad grammar is just white noise to me
> 
> 
> 
> It 's looking like Dual Core is gonna hit the market first by AMD ... granted it'll be Opteron based but 90% of "hardcore" users will take that and run wildly with it ... even though they have no intention of buying server chips.............  As for the "double the fast", dual-core, for all intents and purposes, will be just that (ok its definitely not a 100% improvement but prolly 93% +/- 3% improvement. Intel does have a significant advantage if they decide to implement HT on their dual-core procs though.



Oh cool, I didn't even know amd was doing that....


----------



## Praetor

Aye, until just *very* recently, it's been almost universally accepted that AMD would be the first to hit the market with dual-core configs (after all, they did beat Intel to the punch by a week).


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> Aye, until just *very* recently, it's been almost universally accepted that AMD would be the first to hit the market with dual-core configs (after all, they did beat Intel to the punch by a week).



Well, I don't really read much in the way of computer news, but I did suggest that we have a section of this forum for computer news...


----------



## Gnorphy

Amd 64 Rules!


----------



## Bobo

Gnorphy said:
			
		

> Amd 64 Rules!



Slightly opinionistic there....


----------



## robina_80

polls are so annoying on this forum


----------



## Bobo

robina_80 said:
			
		

> polls are so annoying on this forum



Why so?


----------



## Praetor

Bobo, robina -- cut the offtopic chitchat (why is it bobo i always have to remind you about that?) ... make a rant thread in General chat or something or take it to a PM


----------



## OS Dragon

Does Intel have their version of a 64bit proccessor (out/ released)?


----------



## Cromewell

Intel has had a 64bit processor for a long time, just not in the desktop market.  The desktop 64s are expected out in the next few months (Pentium 4 6xx series I think)


----------



## Praetor

Werent the 8xx series scheduled to be the 64bit dual cores?


----------



## Cromewell

they are 64(or supposed to be) but isn't the 8xx the dual core line as well?


----------



## Praetor

Intel roadmap:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17069
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2256


----------



## Leopold Porkstacker

> * Which CPU brand do you choose?*



Freescale/IBM, Motorola


----------



## Praetor

w00t motorola


----------



## deathbysunshine

i believe that AMD is a little bit above Intel in technology right now but for the average 1-4 computer network or just a single computer i say they would be about the same for regular use.  even if u game a good processor and enough RAM support will have your games running flawlessly.  and i fu want a good gaming pc then get a nice gfx card to go with a decent processor and a decent amount of RAM.


----------



## Yeti

> i believe that AMD is a little bit above Intel in technology right now but for the average 1-4 computer network or just a single computer i say they would be about the same for regular use. even if u game a good processor and enough RAM support will have your games running flawlessly. and i fu want a good gaming pc then get a nice gfx card to go with a decent processor and a decent amount of RAM.


I concur


----------



## 93glouden

amd is my choice because it is way ahead in technology than intel and they are cheaper


----------



## Praetor

Cheaper is contestable, Prescotts are relatively cheap


----------



## 93glouden

i have only ever had 1 intel and it was a 400mhz one and it wasnt wot u call speedy, i no it was old and crap but i love my amd's......soon i will have a 64bit


----------



## Geoff

this poll has been up for a while, i still think Intel is better then AMD.


----------



## Praetor

Other than personal preference, any specific reasons?


----------



## robina_80

amd


----------



## Cromewell

oh I can do this too
Cyrix!


----------



## Praetor

lol ... thats funny on so many levels 

...

DEC!


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> DEC!


???

AMD!


----------



## Cromewell

Evergreen! best CPU company *EVER*

but this is just getting silly


----------



## Praetor

> ???
> 
> AMD!


LOL there was a tad of mockery involved


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> LOL there was a tad of mockery involved



I know that, but what is DEC?


----------



## Praetor

Its a company that makes processors. Think Alphas


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> Its a company that makes processors. Think Alphas



I find 
Division of Early Childhood,[size=-1] 
Development Experience Clearinghouse, 
Department of Environmental Conservation, 
Disasters Emergency Committee, 
Distance Education Consortium, 
Division of Environmental Conventions, 
Development Experience Clearinghouse, [/size]
Développement économique Canada, 
Digital Equipment Coporation, 
Oh, i guess that is it......
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_Alpha


----------



## BAKA21090

AMD all the way!!!!!!!


----------



## dave597

Well... If i havent posted this in this thread already...

AMD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Kristjan

I think that Apple's G5 processor is best. BTW what is a power pc you have in this list? Apple's old processor?


----------



## Kboy

I gotta question, maybe I'm just stupid, but what's Power PC?  I've heard of Intel and AMD, obviously, and I know there are a few other minor manufacturers, but who is Power PC?  No one has voted for them yet. lol


----------



## dave597

Kboy said:
			
		

> I gotta question, maybe I'm just stupid, but what's Power PC?  I've heard of Intel and AMD, obviously, and I know there are a few other minor manufacturers, but who is Power PC?  No one has voted for them yet. lol


lol, yeh were all too busy voting for amd!
http://www-03.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/


----------



## vanp1992

intel now has 64 bit p4's but not for sale yet i think


----------



## Cromewell

actually intels 64bit p4s are available now (a few weeks ahead of release), newegg has a  few


----------



## Praetor

The BTX-570J Intel released back at christmas had EM64T if I recall...


----------



## Bobo

BAKA21090 said:
			
		

> AMD all the way!!!!!!!


 
Hello, fellow Pittsburgher

AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD!!!!!!


----------



## Cromewell

> AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD!!!!!!


 No, awful 
MOTOROLA!!


----------



## crazytydoo

lol, amd isnt better, intel's are by far better performers... period


----------



## Bobo

crazytydoo said:
			
		

> lol, amd isnt better, intel's are by far better performers... period



How so??????? How do you justify statements like that????


----------



## Praetor

> lol, amd isnt better, intel's are by far better performers... period


Wow you're a rare breed. Its been a long time since ive seen an Intel fanboy (and before you consider me an AMD fanboy, see all the posts where i challenge AMD fanboys). But you know what? AMD wouldnt exist if Intel was "by far better performers .... period" .... its called corporate natural selection ... if it was so obviously better than AMD wouldnt be able to sell anything and the last time i checked, when a company doesnt sell anything, it doesnt make any revenue and um ... bad stuff happens ... like bankruptcy. And the last time i checked (NYSE:AMD), AMD isnt bankrupt


----------



## livelife

*Amd*

AMD Will win!!!

They Are Cheaper and Just as good or better than the Intel's


----------



## tweaker

lol this thread was an interesting read, gotta love the fanboys..


----------



## Amma Wario

I find it more easier with AMD


----------



## Praetor

> lol this thread was an interesting read, gotta love the fanboys..


LOL ya ... aint hat always the case... :rollseyes:


----------



## compfreak

amd woooo go amd


----------



## compfreak

amd should win cheeper and better cpu's in gaming anyway   amd


----------



## Cromewell

compfreak said:
			
		

> amd should win cheeper and better cpu's in gaming anyway   amd


 This may be a shock but not everyone uses their computer for gaming


----------



## Praetor

> This may be a shock but not everyone uses their computer for gaming


LOL ... fanboys do


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> LOL ... fanboys do



I sure don't, I can't remember the last time I played a (real) computer game.....I play internet backgammon once in a while, though


----------



## Bigshow1030

*lol*

I was beginning to think I was the only one that didn't


----------



## Bobo

Bigshow1030 said:
			
		

> I was beginning to think I was the only one that didn't



I used to once in a while, until my gfx went boom


----------



## Mikeyk255

*Amd VS Intel Benchmark*

Any amd64 owners willing to benchmark and post results?
I have CPUBench2003 and Aquamark3, i think cpubench is the best one unless someone has a similar gpu in that case aquamark would be good.

Mikeyk (uk)
Intel P4 3ghz 1MB Cache, 1 Gig DDR400
Nvidia Geforce 6800 GT 256MBgDDR3


----------



## Praetor

> its cool, most people don't realize macs are unix based computers


Most people are also.....


----------



## robina_80

amd all the way


----------



## Cromewell

> i have seen lot's of Mac's running a dual boot with Mac OS and a flavor of Linux.


Well since OS X is unix based that is quite easy.  Macs aren't that bad, just over priced with very little software support


----------



## Bobo

Why exactly are there 2 of this thread?


----------



## Cromewell

cause someone brought it back from the dead and now its sticky so there


----------



## Bobo

Cromewell said:
			
		

> cause someone brought it back from the dead and now its sticky so there



Oh yeah, this one is dated b4 the other one......


----------



## kof2000

I WAS LIKE why is this topic still here LOL. i have NEVER used an amd computer before hehe well maybe the k 6 or something lol BUT! if i were to build me another computer i would try out an athlon 64 or fx.


----------



## Praetor

*merged*


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> *merged*



Did you merge the polls, too?  Just curious if you could do that....


----------



## Cromewell

> Did you merge the polls, too?


looks that way since there are now 176 votes


----------



## Praetor

Yes I'm god.


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> Yes I'm god.


interesting how it isn't capitalized And how come you get to be god?  Ain't ian?


----------



## Praetor

> interesting how it isn't capitalized And how come you get to be god? Ain't ian?


Lets try to stay a bit on topic  hehe but to answer the question, merging does do the poll entries too


----------



## Apathetic

I like AMD because Its more for games (from what I've heard)


----------



## Gnorphy

*Amd 64*

Amd 64 Rocks!


----------



## Cromewell

> Amd 64 Rocks!


Well, this looks familiar.  Have you posted in this thread before?  (look around page 28, I think it also happened around 21 and again several thousand times in other threads)


----------



## Bobo

Cromewell said:
			
		

> Well, this looks familiar.  Have you posted in this thread before?  (look around page 28, I think it also happened around 21 and again several thousand times in other threads)


I believe that that was Robina


----------



## Cromewell

> I believe that that was Robina


Yeah, but it's the same story from someone else now.  Liking the Athlon 64 (or Pentium 4 or whatever) is fine, but at least give some reasoning so you don't come off as a fanboy (even if you are )


----------



## Bobo

Cromewell said:
			
		

> Yeah, but it's the same story from someone else now. Liking the Athlon 64 (or Pentium 4 or whatever) is fine, but at least give some reasoning so you don't come off as a fanboy (even if you are )


Info??? What is that??? LOL!


----------



## 691175002

I LOVE AMD WITH A PASSION!!!

Their processors are faster and cheaper.  The FX-55 is the perfect example.  It was 900$ and intel was 1000$ (the last time I checked)  The amd could beat the intel in half the benchmarks and tie the intel in the others! Not only is the fx-55 cheaper it is also faster. 
Case closed.

Check the sig:


----------



## Praetor

> I LOVE AMD WITH A PASSION!!!
> 
> Their processors are faster and cheaper. The FX-55 is the perfect example. It was 900$ and intel was 1000$ (the last time I checked) The amd could beat the intel in half the benchmarks and tie the intel in the others! Not only is the fx-55 cheaper it is also faster.


Yes the FX55 is a nice chip but what about the Palomino? That's an AMD chip too and it sux0red.


----------



## 691175002

Praetor said:
			
		

> Yes the FX55 is a nice chip but what about the Palomino? That's an AMD chip too and it sux0red.


If the processor sucks don't buy it and buy a better one.  (it will be my new moto) lol


----------



## Praetor

> If the processor sucks don't buy it and buy a better one.  (it will be my new moto) lol


Again not all of us are lucky enough to have our parents buy stuff for us all the time. (you do also realize by your logic one can conclude AMD sucks and thus you've contradicted yourself...)


----------



## tomb08uk

Intel, people only choose AMD as the price


----------



## Praetor

> people only choose AMD as the price


Not really.... there is the gaming aspect.... and the clock efficiency .... and AMD64 instructions ... (which arent supported by all P4s)


----------



## 4W4K3

i would agree, AMD isn't chosen just because it's cheaper. lots of people i help out ask me what to get, and since they are almost always on a budget i tell them AMD. but then they see a 3GHz Celeron and get that, because of the *3*GHz.

AMD just hapens to be somewhat cheaper and performs just as well/better than many Intel chips, coincidence? I'd still go with them if they were Intel priced, they are great.


----------



## 691175002

Praetor said:
			
		

> Again not all of us are lucky enough to have our parents buy stuff for us all the time. (you do also realize by your logic one can conclude AMD sucks and thus you've contradicted yourself...)



I don't know where you get the idea that my parents buy me everything,  I am running a 3000+ (754 pins) and I don't have sli(my sig is just because it rocks) or 4gigs of ram... Tonnes of people have waaaaaaaaaay better systems and I don't play games much either.
I just like programming and the most expensive part of my computer is probbably just the software (studio Mx, cinema 4d... (all of which are education versions).  The computer was more just to learn stuff on.

How did I say that amd sucks.  If the processor sucks buy a better one.  I didn't mean more expensive I just ment that if intels are a rip go amd and if amd sucks go intel.


----------



## Praetor

> How did I say that amd sucks.


When you made the comment,


> If the processor sucks don't buy it and buy a better one


In response to my comment,


> Yes the FX55 is a nice chip but what about the Palomino? That's an AMD chip too and it sux0red.


There is an interpretation there 



> If the processor sucks buy a better one


Not everyone can do that


----------



## 691175002

Praetor said:
			
		

> Not everyone can do that



Then we will replace the "better" with "different".


----------



## Yeti

> Then we will replace the "better" with "different".


And why get a different processor if it's not better?


----------



## 691175002

You make it so hard...  I'l rephrase it again... 
If the processor sucks, get a better one in the same price range (and if there isn't a better one in the same price range then why did you call the first one crappy?)


----------



## flip218

I've always gone with Intel, mainly cause that is what is offered w/ the pc's I've chosen ... but the next pc I build I think I'll try AMD.


----------



## xDarkWizardx

Is nVidia gonna bring their nForce 4 chipset over to an Intel board any time soon? If you want the best gaming rig now you have to go AMD for the SLI capabilities. And whenever Microsoft comes out with their 64 bit OS the AMDs are gonna be smokin' the Intels (until Intel releases a 64 bit proc that is   ).


----------



## Asobu

I prefer the AMD for gaming but for overall applications I prefer Intel, but AMD is closing that gap as well


----------



## Praetor

> and if there isn't a better one in the same price range then why did you call the first one crappy?


Because, for the price range (current price and back-then-price), Intel was a better route (which was the point i was making )



> Is nVidia gonna bring their nForce 4 chipset over to an Intel board any time soon?


Already happened although the Intel implementation isnt to pretty, Intel-nvidia-SLI doesnt give anywhere near the performance delta as AMD-nvidia-SLI ... give it some time to work itself out though



> until Intel releases a 64 bit proc that is


You do realize that all the current-gen Intel procs are 64bit right?


----------



## xDarkWizardx

Praetor said:
			
		

> You do realize that all the current-gen Intel procs are 64bit right?



I didn't realize they started shipping their 6xx proc last week.

http://www.theregister.com/2005/03/21/intel_p4_6xx_ships/


----------



## Cromewell

It must have been shipping for more than a week.  I'm thinking 2-3 weeks at least, but they were probably selling before the 'official' release.


----------



## Praetor

Yeah kinda like the 570Js in BTX


----------



## Pclover8891

the blue men rock


----------



## Cromewell

> the blue men rock


that they do, have you seen them live?  I saw them in Vegas a couple years ago it was amazing.  But that doesn't really have to do with the brand being better, just the chioce in advertising


----------



## The Wiz

Hey, just think about this. AMD has their architect so well built that they don't need the ghz like Intel does. Also from what I've seen Intel's new 64bit processor isn't so good.


----------



## Lorand

The Wiz said:
			
		

> AMD has their architect so well built...


WOW, I wanna date that architect...


----------



## Praetor

> Also from what I've seen Intel's new 64bit processor isn't so good.


Any links?


----------



## neslo1211

Intel without a doubt...........dont need any reasons other than Intel is the best processor there is.


----------



## Yeti

> dont need any reasons other than Intel is the best processor there is


If that doesn't scream fanboy I don't know what does.


----------



## Praetor

> Intel without a doubt...........dont need any reasons other than Intel is the best processor there is.


Hey fanboy, Intel is a company, not a processor.


----------



## Blue

> Intel without a doubt...........dont need any reasons other than Intel is the best processor there is.



I smell the scents of a fanboy, where's the raid? .


----------



## Grimulus

neslo1211 said:
			
		

> Intel without a doubt...........dont need any reasons other than Intel is the best processor there is.



want to tell us why?


----------



## Bobo

Yeti said:
			
		

> If that doesn't scream fanboy I don't know what does.


I does 

FANBOY!!! FANBOY!!! FANBOY!!!

Hey, I'm one too....


----------



## tweaker

Bobo said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm one too....


 
Who would have thought


----------



## AMDCam

AMD, come on. Cheaper, more reliable, faster, and in my opinion, loads everything faster (I got a 1.2ghz thunderbird about 5 years ago and it still runs everything smooth, except games like doom 3 and half life 2). My T-bird I think loads faster (maybe not faster, but smoother) than my brother's 2.8ghz P4, and Intel sucks bad. Too Expensive, too slow, too flashy.


----------



## tweaker

> AMD, come on. Cheaper


 
Not necesseraly true.



> more reliable, faster


 
They are actually slower (this particular speed is measured in Hz).



> My T-bird I think loads faster (maybe not faster, but smoother)


 
Define smoother.



> and Intel sucks bad. Too Expensive, too slow, too flashy.


 
What we have here is fanboyism rather than facts.


----------



## Scrat

i like AMD purely for the fact that they don't play that anoying gingle like Intel


----------



## Tha Killa

Scrat said:
			
		

> i like AMD purely for the fact that they don't play that anoying gingle like Intel



lol

Power PC made processors? Aren't they the company that also makes those good psus? Anyone know if their procs are good at all?


----------



## flame1117

tweaker said:
			
		

> They are actually slower (this particular speed is measured in Hz).


thats just a clock speed frecency that dosn;t mean everything for the speed of a CPU.


----------



## Cromewell

> Power PC made processors


Power PC are IBM chips, they are used in apples


----------



## dorothy_2005

Yea, I also think the thing is in the Intel`s L2 cache. Since they brought it back to 256 it all works better AND faster, but, still......


----------



## Cromewell

> Yea, I also think the thing is in the Intel`s L2 cache. Since they brought it back to 256


do you mean back to 256bit width? the L1->L2 cache width has been 256bit for a long time.


----------



## stratford

Amd Withstand Longer Periods Of Overclocking And Stay Cooler Than Intel Although The Old Piii Was A Good Overclocker. But For Me Its Got To Be Amd Everytime.


----------



## AMDCam

I think dorothy means 256k cache, people were saying that on this thread a couple days ago about smaller cache running smoother.


----------



## Cromewell

> I think dorothy means 256k cache


That wouldn'y make sense, if I'm not mistaken the pentium hasn't sported 256kb of L2 cache since the williamette.


----------



## BorysKndrt

Cromewell would be correct the Intell has not had a 256k cache since the Williamette core, a few years back. As for the processor, I prefer Intel, because AMD is worthless when youre trying to multitask. I am and architect and i also build PC's on the side, and it's a proven fact that Intel multi-tasks better. I would presume that most people on here are gamers, so they would naturaly be leaning towards AMD. Its all a matter of personal prefference, and what you will use you machine for. I personally run a P4, because i can play some mad Doom 3, and then when its time to work, not have to worry that my PC will be slow enought to annoy me when i'm drawing a multi-story office building.


----------



## AMDCam

Actually in my experiences I have the completely opposite opinion. I've owned a a 200mhz Pentium, 733mhz P3 and a 2.6ghz P4, and none of them run even 1 task well, let alone starting 4 tray programs simultaneously (on the P4). I also have owned a 1.2ghz T-bird, 1.4ghz Athlon XP 1600+, 2.2ghz XP 3200+, and a 2.0ghz 3200+ Athlon 64. So far, every one of those run everything I want them to do perfect. And right now I'm on the Thunderbird with 3 different windows open, and in the past I've had Halo (minimized), 8 IE windows, Avast doing a virus scan, AIM main window open and talking to people on both AIM and MSN, all at the same time and this Athlon STILL keeps running smooth, and this thing is almost 5 years old! So multitasking is for my AMD's, and gaming, and come to think of it, everything else too.


----------



## Hello

I would have to say Intel since I have that. But I voted AMD .


----------



## Praetor

> i like AMD purely for the fact that they don't play that anoying gingle like Intel


Hehe yeah but thats really effective



> Power PC made processors? Aren't they the company that also makes those good psus? Anyone know if their procs are good at all?


PowerPC is a line of processors ....



> thats just a clock speed frecency that dosn;t mean everything for the speed of a CPU


_Actually_ the speed of a processor is measured in Hz..... of course it means nothing for performance ... but thats not the point here...



> Yea, I also think the thing is in the Intel`s L2 cache. Since they brought it back to 256 it all works better AND faster, but, still......


Actually .... (1) As cromewell noted, the pentium line of products hasnt featured 256K of L2 since circa 2000 ... (2) if you mean the CeleronD (which is the most recent Celeron series), that indeed does feature 256K L2 (up from L2) and (3) with intel procs, wheneve intel increases the amount of cache, they tend to slow it down (quality vs quanity again)



> do you mean back to 256bit width?


You mean 4-way 64bit?



> As for the processor, I prefer Intel, because AMD is worthless when youre trying to multitask


Thats a dangerously broad statement though....


----------



## Cromewell

> i like AMD purely for the fact that they don't play that anoying gingle like Intel


But Intel has the Blue Men, and annoying jingle or not the Blue Man Group makes everything good 


> You mean 4-way 64bit?


Yes, but for simplicity/common misconception I say 256bit


----------



## Apathetic

I wish I had a Athlon 64   I have a Athlon XP


----------



## AMDCam

Hey man, nothing's wrong with Athlon XP's, I just bought one. Unless you got over 8gb's of RAM or for some reason think the features of those 64-bit programs in Windows XP x64, you don't need it, and although they are a little faster(Athlon 64's), most people probably won't even notice a difference and XP's are so cheap, if it's too slow just get a better one.


----------



## 4W4K3

AMDCam said:
			
		

> Hey man, nothing's wrong with Athlon XP's, I just bought one. Unless you got over 8gb's of RAM or for some reason think the features of those 64-bit programs in Windows XP x64, you don't need it, and although they are a little faster(Athlon 64's), most people probably won't even notice a difference and XP's are so cheap, if it's too slow just get a better one.



umm...the difference between A64 and AthlonXP chips is not small, you will notice a large gain in performance, and the on-die memory controller is great. The advances such as PCI-E support and HTT really cream the AthlonXP's.

you can't just go and buy a new AthlonXP anymore, they are discontinued. Meaning they don't make them anymore, so in a year or two when you need a new processor (just assuming) you won't be able to find one, and you'll have to buy an entirely new computer. Even now they are getting more scarce.


----------



## Praetor

> Hey man, nothing's wrong with Athlon XP's, I just bought one. Unless you got over 8gb's of RAM or for some reason think the features of those 64-bit programs in Windows XP x64, you don't need it, and although they are a little faster(Athlon 64's), most people probably won't even notice a difference and XP's are so cheap, if it's too slow just get a better one.


Wow ... so you mean the on-die memory controller which lets a cheapo S754 Semrpon take on a full-out Pentium4 560 and results in a stupidly large latency drop results in a "unnoticeable difference" .... whoa


----------



## AMDCam

Alright, that's cool, I've got an Athlon 64 too, but I'm about 100% sure that my computer can hold it's own to any mid-range Athlon 64 without any good features like dual-core or PCIe compatibility. I was just trying to help the guy out by telling him that XP's aren't futile in comparison, they can still push some data. I know for a fact that the 64's are beasts, I got a laptop with a 3200+ and that thing can run, even with the slow hard drive (5,400 rpm) and pitiful graphics card (GeForce 4 MX440). You should know 4w4k, you got one and I'm not bias in any way to either of them (64's or XP's). I'm just saying don't turn your back on guys with XP's, because at the moment unless you got something as high and higher than a 3800+ 64, you're gonna see some competition with those "old" or "budget" pc guys.


----------



## Praetor

> Alright, that's cool, I've got an Athlon 64 too, but I'm about 100% sure that my computer can hold it's own to any mid-range Athlon 64 without any good features like dual-core or PCIe compatibility. I was just trying to help the guy out by telling him that XP's aren't futile in comparison, they can still push some data. I know for a fact that the 64's are beasts, I got a laptop with a 3200+ and that thing can run, even with the slow hard drive (5,400 rpm) and pitiful graphics card (GeForce 4 MX440). You should know 4w4k, you got one and I'm not bias in any way to either of them (64's or XP's). I'm just saying don't turn your back on guys with XP's, because at the moment unless you got something as high and higher than a 3800+ 64, you're gonna see some competition with those "old" or "budget" pc guys.


Absolutely and you do make a good point indeed however given that:
1. The AthlonXPs are discotninued and have been for quite some time
2. The cost of a S754 platform is quickly (if not already) moving in to fill the price bracket of a S462 setup and thus kinda cementing the death of the S462  Hell one could even argue that a decent S754 platform could be had for cheaper than a decent S462 setup too


----------



## zerox

It's always a constant argue about wich CPU is better.

I personaly prefer Intel. Why? I have always used them.
You usually stick to the one you where first introduced to, very few change their brand.

When it comes to wich one is better, it's no matter both are good.


----------



## The_Other_One

zerox said:
			
		

> When it comes to wich one is better, it's no matter both are good.



I agree there, but I do think AMD's usally have a better price...  At least from what I've seen.


----------



## zerox

Yes, AMD is cheaper, and thats because Intel has a better financial position.


----------



## 4W4K3

When the public can buy the same amount of speed and efficiency for a lesser amount of money than another brand, they usually do. Very few people pick Intel over AMD when i tell them AMD will be just as fast but a couple bucks cheaper. Not sure what "financial position" Intel is in, but they don't sell too good around here. At least not to average computer users wanting a home PC.


----------



## xDarkWizardx

I think Intel is in more with the computer manufactures, like dell, more than the custom builders.


----------



## 4W4K3

yeah, hardly anyone sports AMD cpu's in their computers. but that just makes me want to buy AMD more, cuz' i know they don't sell out to CRAP computer companies.


----------



## AMDCam

Yep, the only problem with manufacturers (like laptop builders) that sell AMD's usually couple them with cheaper hardware you don't want, and the Intel's are usually the top-of-the-line models. But like you say, hardly anybody sports AMD's.


----------



## Cromewell

> ...Intel is in, but they don't sell too good around here. At least not to average computer users wanting a home PC


I disagree, the average user tends to goto a company like Dell for their home PC.


----------



## AMDCam

I'm not sure why Cromewell and Praetor take everything so exaggerated and literally, but if you read carefully what people say, like with Darkwizard, you can see he said "too good AROUND HERE"


----------



## 4W4K3

AMDCam said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why Cromewell and Praetor take everything so exaggerated and literally, but if you read carefully what people say, like with Darkwizard, you can see he said "too good AROUND HERE"



exactly, i was referring to the peopple who come to me wanting a computer. Some ask me what company is good (like Dell or Gateway) and i jsut recommend one. Others want a custom computer, and almost all of them go with AMD because of the price.

People who already know the difference between Intel and AMD and all their strong/weak points usually don't ask ME for help. Most just do it themselves or "custom build" a computer online.


----------



## Cromewell

> "too good AROUND HERE"


"around here" is an abigious statement so sue me for not interpreting it the way you meant, and Darkwizard didn't post that .
Sure a lot of people may come to you and ask for an AMD system, my point, which you seemed to have missed completely, was that as many people that may come to you, a great many more go to Dell/Gateway and the like.


----------



## 4W4K3

Cromewell said:
			
		

> Sure a lot of people may come to you and ask for an AMD system, my point, which you seemed to have missed completely, was that as many people that may come to you, a great many more go to Dell/Gateway and the like.



depends on who you talk to. most people around here have their computers built by teenagers over at IMS computer (considered "custom built") or they get someone to build it for them. i don't know anyone of my friends parents who don't have a (i guess representative?) come over and spec them out a PC, then they build it for them for a fee. faster and cheaper than a Dell or w/e.


----------



## Cromewell

> i don't know anyone of my friends parents who don't have a (i guess representative?) come over and spec them out a PC, then they build it for them for a fee


be that as it may, where you live isn't representive of the entire population (including the corporate world). If it was this wouldn't be the case:





> Dell revenue increased 18 percent from the same quarter a year ago to $12.5 billion





> but that just makes me want to buy AMD more, cuz' i know they don't sell out to CRAP computer companies


AMD sells to many 'crap' companies (HP, Compaq) Dell hasn't added AMD because (reportedly) they would be unable to maintain supply.


----------



## Geoff

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> depends on who you talk to. most people around here have their computers built by teenagers over at IMS computer (considered "custom built") or they get someone to build it for them. i don't know anyone of my friends parents who don't have a (i guess representative?) come over and spec them out a PC, then they build it for them for a fee. faster and cheaper than a Dell or w/e.



Completely different here, practically everyone (with the exception of a few) get computers at a store or dell online.


----------



## 4W4K3

geoff5093 said:
			
		

> Completely different here, practically everyone (with the exception of a few) get computers at a store or dell online.



of the people i know, this is entirely not true. i'm not going to talk out of my own experience, so when reading my statements, i am relating my facts to MY perception. not the entire population of the world and all of it's businesses and compaines and what not.



			
				Cromewell said:
			
		

> AMD sells to many 'crap' companies (HP, Compaq) Dell hasn't added AMD because (reportedly) they would be unable to maintain supply.



I don't consdier Compaq "crap" in any way. Still running 2 Compaq computers (one laptop one desktop) that have never had problems over the years. Ryan (my friend) bought a computer from CyberPower Inc. recently for $900+, and THAT was pure crap. But that's just my experiences...again...


----------



## xDarkWizardx

Hmm, people are putting words in my mouth 

I have had bad experianes with HP and will never buy from them again. Proc fan died within 2 months of purchase and the PSU made a loud popping sound and produced a lot of smoke within a year.


----------



## 4W4K3

its just a misunderstanding. i'm not meaning to argue with anyone, just to clarify what i mean.

I'd agree with Cromewell, Dell and other big companies are selling ALOT better than custom rigs or w/e u want to call them as a whole. No doubt. But that's not what i was meaning. I was talking locally, which is only a small part of 1% or less i would imagine.


----------



## Cromewell

> But that's not what i was meaning. I was talking locally


Yeah this all came from a misunderstanding of "around here," in any event all I was trying to say in post 388 (ironically, it wasn't read carefully , or it was just outright misunderstood ) which seems to have started this spat (not to take credit from 4W4K3 , who made the post mine referenced) was that most average computer users wanting a home PC go to Dell or a company like them.


----------



## Praetor

> I'm not sure why Cromewell and Praetor take everything so exaggerated and literally, but if you read carefully what people say, like with Darkwizard, you can see he said "too good AROUND HERE"


wtf is this crap. Ive not made a post here for quite some time. But if you want to discuss then sure .... 
1. From 4w4k3s comment, "around here" is a relative term and open to interpretation. Perhaps 4w4k3 meant "within nearest 100mi" perhaps he meant "within Newegg" -- it's not clear.
2. I hardly see Cromewell's comment as being exageratted but rather very open-ended

But you do make a very solid point. Perhaps we should read more carefully... like here for instance: http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?p=85205#post85205 ... perhaps we my interpret litterally too much ... but better litterally than to make overbearing comments without any semblence of background information (and then admit it). Perhaps it would be better if I made tactical-ambiguities a la Bobo?



> depends on who you talk to. most people around here have their computers built by teenagers over at IMS computer (considered "custom built") or they get someone to build it for them. i don't know anyone of my friends parents who don't have a (i guess representative?) come over and spec them out a PC, then they build it for them for a fee. faster and cheaper than a Dell or w/e.


Ok to avoid litany 
1. Define "around here"
2. I hardly think teenagers pose a threat to Dell 
hehe


In any case, this is getting off-topic, AMDCam, if you want to address your problems directly, PM me.


----------



## 4W4K3

Praetor said:
			
		

> Ok to avoid litany
> 1. Define "around here"
> 2. I hardly think teenagers pose a threat to Dell
> hehe



OK, i'll define to clear things up. "Around here SPECIFICALLY means the CITY i live in, Coppell Texas. I've been here for like 9 yrs. or so, and am moving this summer

On average, custom build computer don't "pose a threat" to any large computer company like Dell or Apple or anything that big. But if you were to go around Coppell and ask what each individual would rather have, a Dell manufactured computer or a custom build computer with someone who comes to your house and consults with you and all that...*I* would bet most people would say "custom built". That's just my guess though, not a definite fact. People around here love custom stuff, custom houses, custom choppers, custom everything. it shows that you are able to afford top quality materials that are build and designed for YOU.

What sounds better? "I've got a custom built computer designed and built to fit my needs." Or, "I've got a Dell." I personally think Custom" has more prestige in it.

Sorry for the confusion


----------



## Praetor

> OK, i'll define to clear things up. "Around here SPECIFICALLY means the CITY I live in, Coppell Texas. I've been here for like 9 yrs. or so, and am moving this summer


LOL i was just kidding around  In either case we should prolly get back on topic


----------



## Bobo

xDarkWizardx said:
			
		

> I have had bad experianes with HP and will never buy from them again. Proc fan died within 2 months of purchase and the PSU made a loud popping sound and produced a lot of smoke within a year.


HP doesn't make fans and PSUs, they just buy the parts and mod them to their needs.


----------



## Praetor

No comment.


----------



## jancz3rt

*Hahhaha*

I take that picture as a joke. Someone should "fix" it up 

JAN


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> tactical-ambiguities a la Bobo?


I still can't figure out why you keep un-banning me....(PLEASE do not take this the wrong way, I want to stay here )


----------



## Underground_Evo

I have 2 Intel Celerons, one 1.8ghz and one 2.4ghz... they seem to work fine for me.


----------



## crimsonnblue

*Power pc*

I have never heard of powe pc, what are they and has anyone here ever used one??

p.s. and for macs... I dont think anyone should have one unless they make money from having it. I know a few graphic designers that are required to have one but other than that theres not much you can do on a mac that you cant do on a pc. And if you think about its really the other way around because there is so much software available for the pc as opposed to mac.


----------



## Cromewell

PowerPC is an IBM processor that Apple used to use (they still will but in 2 years they are switching to Intel stuff)


----------



## crimsonnblue

Yeah I did hear about Apple using Intels processors, kinda cool. I wonder how thats gonna go over?


----------



## roaddog

*Intel right now, but willing to try AMD*


----------



## dragon2309

Intel for me as im not really into hardcore gaming. I might dabble in the pool of AMD at some point though, just to be able to compare the two.


----------



## 691175002

The new amd x2 seems to own the pentium D in all the benchmarks I've seen so I think that AMD might be even better than Intel.


----------



## Praetor

> The new amd x2 seems to own the pentium D in all the benchmarks I've seen





> so I think that AMD might be even better than Intel


You mean the AMD X2 is better than the Intel Pentium D  "AMD" does not consist entirly of "AMD Athlon 64 X2" lineup and "Intel" doesnt entire consist of the "Intel Pentium D" lineup


----------



## Faaj

AMD are the best I like the new Dual core wons and especially when the new FX-57 i coming out.


----------



## Praetor

> AMD are the best I like the new Dual core wons and especially when the new FX-57 i coming out.


1. Well FX57 can be ordered from some stores 
2. FX57 isnt dual core yet


----------



## Faaj

i dont exactly think intel are in a better finacial posistion and in the future they sure wont be.


----------



## Faaj

Amd Rules!!!


----------



## Praetor

> i dont exactly think intel are in a better finacial posistion and in the future they sure wont be.


1. Face the facts. Intel is the dominant player from a current financial perspective as well as from market positioning
2. Unless yer an oracle (and care to define "future"), anything can happen



> Amd Rules!!!





> Age: 13


----------



## wisper




----------



## DanLatimer

zkiller said:
			
		

> i preffer AMD. and no, they are not the first to go 64 bit. apple/mac beat them to it.



that doesnt matter intel makes thier processors now


----------



## DCIScouts

DanLatimer said:
			
		

> that doesnt matter intel makes thier processors now



True, and before it was IBM.  So, you could say that IBM was reallly the first one to go 64...


----------



## arclite20

i went with AMD because of the price.


----------



## Clearion

AMD, Itell cost more go warmer and are slower


----------



## Praetor

> i went with AMD because of the price.





> AMD, Itell cost more go warmer and are slower


One could very easily argue Intel has a better price position (and about the warmer ... you seen the temps on a S775 chip lately? ... not that bad)


----------



## Sophocles

My current CPU is the AMD  64 bit 3500 Venice core 2.2 [email protected] GHZ on an Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, with 2 gigs of twinx2048-3200c2 corsair XMS memory. After almost 2 hours of encoding with Cinema Craft Encoder (Very CPU intensive uses almost 100% CPU resources without past the whole time) and the temps never went above 48 degrees celcius with the stock heat sink/fan. Although my measures are by no means as high as they can go here's the link.

http://www.zentarium.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3297&postcount=3


----------



## Gigabyte426

Definately AMD, their processors are naturally superior, what can I say it's science.


----------



## 691175002

Gigabyte426 said:
			
		

> Definately AMD, their processors are naturally superior, what can I say it's science.


You normally shouldn't say things like that becasue there will always be someone who will argue with you.  I must agree with you (hence my sig) but intel does perform better in some programs and was better in multi tasking (the dual core changed that).


----------



## Praetor

> Definately AMD, their processors are naturally superior, what can I say it's science.


Except:
1. It isnt a science
2. You're a fanboy without the complete story. 
_Seeming to know science you've heard of Darwin's theory of natrual succession ... so if AMD's processors are superior ... why Intel the dominant force?_


----------



## 691175002

Praetor said:
			
		

> _Seeming to know science you've heard of Darwin's theory of natrual succession ... so if AMD's processors are superior ... why Intel the dominant force?_


Part of it is they have more cash for ad's and they probbably made a contract with dell so that they only buy their stuff.


----------



## Praetor

> Part of it is they have more cash for ad's and they probbably made a contract with dell so that they only buy their stuff.


1. When i asked the question, it wasnt a literal one
2. If AMD is so good, why didnt dell make a deal with them? (if you didnt pick it up, this is another rhetorical question )


----------



## jesbax

because intel name is out in the public more than amd.people are more fimliarer with intel than amd.  when was the last time you have seen an amd comersial.  when was the last time you saw and intel comersial.  if you were a big corporation and need a cpu which one would you go for one with lost of averisment or one with the least amout of advertisement.  plus they are targeting the class of people who don't know much about computers. 


> (if you didnt pick it up, this is another rhetorical question )


  you asked the question.   you got the responce.  
yes im a smart ass


----------



## Cromewell

> when was the last time you have seen an amd comersial


I have never seen an AMD commercial because AFAIK they don't have any (at lease not in North America) and that is there problem.  IMO, AMDs solution to not being able to sell as much as Intel is to sue them. they should be spending that money on commercials (TV, magazine ads and the like) not lawyers


----------



## Praetor

> you asked the question. you got the responce.


I didnt ask a question. I asked a rhetorical question.



> I have never seen an AMD commercial because AFAIK they don't have any (at lease not in North America)


I vaguely recall a commercial back in the day when the Athlon just came out ... cant remember for sure tho


----------



## Cromewell

> I vaguely recall a commercial back in the day when the Athlon just came out


hmm I don't remember anything but oh well.  And Intel has the Blue Man Group doing commercials, you can't compete with that


----------



## dragon2309

I've seen an AMD advert (just one mind) in PC Advisor (PC magazine over in UK). Its for the 64 range.


----------



## Lorand

Here's one of them: http://www.lynncomp.com/images/athlonxpanimation.ram
But it sucks badly... If I had to buy things after watching commercials, I never had an AMD.

Despite all, I have an Athlon XP.


----------



## dyserq

Hmm ... i prefer intel pentium 4 because i am much more accustomed to it, i mean i don't even know what the other CPUs are.


----------



## kof2000

i'm using one amd  and 6 intels


----------



## dyserq

kof2000 said:
			
		

> i'm using one amd  and 6 intels



Woah how many computers do you have ??


----------



## apj101

> Woah how many computers do you have ??


http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=15060


----------



## Archangel

i go for amd, because they have lower clock frecuenties, while it has the samecapasaty as its intell counterpart 
but, there is nothing wrong with intel cpu's. 
(meh.. this is exact the same as the old ati, nvidia question   )


----------



## shortsleeve

My AMD Athlon xp 3000+ works extremely well... every system i build for my clients i put a AMD in it. and i never had a problem with one yet...iv been doing it for about 5 years now... when i decided to overclock my 3000+ to 2.4 ghz i bought a Volcano 12 and now my cpu never gets hotter then 34C. and about 38 at heavy load.
i totally agree with zkiller
AMD rocks my box0r


----------



## billybobjoe

*i like intel but am going with an amd*

i like intel they are good processors but i want to see what gaming is like with an amd then if it is good i will go with amd but for now intel


----------



## DanLatimer

shortsleeve said:
			
		

> My AMD Athlon xp 3000+ works extremely well... every system i build for my clients i put a AMD in it. and i never had a problem with one yet...iv been doing it for about 5 years now... when i decided to overclock my 3000+ to 2.4 ghz i bought a Volcano 12 and now my cpu never gets hotter then 34C. and about 38 at heavy load.
> i totally agree with zkiller
> AMD rocks my box0r



ive got that processor too but i cant get mine past 2.2  it gets unstable but it doesnt get hot. (then again i dont know alot about overclocking, perhaps ill read OC101 again haha) i didnt notice a difference from 2.0 to 2.2 should i have?


----------



## apj101

> i didnt notice a difference from 2.0 to 2.2 should i have?


no, not at that oc.
Also what tasks are you doing that you are expecting to see a difference.



> it gets unstable but it doesnt get hot.


did you try uping the vcore....


----------



## xX_InVeRtEr_Xx

AMD beats intel by far with performance. But intel wins in availability.


----------



## Cromewell

> AMD beats intel by far with performance.


Depends what you are doing.  Look at a DivX encode, any Intel chip will trounce an AMD chip.  But in say Doom3, AMD will trounce Intel


----------



## The Rockologist

Hmm...

Intel and AMD are both excellent chips to use in computers. However, I have to go with Intel. My first computer used an AMD, and for a while it worked quite well, though I noticed it was a bit slow. Then it completely stopped working and I had to get it fixed. Then a short time later I had to get the thing repaired again, so I decided to just buy an HP. The HP uses an Intel, and it's never given me any trouble at all. My laptop also uses an Intel and it's just as excellent.  

Intel has my vote all the way. \:O/


----------



## Corbin

*amd*


----------



## Lorand

Both *Intel Athlon XP *and *AMD 4 Extreme Edition *are very good chips, so I don't know which one to choose...


----------



## mgoldb2

Lorand said:
			
		

> Both *Intel Athlon XP *and *AMD 4 Extreme Edition *are very good chips, so I don't know which one to choose...



How about the *Intel athlon fx-55 extreme edition*


----------



## Lorand

mgoldb2 said:
			
		

> How about the *Intel athlon fx-55 extreme edition*


Good choice!


----------



## flame1117

The Rockologist said:
			
		

> Hmm...
> 
> Intel and AMD are both excellent chips to use in computers. However, I have to go with Intel. My first computer used an AMD, and for a while it worked quite well, though I noticed it was a bit slow. Then it completely stopped working and I had to get it fixed. Then a short time later I had to get the thing repaired again, so I decided to just buy an HP. The HP uses an Intel, and it's never given me any trouble at all. My laptop also uses an Intel and it's just as excellent.
> 
> Intel has my vote all the way. \:O/




Having to fix something wouldn't have to do with the CPU, unless it was the CPU itself and you had to replace it.


----------



## Apathetic

Just get them both with the best parts and compare 
Also does anyone have some benchmarks for amd and intel in gaming if they even have those?


----------



## Sophocles

It depends on which processor is the best at the time. If I were to buy one today I'd get an AMD but who knows what tomorrow will bring. It's best to leave your options open and not get caught up in being a devoted fan, that can get you less for more.


----------



## Filip

I've never had Intel, probably never will, this is my fourth AMD processor and none of them ever let me down.


----------



## Cromewell

> AMD processor and none of them ever let me down


I could say the same thing about my P4.

I think this is a good a place as any to bring this up (if this destroys the topic of this thread I'll have someone split the thread or delete this).  What is with the brand loyalty we see now?  Not just AMD/Intel, but ATi/nVidia, Coke/Pepsi, the list goes on.  Why is it that people get almost fanatical about supporting any given brand?  People in this thread have screamed 'AMD!!!' quite a bit, now I haven't read the entire thing but I'll bet very few, if any, people screamed 'Intel!!!'


----------



## tweaker

Cromewell said:
			
		

> I could say the same thing about my P4.
> 
> I think this is a good a place as any to bring this up (if this destroys the topic of this thread I'll have someone split the thread or delete this). What is with the brand loyalty we see now? Not just AMD/Intel, but ATi/nVidia, Coke/Pepsi, the list goes on. Why is it that people get almost fanatical about supporting any given brand? People in this thread have screamed 'AMD!!!' quite a bit, now I haven't read the entire thing but I'll bet very few, if any, people screamed 'Intel!!!'


 
I had the same thought just a few hours ago, especially efter seeing the same trend in the video card section. It seems like some people takes for granted one path is better than the other (regardless of their level of experience).

Now theres nothing wrong with expressing what you choose to use since the topic here afterall is 'Which CPU brand do you choose?'.

But what enoys me is comments like "never had Intel, probably never will" "I would say ati i had a nvidia once and it was rubbish" & "ATI Rules" amongst others. Nothing wrong with bein satisfied with a product you use, but assuming it's better than others, specially with such limited experience (if any) is plain stupid.


----------



## ClocKworK

Get a Venice 3000+ and overclock it to 2.8 GHz


----------



## Geoff

AMD Sempron!!


----------



## Elite

Go AMD all the way! (Athlon64)


----------



## Praetor

> . It seems like some people takes for granted one path is better than the other (regardless of their level of experience).


With emphasis on "regardless of their level of experience"



> Get a Venice 3000+ and overclock it to 2.8 GHz


And what happens if you cant do the 1Ghz OC?


----------



## Geoff

cptnwinky said:
			
		

> AMD are just faster chips. The P4 is too slow because of the large L2 Cache. Since AMD hasnt brokent he 256 mark they are alot faster. I think Intel has learned from their mistake though and brought the L2 Cache from 512 back down to 256.




its past that now


----------



## gamerman4

I think it should be more of a vote for the Athlon or the Pentium rather than AMD and Intel since those are the main CPUs and that is what people are referring to when saying their reason for voting. 
I voted for AMD because I like their Athlon CPUs, I know they have others and they are very nice CPUs but my favorite is this Athlon. I didn't not for for Intel because I hate their CPUs it is just that Athlon can make faster CPUs for gaming for less of a price. I love gaming and I don't have much of a budget. It fits good for me.


----------



## Praetor

> I think it should be more of a vote for the Athlon or the Pentium rather than AMD and Intel since those are the main CPUs and that is what people are referring to when saying their reason for voting.


For starters you should be specific because Athlons are a few generations past the Pentium (even tho i do know what u intended). Furthermore, PentiumMs will give damn near any Athlon system a good run for its money.


----------



## Zhuge Liang

Pentium M's are the best thing to come from Intel. First they say a higher clock speed is better, now they have these M CPU's running slower then their P4's and beating them out. Going back on what they originally said.

I run AMD, and only AMD. I've got the AMD in my signature, a XP 3200+ system, and have built many AMD systems in the past for friends and family.


----------



## Diego

*Amd Is Best*

I would choose an AMD cpu personally its my choice.Its good for gaming.


----------



## MatrixEVO

*AMD for me...*

When I first started to build computers, I chose Intel because I somehow trusted them more then AMD. But after I had experience with my friends computers with AMDs, I changed my mind. Now I trust the new AMDs more then Intel. They have many advantages over Intel also. More for your money is one of them.


----------



## Geoff

MatrixEVO said:
			
		

> When I first started to build computers, I chose Intel because I somehow trusted them more then AMD. But after I had experience with my friends computers with AMDs, I changed my mind. Now I trust the new AMDs more then Intel. They have many advantages over Intel also. More for your money is one of them.



i agree, i was a huge intel fan before, but now im an amd fan, i will never buy a celeron every again!  im sticking with semprons and athlon 64's


----------



## chaosblizzard

cptnwinky said:
			
		

> AMD are just faster chips. The P4 is too slow because of the large L2 Cache. Since AMD hasnt brokent he 256 mark they are alot faster. I think Intel has learned from their mistake though and brought the L2 Cache from 512 back down to 256.



That has nothing to do why P4's are "slow."  It has more to do with the large amount of pipelines, and slower bus speed.  The P4's also do far less IPC then even the older P3.


----------



## Cromewell

The P4 has 1 pipeline, as does every pentium/athlon/celeron/sempron/etc family core, the pipeline has many stages. GPUs have many pipelines.


----------



## 4W4K3

Cromewell said:
			
		

> The P4 has 1 pipeline, as does every pentium/athlon/celeron/sempron/etc family core, the pipeline has many stages. GPUs have many pipelines.



What's the highest count pipes on any single GPU? 16?

Here's a good question. Describe how GPU pipelines operate differently than CPU pipelines. I can't lol...but would like to know.


----------



## Cromewell

> Describe how GPU pipelines operate differently than CPU pipelines.


If you boil it down they are the same, just realize that CPUs are single piped (at this point) and GPUs aren't.

I believe 24 is the most pixel pipes, GPUs have the pixel pipes grouped into 4 for 1 pipeline (this is why they can be unlocked in groups of 4) but for this lets count each as it's own.  Add in the shader units and you've got 32 total pipes


----------



## 4W4K3

oh i was way off. i guess i was thinking AGP *8*X and PCI-E *16*X.


----------



## GhostEye

thats just interface speeds -_-


----------



## Praetor

Ok lets get back on topic about CPUs rather than GPUs


----------



## fatal1ty_fan

why does evey one compare amd and intel i ask you guys and gails to stop this on going argument and have every one agree amd is better


----------



## ghost

*AMD FX 57 or Intel Pentium 4 "LGA775 Prescott" 3.73GHz Extreme Edition*

*AMD FX 57 or Intel Pentium 4 "LGA775 Prescott" 3.73GHz Extreme Edition*

About the same price, both claim to be the business !!

Im not rich enough to own either...
Just want to know what one you  guys/girls would have and why ?

cheers, steve


----------



## Praetor

> why does evey one compare amd and intel i ask you guys and gails to stop this on going argument and have every one agree amd is better


Well fans tend to have arguments and debates ... fanboys tend to be immature, stupid and get banned.



> Im not rich enough to own either...
> Just want to know what one you guys/girls would have and why ?


Depends on what im building the machine for. Each machine is built ground up for a role.


----------



## Cromewell

> i ask you guys and gails to stop this on going argument and have every one agree amd is better


Yeah that's going to happen...  ever try to encode a divx video on an Athlon64? sure it works but its considerably faster on a P4/PD


----------



## tweaker

Cromewell said:
			
		

> ever try to encode a divx video on an Athlon64? sure it works but its considerably faster on a P4/PD


 
It flies on my Barton! 

Not..


----------



## Filip

AMD the best. end of story


----------



## Lorand

filip-matijevic said:
			
		

> AMD the best. end of story





			
				Praetor said:
			
		

> Well fans tend to have arguments and debates ... fanboys tend to be immature, stupid and get banned.


----------



## Advitiya Saxena

What real criteria do u take when choosing a processor, Only microprocessor is not involved. Whole system should give the best performance.

Intel is much more compatible with most of the hardware n softwares. 
I cant really make any difference in performance of an AMD system n Intel system with same config. But i have never invested in an AMD myself yet.


----------



## super_xero

they are both realy the same both eaqual in good and bad point dont really matter what u chose but now its more to do with gpu choice


----------



## Filip

super_xero said:
			
		

> they are both realy the same both eaqual in good and bad point dont really matter what u chose but now its more to do with gpu choice



yeah but intels are better in video encoding decoding and stuff like that, but that doesn't bother me cuz i don't do that stuff   AMD RULEZ


----------



## Apathetic

Whats the difference between Hypertransport and Hyperthreading.  It had no reason with me buying AMD, but Im still curious whats so great about them both.


----------



## Cromewell

they are completely different.  Hyperthreading simulates dual cores, hypertransport is AMDs bus system.


----------



## johnb35

geoff5093 said:
			
		

> i agree, i was a huge intel fan before, but now im an amd fan, i will never buy a celeron every again!  im sticking with semprons and athlon 64's




I would never recommend a Celeron to anyone.  They tend to be slower than say the P3.  A P3 600mhz outran a 1.3 ghz celeron. The celerons are about just like their AMD Duron counterparts.  I build computers on the side for poeple. If money isn't an issue then I recommend the P4, if it is then I recommend the sempron.  The semprom is a good processor for someone just starting out. Nobody has requested a gaming pc yet, I deal with mainly 30-50 yr olds. Myself, will always be a P4 person.  But then again I'm not much into games either.  IMO, neither company is better than the other and both will be around for years to come.  But there comes a time when all this speed won't mean anything except maybe for bussinesses.  I just built a system for myself 2 weeks ago.  P4 3.4 775 1mb cache, 1gb dual channel corsair ram, Asus p5gd1 motherboard. radeon x300se 128 mb pci express, dvd, dvd burner, 120 gb maxtor Sata hard drive, 19 in. AOpen flat screen lcd, with a total cost of about $1250 USD.   With stock cooling fan processor temp is 51 degrees C (a little on the high side I think) and mb temperature is 43 degrees C. This replaces my Dell system with a std P4 of 2.53 ghz which I handed down to my kids.  There will not be a need for me to upgrade any further.  But hey, thats my 2 cents worth.


----------



## tweaker

johnb35 said:
			
		

> I would never recommend a Celeron to anyone. They tend to be slower than say the P3. A P3 600mhz outran a 1.3 ghz celeron.


 
I'm sorry but not a chance.


----------



## jimkiker

My oppinion is..Intel 4ever..


----------



## super_xero

amd all teh way


----------



## Geoff

jimkiker said:
			
		

> My oppinion is..Intel 4ever..



what makes you say that?  thats what i thought before trying out an amd, and the cpu in my sign performs much better at gaming and at 3dmark then my P4 3Ghz w/ht.


----------



## tweaker

The topic of the thread is:

*"Which CPU brand do you choose?"*

Not what is better than the other for this or that.

Keep on topic and respect everyones opinion. We've had to much flamewars around already.


----------



## skidude

I choose AMD because I'm a gamer and they seem to have a better performance with things like games.


----------



## Geoff

tweaker said:
			
		

> The topic of the thread is:
> 
> *"Which CPU brand do you choose?"*
> 
> Not what is better than the other for this or that.
> 
> Keep on topic and respect everyones opinion. We've had to much flamewars around already.



i wasnt saying that intel sucks and that he should get an amd, i was wondering why he thinks intel is the best.


----------



## tweaker

geoff5093 said:
			
		

> i was wondering why he thinks intel is the best.


 
Prolly the same reason you seem to prefer AMD, it's an endless cycle and you know it so why bother stirring things up.


----------



## Geoff

i actually preferred intel over amd... until i actually tried an amd.


----------



## tweaker

geoff5093 said:
			
		

> i actually preferred intel over amd... until i actually tried an amd.


 
Yes we know, and it might have been the opposite way around for him who knows? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Thing is, doesn't matter in the subject.


----------



## Young Nerd (real young)

Im a new member currently only 12 years old. Anyways I chose AMD for sure. I just bought a socket 754 AMD Athlon 64 3700+ and its absolutly awsome!


----------



## 34erd

Hmm I havent tried an AMD yet (gasp), but I'm oredering one soon, and if it lives up to all its promised to be than I will probably like them better than intels.


----------



## robina_80

Amd!!!


----------



## apj101

robina_80 said:
			
		

> Amd!!!


Any reason for that, or are you chasing again


----------



## tweaker

apj101 said:
			
		

> Any reason for that, or are you chasing again


 
Nope just one of the fanboys, go further back in the thread and check, I think he's made 6-7 post in this poll already with the same ignorant rubbish posts...


----------



## Lordmord

I choose AMD , only because I am a gamer.


----------



## Bobo

apj101 said:
			
		

> Any reason for that, or are you chasing again


Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd 
Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd 
Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd 
Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd 
Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd 
Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd 
Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd 
Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd 
Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amdamd Amd Amd 
Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd 

That was the original message posted and I am not making it up...check your email if you have notification enabled.


----------



## super_xero

amd oooo and with the fx57 and x2 4400 its making me drool


----------



## stalex111

i choose amd, also cuz i'm a gamer


----------



## maroon1

i voted for intel because i have intel prossecor , i never used AMD for my whole life.

and for powerpc, i never heard about it, what is powerpc??

i just know that their is intel and AMD prossecors


----------



## Cromewell

> and for powerpc, i never heard about it, what is powerpc??


PowerPC (as mentioned a few times earlier in this thread) is an IBM chip that is (was) used in Macs.


----------



## Jiffyman

*I Posted That*



			
				nomav6 said:
			
		

> I forgot to point out this last time sorry
> 
> 
> Im guessing you read this from the thread about hacking when someone post the link about "is your son a hacker" the stuff that was said on the "is your son a hacker" page was all fake and was just there to make us (computer geeks) laugh at how people sterotype the people that they dont understand, so Im hoping that when you posted the above quote that you was making a joke, and didn't believe anything that was said on that page.



Yea I'm the one who posted that on here along time ago and I would hope you did not take that seriously. 
Anyways I would go with intel cause I've never had a problem with their processors. I've had three or four amds fail, but amd is still good for people who don't want to pay all that extra money for Intel.


----------



## MiniRatFck

i like intel, but mainly b/c im not playing too many games with my computer mostly multi-tasking and web design related things


----------



## Geoff

i wish i had an intel now, i want to get into video editing, but there is *no* way that i can do that with my sempron 2800+   its even oc'd to 2Ghz.


----------



## Bobi-p

I have an Intel and also had the same in my previous CPU, so have no basis for comparison.


----------



## tweaker

geoff5093 said:
			
		

> i wish i had an intel now, i want to get into video editing, but there is *no* way that i can do that with my sempron 2800+  its even oc'd to 2Ghz.


 
Sure you can, get into? Then I assume it's pretty light new beginner stuff.

It's not like you absolutely need an Intel to edit multimedia, or an AMD to run games you know.


----------



## davie23223

About the 512 cache or 256, i still don't understand, what is it?


----------



## maroon1

it is the cash memory, the more cash mem , the faster is ur cpu


for more information u can read this http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=13239


----------



## Lax

> it is the cash memory, the more cash mem , the faster is ur cpu
> 
> 
> for more information u can read this http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=13239



Cache has to do with instructions stored in the CPU (like mentioned in the thread). The speed of the CPU has little to do with how much cache it has. (2.4Ghz celeron is fast, but has a low cache of 128k [architecture not withstanding])


----------



## mdevildog

Lord Kalthorn said:
			
		

> Mac make thje best processors?   Does it not show you something that they are so bad that they have to put in two of their G5 to keep up with Intel and AMD?   Even Via and Transmeta!   When you need to fill an entire case up with processor to equal your competitors you know you're not good!
> 
> Best monitors!   I think not!   The i-Mac looks like a piece of metal on a twig stuck in a pile of i-Poo.   The twig will and does brake, the monitor is no better than a flat screen of equivilant size and price - and a normal one you can move on to another system; an i-Poo Monitor is stuck; although you could just snap it off, it wouldn't work!
> 
> My god man!   Get a grip on yourself!   You show me proof that the G5 is faster, singly, than any competitor, and I will put on a reasonable Avatar!



i preferr amd for desktops only anthlon and intel pentuim for notebooks intel is  a quality cpu but amd is just as good and getting better and cheaper but each cpu has it's good and bads intel is for for some things amd might not be intel is awsome for notebook of the fact that they don't get has heated so that helps notebook even though amd is supposed to get as heated as it does i don't think it's all that great for notebooks


----------



## Bobo

mdevildog said:
			
		

> i preferr amd for desktops only anthlon and intel pentuim for notebooks intel is a quality cpu but amd is just as good and getting better and cheaper but each cpu has it's good and bads intel is for for some things amd might not be intel is awsome for notebook of the fact that they don't get has heated so that helps notebook even though amd is supposed to get as heated as it does i don't think it's all that great for notebooks


Have you ever heard of a period?  I don't mean to be mean (no pun intended) but it makes the post a lot easier to read.


----------



## pc_builder

I'm using AMD and it works just fine.


----------



## Thechefxxxv

*Amd*

I love the PowerPC processors. THey are nice, but Apple is switching to Intel. I love AMD for PCs


----------



## Ambushed

Amd are the best right now so i will go for them, aswell as i got one to.


----------



## 4W4K3

I jsut got an AMD Athlon 1700+ (DUT3C stepping) out of a trashed PC lol. Will have to see how well she overclocks


----------



## maroon1

some people voted for others, well is there other processors different from AMD, intel and powerpc???


----------



## 4W4K3

maroon1 said:
			
		

> some people voted for others, well is there other processors different from AMD, intel and powerpc???



For the home user, I would argue AMD and Intel are the only affordable/realistic brands for the home user. There are more than those 2 in the world, but even PowerPC is very rarely seen in someone's bedroom.


----------



## Super_Nova

VIA makes a line of processors but they are mostly used on their Mini-ITX motherboards. 

Oh how I'd love a Mini-ITX motherboard with an Nforce4 chipset and a socket for athlon64's 

I'm an AMD guy all the way.


----------



## helmie

I like intel for stabilty and reputation.


----------



## Geoff

cptnwinky said:
			
		

> AMD are just faster chips. The P4 is too slow because of the large L2 Cache. Since AMD hasnt brokent he 256 mark they are alot faster. I think Intel has learned from their mistake though and brought the L2 Cache from 512 back down to 256.





I love looking back on posts made in 2003


----------



## tweaker

Well AMD's has never actually been faster, just more efficient. 

Heh my chip packs 2MB no wonder it crawls...


----------



## 4W4K3

tweaker said:
			
		

> Heh my chip packs 2MB no wonder it crawls...



My 512KB L2 cache pwnz u!!!


----------



## icemanjc

I have both Power PC by IBM and intel since apple's recent switch from IBM to Intel, because IBM could not Keep  up with todays speed


----------



## super_xero

ye amd have been veery eficiant that is till intel release there 62nm proccess cpu and then intel might become more efficiant


----------



## mfquarles

In reply to Maroon1, there are still a few old Cyrix chips on the market. While I do not necessarily favor one brand over the other, I wrote a little book called "Building a PC for Beginners", and in it I used an AMD Sempron. My main reason was the price. The Sempron was dirt cheap, in addition to being very reliable, giving the first time builder good value all the way around. At http://www.monkeyseemonkeydobooks.com/index.html there is a sample showing the Sempron being installed.


----------



## Lax

For 14.95 you can have that book or for free you can have this website.


----------



## apj101

Lord AnthraX said:
			
		

> For 14.95 you can have that book or for free you can have this website.


Ians giving the website away for free???? 
Never saw that coming


----------



## Motoxrdude

AMD all the way, way faster and runs cooler


----------



## 4W4K3

Motoxrdude said:
			
		

> AMD all the way, way faster and runs cooler





Not always faster, definetly not always cooler.


----------



## super_xero

intels older models are actually verry cool my old p4 1.6 ran at 26 degrees celcius


----------



## kof2000

i got one of each, also still have a cyrix cpu laying around here somewhere XD


----------



## fade2green514

wtf are you talking about.. larger cache=faster performance. and AMD chips use 1mb (as well as 512kb) L2's now, and also have larger L1's than P4 chips. (64kb+64kb vs 12kb+16kb)
this article explains everything. not only does the X2 4800+ perform better, but it costs less and uses less power as well. AMD RULES!
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-11.html


----------



## andy5667

I have to choose intel. All my past and present pcs have been intel and i have never had any bother wat so ever!


----------



## Motoxrdude

I would have to say definitly AMD. I mean intel gets the job done but its sluggish. My sisters computer has a Intel P4 3Ghz processor and it feels slow compared to my 2300+. We have the same Ram, hard drive, and video card. Out of the box it still felt slow. Its very odd because i know that 3ghz processor would kick the crap out of my 2300+ any day but the 2300+ still feels faster


----------



## Geoff

Motoxrdude said:
			
		

> I would have to say definitly AMD. I mean intel gets the job done but its sluggish. My sisters computer has a Intel P4 3Ghz processor and it feels slow compared to my 2300+. We have the same Ram, hard drive, and video card. Out of the box it still felt slow. Its very odd because i know that 3ghz processor would kick the crap out of my 2300+ any day but the 2300+ still feels faster


Do you mean at games or just during normal use?  If its gaming then i feel the same way, i used to have a P4 3Ghz and then i needed to sell it and i bought a Sempron 2800+ and it works much better at games.


----------



## Motoxrdude

Yea games totaly, also with normal use to, when i open up all my programs at once the 3ghz computer slows way down and takes it forever to "unbottle neck" will my 2300+ can start them all without bottlenecking


----------



## kof2000

p4 got 2mb cache now


----------



## 4W4K3

Chances are your sister doesn't "maintain" her computer like you do. No amount of fancy/fast hardware can live up to it's name if the end user is bombarding the computer with all kinds of crap. We all know how slow a computer is when it's just not "kept clean" of malware and jsut general clutter, even a high-powered computer.

AMD's also have 2MB L2 cache (not all mind you, but select few). Not to mention AMD's L1 cache is also larger for the most part.


----------



## Motoxrdude

Yea that is definitly true, which reminds me i have to reformat her computer, lol, she got a virus and now she cant visit her websites and shes kinda ticked, girls sometimes....


----------



## shaidi

Seeing this forum made me change my mind on AMD. I will give it a try and buy one tomorrow and see how it works. Been using Intel for the past 6yrs now. So lets see how it goes.

Thanks for the info


----------



## Cromewell

> wtf are you talking about.. larger cache=faster performance.


It does, but at the same time it hurts performance.  There's more cache to look through so it takes longer for it to figure out it has to go out and bring data to cache.  A big cache (ie 2MB) really only shines when you are doing 3D modeling.


> not only does the X2 4800+ perform better, but it costs less


wtf are you talking about? Yes the X2 performs better but an X2 4800($787-$1018) is way more expensive than a Pentium D 840 ($525-$689)


----------



## robsuz

It was interesting to see that AMD had many more votes than Intel.

I actually started off with AMD and really liked them, but somewhere in mid stream I switched.  At work I have a P4 3G Intel socket 478, at home, I have a Celeron 2.6G overclocked to 3.1G socket 478.

Even without it being overclocked I still think my home PC is faster than my work PC.


----------



## Lax

> I actually started off with AMD and really liked them, but somewhere in mid stream I switched.  At work I have a P4 3G Intel socket 478, at home, I have a Celeron 2.6G overclocked to 3.1G socket 478.
> 
> Even without it being overclocked I still think my home PC is faster than my work PC.


Faster in speed maybe, but definately not performance.


----------



## robsuz

Perhaps Lord A, but I don't have that experience.  I was thinking next go around I would switch and try AMD.  I've been reading a fair amount of good press.  

I'm not really into gaming, but rather using my PC for digital photo software editing, surfing the net and some word processing.  Intel seems to do just fine with these simple tasks.  But still I would be open to trying the AMD.  And one never knows, I might like it better.


----------



## currentcomputert

I voted for Intel but I do love AMD.  I think the AMD Sepron Prossesor is the only one that I had problems with.


----------



## Praetor

> Intel is much more compatible with most of the hardware n softwares.


Possibly (although i doubt it) but regardless, even if, it would be by an imperceptable margin



> they are both realy the same both eaqual in good and bad point dont really matter what u chose but now its more to do with gpu choice


Not to be uncreative and emulate Crommy but... have you ever encoded XviD on an Intel box?



> yeah but intels are better in video encoding decoding and stuff like that, but that doesn't bother me cuz i don't do that stuff


Too bad you also dont know what you're talking about. Unfortunate since you had so much potential for non-ignorance. (if im being too subtle consider my previous comment). But at least you're honest with the ignorance



> Whats the difference between Hypertransport and Hyperthreading. It had no reason with me buying AMD, but Im still curious whats so great about them both.


Read *here* about hypertransports read *here* about hyperthreading. Alternatively see *CPU101*



> what makes you say that? thats what i thought before trying out an amd, and the cpu in my sign performs much better at gaming and at 3dmark then my P4 3Ghz w/ht.


I dunno, it might be a im-not-a-teenager thing but since when does 3dmark matter?





> Any reason for that, or are you chasing again


Looks like it's just a way to keep the account alive? I might have to do something about that 



> and for powerpc, i never heard about it, what is powerpc??


*Gooooooooooogle*



> i wish i had an intel now, i want to get into video editing, but there is no way that i can do that with my sempron 2800+  its even oc'd to 2Ghz.


LOL sure you can my TBred could handle it so yer Sempy can no sweat



> I have an Intel and also had the same in my previous CPU, so have no basis for comparison.


Hehe thats one of the most well educated posts in this entire thread. Mondo respect 



> About the 512 cache or 256, i still don't understand, what is it?


*CPU 101*.



> some people voted for others, well is there other processors different from AMD, intel and powerpc???


Motorola was a big one, Texas Insturments, Cyrix



> VIA makes a line of processors but they are mostly used on their Mini-ITX motherboards.


oooh i missed one 



> I love looking back on posts made in 2003


Should we dig out yours? Believe it or not, there's a catalog.....



> ye amd have been veery eficiant that is till intel release there 62nm proccess cpu and then intel might become more efficiant


Ever hear of the PentiumIII?



> Ians giving the website away for free????


hehe you have to qiualify to buy it ... terms to be decided 



> AMD all the way, way faster and runs cooler


Last time I checked, they werent faster 



> wtf are you talking about.. larger cache=faster performance


Yes of course, consider the Prescott with 1MB of cache ... now lets consider the Prescott2M with, you guessed it, 2MB of cache ... now lets do some PiFast using say, 8K FFTs (i.e., all inside L2) and you'll see who wins (the important piece of information you're missing is that the L2 for the Prescott2M is 17% slower than that for the Prescott)



> and AMD chips use 1mb (as well as 512kb) L2's now, and also have larger L1's than P4 chips. (64kb+64kb vs 12kb+16kb)


How do you compare the differences between inclusive and exclusive caching algorithms? (because, of course, you know that Intel uses one approach and AMD the other and that they cant be directly compared)



> No amount of fancy/fast hardware can live up to it's name if the end user is bombarding the computer with all kinds of crap.


Ever so true



> A big cache (ie 2MB) really only shines when you are doing 3D modeling.


Hmm how about a masssive SQL transaction load? Would that be benificial or detrimental?


----------



## Geoff

A few days ago i had my windows open in my room and it was around 45F, so i turn my computer on and a few minutes after it was in windows these were my temps:


----------



## Charles_Lee

zkiller said:
			
		

> i preffer AMD. and no, they are not the first to go 64 bit. apple/mac beat them to it.



i preffer amd also, just because i hear most of people saying "amd is good for gaming"


but wow!, I didn't know that apple/mac is the first company to develop 64bit.

thanks for the information.


----------



## fade2green514

intel = faster bus speed, amd = faster chip. thats pretty much how i see it and even though it isnt exact (because cache sizes and such need to be taken into account) thats what i go by when i buy my processor. i think that the tables may turn in the next year or so though, YONAH may take over the markettt... intel might turn the tableeess! finally, some pentium 3 architecture back into the picture. what in the world were they waiting for?? lol..


----------



## Bobo

Look here for a great comparison between Intel and AMD dualcore processors


----------



## i.Angel

Intel for now... I don't know if I want to switch to AMD for gaming though. My friend's PC is pretty fast and he only has a 3200+ and an X800... _are_ AMD's that much faster?


----------



## P11

Put simply......YES


----------



## i.Angel

Well... after reading this review I'm questioning Intel's performance. After reading that I also questioned if I should take my old 2.66 out of my computer and burn it 

However, will Intel pull out some better CPU's when AMD brings our it's socket 940's? Right now I am seriously thinking of never even looking at a computer with an Intel CPU ... including mine


----------



## P11

Dont consider Intel to be soo bad....AMD and Intel have pretty much the same performance doing normal things, such as, web browsing, writing word documnts, wrtiting emails, using IM, or somthing like that. Youll only see a huge leap in performance when using AMD processors for gaming/video or multimedia editing/burning cds/multitasking/etc. but MAINLY gaming.


----------



## Hawk16

geoff5093 said:
			
		

> A few days ago i had my windows open in my room and it was around 45F, so i turn my computer on and a few minutes after it was in windows these were my temps:



i know this is offtopic but what theme program and what theme do you use? cause that looks sexy


----------



## joebob764

I have had Intel processors in the past, but for my new build (built 2-3 weeks ago), I decided to go AMD. I went dual core, and in that arena, the competition was not even close. Yes, Intel had a greater range of price points, but each AMD processor was able to out-perform each and every Intel equal, and usually one or two steps above it (there was a "ring match" on CNET recently).


----------



## i.Angel

Ya I just read it and I was baffled by it.


----------



## Geoff

Hawk16 said:
			
		

> i know this is offtopic but what theme program and what theme do you use? cause that looks sexy


It was a theme that came with WindowBlinds.


----------



## Ambushed

I would rather perfer amd


----------



## redrider773

Just moved from Intel 3.0Ghz Prescott, which was nearly un-overclockable, to my new 4000+ running at 2.7 easily idling at 30*. I couldn't be happier with the improvment. AMD OWNS!


----------



## 4W4K3

Prescott wouldn't overclock? What was the problem? I would most definetly look at the mobo or RAM holding you back, I thought prescott's (aside from heat) were good overclockers.


----------



## Geoff

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> Prescott wouldn't overclock? What was the problem? I would most definetly look at the mobo or RAM holding you back, I thought prescott's (aside from heat) were good overclockers.


My old prescott was a pretty good overclock, i cant remember that well but i think i got it to either 3.3 or 3.4 from 3.0Ghz.


----------



## redrider773

I had a silenttower on it, same one I have on this 4000+, and I got it to 3.2 once, and it idled at about 50*


----------



## Geoff

Semprons can overclock very well, right now my Sempron 2800+ 1.6Ghz is o'cd to 2.1Ghz and is still going strong, i'll update when i reach a higer OC.


----------



## Charles_Lee

geoff5093 said:
			
		

> Semprons can overclock very well, right now my Sempron 2800+ 1.6Ghz is o'cd to 2.1Ghz and is still going strong, i'll update when i reach a higer OC.



well, my sempron i think 2900+ 2.04Ghz non- overclocked one is like shit,...


----------



## Geoff

Charles_Lee said:
			
		

> well, my sempron i think 2900+ 2.04Ghz non- overclocked one is like shit,...


I find semprons to be very good, especially for there price.  Compared to the Celerons, there a hell of alot better.


----------



## P11

Charles_Lee said:
			
		

> well, my sempron i think 2900+ 2.04Ghz non- overclocked one is like shit,...


You havent even tried to overclock it yet, do it and then let us know how far you can get it.


----------



## Charles_Lee

i will soon try overclocking it just like you said, and before i buy an opteron processor.


----------



## rajkumar

I am with AMD. Choice is simple when you consider cost vs performance


----------



## Computer Man5

im with amd. there technology especially for gaming is beyond intel and their crappy pentiums. my friend has a sempron 2800+ and it ruins my celeron D 3.0ghz and my other friends P4HT. i love amd and i will always go with them.


----------



## dean.hill1

how do you guys find out the clock speed that your CPU's are working at?


----------



## jancz3rt

*Cpu-z*

CPU-Z tells it all 

http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

JAN


----------



## Charles_Lee

dean.hill1 said:
			
		

> how do you guys find out the clock speed that your CPU's are working at?



don't you right click "my computer" and go to system?
and i think there is your clock speed,
i am sorry i can't give you exact information, cuz i am at school computer. lol


----------



## Bobo

Charles_Lee said:
			
		

> don't you right click "my computer" and go to system?
> and i think there is your clock speed,
> i am sorry i can't give you exact information, cuz i am at school computer. lol



control panel-->system  it should be there on the first tab under the "computer" heading


----------



## redrider773

Charles_Lee said:
			
		

> don't you right click "my computer" and go to system?
> and i think there is your clock speed,
> i am sorry i can't give you exact information, cuz i am at school computer. lol



Also in the POST report.


----------



## tomcatuk

AMD all the way on my home machine....Intel at work though. It's harder to buy branded systems with AMD chips in them.


----------



## Antiodontalgic

*Amd*

I'm AMD fan myself. They seem alot more stable to me. I've had intels all the time till my new computer I build. I was a little hesitent when it came to AMD. but, it worked out great. I haven't had any problems with my AMD. Only thing I can honestly say about AMD is that they produce ALOT of heat compared to Intel...


----------



## Bobo

Antiodontalgic said:
			
		

> Only thing I can honestly say about AMD is that they produce ALOT of heat compared to Intel...


What chips are you comparing here?  Cause AFAIK, the P4 Presscott and Pentium D are the biggest heat-makers


----------



## Praetor

> They seem alot more stable to me


For the most part, CPUs are stable period.



> the P4 Presscott and Pentium D are the biggest heat-makers


1. PentiumD doesnt make that much heat. Quite the contrary in fact
2. Dont forget the AthlonXP.


----------



## Bobo

Praetor said:
			
		

> 2. Dont forget the AthlonXP.


I wasn't factoring it in because AMD doesn't make it anymore



			
				http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pd900&page=1&cookie%5Ftest=1 said:
			
		

> Despite being more or less shunned by the enthusiast community for poor performance per clock and high power consumption and heat production levels, the Intel Pentium-D processor has still continued to sell quite well.



Why do you say that they don't produce much heat?


----------



## 4W4K3

The PentiumD 820 runs 95W, seems like they'd be hot to me as well.

Although, I did read that in laptops the PentiumD is good because it's not as hot as alot of A64 based notebooks. Seems like alot of confusion.


----------



## Bobo

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> Although, I did read that in laptops the PentiumD is good because it's not as hot as alot of A64 based notebooks. Seems like alot of confusion.


Is that a mobile Pentium D (is there such a thing) and/or a mobile A64?


----------



## 4W4K3

I don't think there are mobile PentiumD's, Google has nothing.

I know AMD has a mobile A64, i think they are called "DTR" CPU's, only can be used in laptop mobo's so far.


----------



## Bobo

Well I don't know why the AMD would be hotter than Intel.  For anybody considering getting an AMD laptop, though, I would definitely go with the Turion, not the A64.

But as to the temps, I have heard that the AthlonXPs run hot, but my A64 3400+ (desktop) never goes above 50*C


----------



## 4W4K3

Mobile AthlonXP's are quite cool. Older XP's however got pretty hot.


----------



## Geoff

Thought i would bring this up here...

I went at oc'in my cpu again this morning, and i got it up from 2.0Ghz to 2.6Ghz on stock cooling! (and yes i mean stock, that air intake isnt on anymore).  I had to lower the HTT to 3x, and the memory to 133Mhz, and raise the cpu voltage to 1.475.  I ran 3DMark06 as well as a few other cpu benchmarking tests as well.


----------



## Dr Studly

i have never owned a pentium 4 or an amd.  but judging by what i have heard an read, i would go for an AMD

i have a Intel P3 866mhz 100mhz FSB and it is slow... but it seems is faster than my brothers celeron at like 2ghz and faster than my sisters P4 at 1.4ghz.
so if i build my next pc i am gona get a amd. but if i had tons of money and could get ANY processor i would get this intel over any amd
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116246
^^i want that bad boy


----------



## Dr Studly

my FSB is 133mhz and in my signature says i use my pc for music, but if i had a good one it would b 4 gaming


----------



## Christian Darrall

*My personal Opinion*

All computer machanics and people who work around computer knnow windows is shit on crap computers.


so if i was u scrap that cpu and get the new but excellent amd sempron 64bit edition with a Nvidia geforce 4 mx400 graphics card and also increase HD size (optional) and also the ram these things make a huge difference

buying part individually is alot cheaper in the longrun TRUST ME!!!

youll have a gaming pc in no time with low costs

also a gd tip is find these thing youre looking 4 and dont buy it straight away spend a bit of time shopping around it works.

technically i bought a full on gaming pc with high tech graphics, cpu, ram and sound for under £80

whoops wrong link soz peple


----------



## tweaker

Christian Darrall said:
			
		

> if i was u scrap that cpu and get the new but excellent amd sempron 64bit edition with a Nvidia geforce 4 mx400 graphics card and also increase HD size (optional) and also the ram these things make a huge difference
> 
> youll have a gaming pc in no time with low costs


 
Except it won't run games.


----------



## Christian Darrall

*hello*

y not


----------



## ceewi1

Encore4More said:
			
		

> but if i had tons of money and could get ANY processor i would get this intel over any amd
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116246
> ^^i want that bad boy


The AMD FX-60 will outperform that in most tasks, particularly gaming.  And if I could get ANY processor, you can do a lot better than that.  I'm thinking of Praetor's $15k config a few weeks ago (OK, that's not exactly one processor, but a great system).



> Except it won't run games.


Depends on what games he wants to play.  Obviously FEAR or Quake 4 are out of the question, but it would play some older games.  I'd get a better video card anyway, though.



> so if i was u scrap that cpu and get the new but excellent amd sempron 64bit edition with a Nvidia geforce 4 mx400 graphics card and also increase HD size (optional) and also the ram these things make a huge difference


a Sempron will require a new mobo, and probably a new PSU, so with a new mobo, CPU, RAM, Video Card & PSU it's really a whole new computer.  This is probably what you were intending, but it's not really an upgrade.  Also, I wouldn't put an MX400 in any gaming machine (it would be rivalled by integrated video).


----------



## tweaker

A bit off topic but I hope he meant Geforce MX 4000 or Geforce 4 MX 420/440/460. Theres no Geforce 4 MX 400.

None of the above can be considered gaming cards anyway.


----------



## Christian Darrall

at the moment i have a p3 800 mhz mb i board a new cpu and a new 1gb ram

i can play quake 4 with this graphics card and even doom3, but its just very slow and very jolty, as in i move the mouse then about 3 mins later it will refresh to what i was did 3 mins b4.

doom3 i can play at very low graphics but i want it on high graphics detail

can sum 1 state a way of fixing this

oh and soz it was a mx 440

also would this cpu be any good for gaming

and cuz what u guy r saying u starting to worry me cuz i spent this money on all of stuff and i wanna know how good its going 2 b

so out of 100%, 100 being absolutly wicked

well wat is a decent gaming card


----------



## Geoff

Encore4More said:
			
		

> i have a Intel P3 866mhz 100mhz FSB and it is slow... but it seems is faster than my brothers celeron at like 2ghz and faster than my sisters P4 at 1.4ghz.
> so if i build my next pc i am gona get a amd. but if i had tons of money and could get ANY processor i would get this intel over any amd
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116246
> ^^i want that bad boy



the AMD X2 4800+ beats it in alot of tests still.


----------



## Christian Darrall

yea but is it a good processor to have tho (amd sempron 3000 64 bit)

can u plaz answer these questions im really frustrated

at the moment i have a p3 800 mhz mb i board a new cpu and a new 1gb ram

i can play quake 4 with this graphics card and even doom3, but its just very slow and very jolty, as in i move the mouse then about 3 mins later it will refresh to what i was did 3 mins b4.

doom3 i can play at very low graphics but i want it on high graphics detail

can sum 1 state a way of fixing this

oh and soz it was a mx 440

also would this cpu be any good for gaming

and cuz what u guy r saying u starting to worry me cuz i spent this money on all of stuff and i wanna know how good its going 2 b

so out of 100%, 100 being absolutly wicked

well wat is a decent gaming card


----------



## Dr Studly

Christian Darrall said:
			
		

> All computer machanics and people who work around computer knnow windows is shit on crap computers.
> 
> 
> so if i was u scrap that cpu and get the new but excellent amd sempron 64bit edition with a Nvidia geforce 4 mx400 graphics card and also increase HD size (optional) and also the ram these things make a huge difference
> 
> buying part individually is alot cheaper in the longrun TRUST ME!!!
> 
> youll have a gaming pc in no time with low costs
> 
> also a gd tip is find these thing youre looking 4 and dont buy it straight away spend a bit of time shopping around it works.
> 
> technically i bought a full on gaming pc with high tech graphics, cpu, ram and sound for under £80
> 
> whoops wrong link soz peple



um... i am broke... lol
but if i did make a pc i would use a athlon not a sempron


----------



## super_xero

amd athlon all the way


----------



## 34erd

> i have a Intel P3 866mhz 100mhz FSB and it is slow... but it seems is faster than my brothers celeron at like 2ghz and faster than my sisters P4 at 1.4ghz.
> so if i build my next pc i am gona get a amd. but if i had tons of money and could get ANY processor i would get this intel over any amd
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116246
> ^^i want that bad boy


Thats not too suprising, the early P4s were being beaten by P3s.  The P3s architecture is really similar clock for clock to the the A64.

AM2 has been pushed back to the conroe release date, this should be a really interesting 2nd Q.

Conroe is gonna beat the crap out of AM2 if you ask me, the base clock speed is 2.66 Ghz, thats like Yonah at that speed.  I heard somewhere it should be going up to 3.33 Ghz which is gonna be like hell.


----------



## Dr Studly

34erd said:
			
		

> Thats not too suprising, the early P4s were being beaten by P3s.  The P3s architecture is really similar clock for clock to the the A64.




then why didn't they keep going the direction they were going with the Pentium 3? y didn't they keep the early pentium 4s simalare to to p3 and build on that?


----------



## Dr Studly

oh an btw everyone i voted for AMD cus uh... i amgetting AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2GHz w/ 1GHz FSB and i hear it is pretty good?


----------



## Bobo

@Encore
Dude, do you really need so many smilies in your sig? 


Oh, and i voted for AMD of course (a long time ago) because AMD rocks


----------



## Dr Studly

Bobo said:
			
		

> @Encore
> Dude, do you really need so many smilies in your sig? /QUOTE]
> 
> lol, smileys rock...   but u do have a point... i'll take a few out...
> 
> btw i voted 4 amd a while ago also... cus it rocks also


----------



## Bobo

Encore4More said:
			
		

> Bobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Encore
> Dude, do you really need so many smilies in your sig?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, smileys rock...   but u do have a point... i'll take a few out...
> 
> btw i voted 4 amd a while ago also... cus it rocks also
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, that is much better


----------



## blubaustin

*Amd!*

AMD because AMD rules!
This is why intel is bad:
1.Overpriced
2.Overheats
3.Bad overclocking enless you have liquid nitogen coolingwww.tomshardware.com/2003/12/30/5_ghz_project/
4.They're processors are also slower

This is why amd rocks!:
1.Excellent overcocking
2.Not to overpriced
3.No overheating problems usually
4.And they're the best for gaming.


----------



## Dr Studly

blubaustin said:
			
		

> AMD because AMD rules!
> This is why intel is bad:
> 1.Overpriced
> 2.Overheats
> 3.Bad overclocking enless you have liquid nitogen coolingwww.tomshardware.com/2003/12/30/5_ghz_project/
> 4.They're processors are also slower
> 
> This is why amd rocks!:
> 1.Excellent overcocking
> 2.Not to overpriced
> 3.No overheating problems usually
> 4.And they're the best for gaming.




yea


----------



## spadesuperc

*Overclocking*

Can any1 give me a link to a software that can be used to overclock my dell pc??


----------



## Geoff

spadesuperc said:
			
		

> Can any1 give me a link to a software that can be used to overclock my dell pc??


I havent found any software that supports dell motherboard yet, but perhaps if you google it you can find out.


----------



## spadesuperc

*Overclocking*

ok omega ill give it a try...


----------



## 34erd

**Fanboy Alert* *Fanboy Alert* *



> AMD because AMD rules!
> This is why intel is bad:





> 1.Overpriced


Not really...  They can dish out new technologys cheaply, for instance if you want dual core but cant spend $320 on an X2 3800+ the Pentium D 920 is your best bet.



> 2.Overheats


Where the **** is everyone getting this idea?  Only the S478 pressy oveheated.  The curent generation 65 nm fab runs even cooler.  Sure they run hotter then AMD, but its not "overheating"



> 3.Bad overclocking enless you have liquid nitogen coolingwww.tomshardware.com/2003/12/30/5_ghz_project/


0.o
Did you look at the date on that article? 



> 4.They're processors are also slower


Even technicly speaking your wrong about that.  Speed means Ghz and Intels are faster in that respect


----------



## 4W4K3

blubaustin said:
			
		

> AMD because AMD rules!
> This is why intel is bad:
> 1.Overpriced
> 2.Overheats
> 3.Bad overclocking enless you have liquid nitogen coolingwww.tomshardware.com/2003/12/30/5_ghz_project/
> 4.They're processors are also slower
> 
> This is why amd rocks!:
> 1.Excellent overcocking
> 2.Not to overpriced
> 3.No overheating problems usually
> 4.And they're the best for gaming.



i'd love to make another rebuttal as well.

Not overpriced, they make processors in all price ranges. Find me an AMD processor you want and I'll find you an Intel processor that is cheaper/same price.

Proper cooling can stop overheating. If you can't stop overheating, you have no business running a computer. Harsh, but true.

"bad" overclocking? Many Intel cores can overclock 500-1GHz+ right out of the box, on air. Try that on an AMD, far fewer AMD chips can do this.

Slower? In what respect? In the "GHz" battle they win hands down. They are very efficient in multi-tasking and great in high traffic environments. They also can compete comparably in gaming.

AMD rebuttal:

i dunno about "overcocking" but AMD's are known for there "smaller" overclocking potential. An Intel in pure numbers can be pushed 1-2GHz from stock speeds, not so with AMD. You're lucky to get a 1GHz overclock on most AMD's, and that is with superior cooling.

Some AMD chips are $1000+, and cheaper Intel's can give them a run for their money. So again, no.

LOL! No overheating from an AMD. You my friend have never dealt with the Palomino core, or a Thoroughbred. Even the desktop Barton's weren't too cool. I can overheat any AMD chip, and any Intel chip just as easily. 

How so? There is no "best" in compuiter hardware. If there was, there would be a monopoly and no competition. There is HARSH competition, and MANY options...therefore there is no "best".

disclaimer: I'm a hardcore AMD fan, never purchased Intel before. But that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the other brand's strength's and similarities with the brand I prefer.


----------



## Dr Studly

34erd said:
			
		

> Speed means Ghz and Intels are faster in that respect



a 2.2GHz AMD Athlon 64 runs better than a Pentium 4 3GHz... so imagine a AMD Athlon 64 at 3GHz


----------



## andy5667

Do you have the facts to prove that? Because i have the facts to say that a 1.6 GHz athlon +2000 isnt faster that a 1.7GHz Pentium 4.


----------



## Seth

I love AMD, 1)Their processors i find perform better (expecialy in gaming) and 2)They are cheaper...


----------



## Mankz_91

AMD- All of my houses rigs and laptops (6 of them!) are all AMD!

I love my X2 4400+ (i got pretty much when it came out !)

And the fact that ive now got Dual Dual Core Opterons and SLI !-

Let the Intel Kicking commence !

Mankz


----------



## sniperchang

Ya I'd have to say AMD, I had an intel before, and now a AMD. So much better. AMD kick ASS! I'm not surprised that on the poll so far AMD is winning! The only thing about AMD is that they aren't cheap. But there's some of the less powerfull AMDs that are cheaper but still better than Intel for the same price. GO AMD!


----------



## Geoff

Encore4More said:
			
		

> a 2.2GHz AMD Athlon 64 runs better than a Pentium 4 3GHz... so imagine a AMD Athlon 64 at 3GHz


sigh...

If you took those 2 and ran PCMark, the P4 would easily win.  And a Pentium 4 isnt as bad at gaming as it used to be, since some games are multithreaded the Hyper Threading takes advantage of that.


----------



## Mankz_91

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> sigh...
> 
> If you took those 2 and ran PCMark, the P4 would easily win.  And a Pentium 4 isnt as bad at gaming as it used to be, since some games are multithreaded the Hyper Threading takes advantage of that.



If so, why do you use AMD ?

Mankz


----------



## Dr Studly

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> sigh...
> 
> If you took those 2 and ran PCMark, the P4 would easily win.  And a Pentium 4 isnt as bad at gaming as it used to be, since some games are multithreaded the Hyper Threading takes advantage of that.


y do i read about how many people say that AMDs seem way faster than Intel?
and how come the Athlon X2 4200+ 2.2GHz outruns the Pentium D at 3GHz (both dual core) in every single test? not just gaming even multi tasking which intel is usually stronger in


----------



## MasterEVC

AMD, the only CPU for gamers.

My last Intel CPU was a P3 600e that ran @ 800MHz no problem.


----------



## Seth

Plus another reason AMD are so much better is thay run WAY cooler!!! The P4 EE runs wya hotter than the Althon X2 4400+!!


----------



## tweaker

MasterEVC said:
			
		

> AMD, the only CPU for gamers..


 
To be honest, Intel has the best performing chip for gaming.

The PM has been spankin' A64's for quite some time now.


----------



## MasterEVC

I wouldnt say that, considering it has to be ~1GHz higher in clock speed to perform better, which to me is pretty sad. Id be embarassed if a 2.6GHz CPU was outperforming my 3.6GHz cpu (im just giving rough numbers here not actual numbers)

Compare a 3GHz A64 to a 3GHz P4 and which would perform better?


----------



## Seth

I know its retorical question but the Athlon 64!!! (DUH!)


----------



## tweaker

MasterEVC said:
			
		

> I wouldnt say that, considering it has to be ~1GHz higher in clock speed to perform better, which to me is pretty sad.


 
Hehe the Pentium-M chip range is 1.6 to 2.26GHz.


----------



## MasterEVC

The Pentium M is Intels best CPU. Its funny how Intel used to say how higher MHz = better CPU, now their slower CPU's are beating their faster ones, kinda funny how they changed their views after that


----------



## LITHIUM

AMD rules all


----------



## Charles_Lee

there is no question about that, amd are much more demanding these days


----------



## Praetor

> but if i had tons of money and could get ANY processor i would get this intel over any amd


Hmmm a 8-way Xeon box sounds entertaining ... anything after 8-way, management becomes a bit of a pain....



> Theres no Geforce 4 MX 400.


Prolly a typo for 4000



> can sum 1 state a way of fixing this


Make a new thread and we'll deal with it.



> the AMD X2 4800+ beats it in alot of tests still.


Yes but have you tried doing 8-thread scene rendering? 



> can u plaz answer these questions im really frustrated


Sure, just stop hijacking this thread and make another



> The P3s architecture is really similar clock for clock to the the A64.


1. The Athlon64 came after so if anything, the A64's architecture is similar to the P3's
2. The Athlon64's architecture is damn near nothing like the P3's. Which is why, the PentiumM, in non-memory-access-constrained, non-FP operations and  non-SMT, will blow the crap out of a Athlon64.



> then why didn't they keep going the direction they were going with the Pentium 3? y didn't they keep the early pentium 4s simalare to to p3 and build on that?


Because people are obsesssed with clockspeed 



> oh an btw everyone i voted for AMD cus uh... i amgetting AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2GHz w/ 1GHz FSB and i hear it is pretty good?


Your reason for choosing AMD is a question?  (btw your X2 doesnt have a FSB)



> AMD because AMD rules!
> This is why intel is bad:
> 1.Overpriced
> 2.Overheats
> 3.Bad overclocking enless you have liquid nitogen coolingwww.tomshardware.com/2003/12/30/5_ghz_project/ <http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/12/30/5_ghz_project/>
> 4.They're processors are also slower
> 
> This is why amd rocks!:
> 1.Excellent overcocking
> 2.Not to overpriced
> 3.No overheating problems usually
> 4.And they're the best for gaming





Nice to see people who really know what they're talking about make comments.



> yea


Points for jumping on the bandwagon. But let's address thos flawed points one at a time:
- Last time i checked, similarly classed Intel procs are cheaper than their AMD counterparts
- As for overheating, have you ever heard of a AthlonXP?
- Hmm bad overclocking .... while 1GHz OC is a hell of a overclock on a Athlon box, it's not nearly as impressive on the Intel side on say, a Pressy
- Last time I checked, Intel chips are actually faster. Please refer to intel and AMD websites respectively to confirm for me ... cuz you know... i might be wrong... considering i didnt actually check and just know this information
- AMD boxes do overclock well ...but "well" and "excellent" are subjectvie and qualitative statements. AMD boxes do better on the relative overclocks while intel boxes do better on the absolute overclocks. This has nothign to do with the architecture or overclocking but just because, since AMD boxes are slower to start with, each Mhz gained gives a higher relative gain. Now as for overclocking, AMD boxes are far more impressive yes ... but also much more of a financial hassle as one needs to fork out good money for RAM ... something that doesnt need to be done nearly as much as Intel people
- As for overheating, I'll refer again to the Athlon and AthlonXP
- You've obviously not seen a PentiumM 780 make short work of a FX-57



> Can any1 give me a link to a software that can be used to overclock my dell pc??


1. No thread hijacking
2. Read stickies. *OC 101* 



> a 2.2GHz AMD Athlon 64 runs better than a Pentium 4 3GHz... so imagine a AMD Athlon 64 at 3GHz


- You've provided an example of ONE specific chip beating one specific chip.
- As for imagining AMD Athlon64 at 3GHz, you dont have to.... _you_ wont ever get that clock speed.



> Because i have the facts to say that a 1.6 GHz athlon +2000 isnt faster that a 1.7GHz Pentium 4.


Well its not hard to say its faster, 1.7Ghz is a higher clockspeed than 1.6Ghz. Period. 



> I love AMD, 1)Their processors i find perform better (expecialy in gaming) and 2)They are cheaper...


First point is valid as it's an opinion; as for the second point: have a look at the pricing again 



> I'm not surprised that on the poll so far AMD is winning!


Yes because we know the poll is filled out by people that are so well versed in computer technology and all 



> If so, why do you use AMD ?


Just because one uses AMD doesnt neccesarily mean AMD is better. Lots of people seem to have lost the ability to read it seems. The title of this thread is "what CPU brand do you choose?", not "why do you choose..."



> y do i read about how many people say that AMDs seem way faster than Intel?


Because i'd prolly goto jail for naturally selecting those people 



> and how come the Athlon X2 4200+ 2.2GHz outruns the Pentium D at 3GHz (both dual core) in every single test? not just gaming even multi tasking which intel is usually stronger in


Unfortunately when talking about the chips themselves, the measurement of speed is Hz, not fps, not sec.... Hz.



> AMD, the only CPU for gamers.


Except those who want to maximize single-core performance/watt.



> Plus another reason AMD are so much better is thay run WAY cooler!!! The P4 EE runs wya hotter than the Althon X2 4400+!!


The P4EE is a discontinued chip. The comparison is hardly fair 



> To be honest, Intel has the best performing chip for gaming.
> The PM has been spankin' A64's for quite some time now.


Minor caveat to that: need to specify the non-SMT games



> I wouldnt say that, considering it has to be ~1GHz higher in clock speed to perform better, which to me is pretty sad. Id be embarassed if a 2.6GHz CPU was outperforming my 3.6GHz cpu (im just giving rough numbers here not actual numbers)
> Compare a 3GHz A64 to a 3GHz P4 and which would perform better?


You seem obsessed with comparing those two chips (one of which doesnt exist).... any reason?



> The Pentium M is Intels best CPU. Its funny how Intel used to say how higher MHz = better CPU, now their slower CPU's are beating their faster ones, kinda funny how they changed their views after that


Well they changed their views because reality changed. It was quite true back in the day



> AMD rules all


----------



## Geoff

> As for imagining AMD Athlon64 at 3GHz, you dont have to.... you wont ever get that clock speed.


Why would you even say that? http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/25/the_athlon_64_fx_overclocked_to_3_ghz/  And i also got my CPU up to 2.6ghz stable.



> The P4EE is a discontinued chip. The comparison is hardly fair


If its discontinued, then why do they still sell them at many stores including newegg?


----------



## 4W4K3

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> If its discontinued, then why do they still sell them at many stores including newegg?



Because they don't magically dissapear from store shelves when they stop making them?  They gotta sell what's left over, if anything at a higher price cuz' now they are "rare" lol

wtf, you changed ur name???


----------



## Geoff

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> Because they don't magically dissapear from store shelves when they stop making them?  They gotta sell what's left over, if anything at a higher price cuz' now they are "rare" lol
> 
> wtf, you changed ur name???


well not too long ago i read an article on Intels new P4EE cpu, which outperformed the AMD X2 4800+ in several tests, so i dont think there discontinued.

And ya, i changed it a few weeks ago.


----------



## 34erd

I think Praetor was getting all technical on us again    The socket 478 "Extreme" intels were called "Pentium 4 extreme edition", the socket 775 are just called "Pentium extreme edition"... so yeah, the P4EE is discontinued


----------



## Dr Studly

*quote* preator's HUGE comment 3 posts up that i am not gona quote cus it would take up to much space *quote*

nice!
if you have a $1200 budget for buying a PC (not including OS, monitor, keyboard, mouse) for gaming, multi tasking, and multimedia, what processor you get, preator?


(preator's post should b the model post for this forum btw!)


----------



## MasterEVC

Nice post Praetor. I see your using AMD  

As for a 3GHz A64, I'll see it sometime, once I raise some funds up I plan on getting a better CPU and better RAM too, then I shall hit 3GHz.

Back in the day of the almighty Ti4600's my friend and I had a comparison.

He had:

Pentium 4 @ 2GHz (I forget the stock speed)
256MB RAM
Ti4600 (oc'ed)

I had:

AthlonXP 1700+ @ ~1.7GHz
256MB RAM
Ti4400 (oc'ed)

We both ran 3DMark 2001SE, and my score was a lil bit higher then his. Go figure. He was like wtf when I showed him my screenshot 

I also paid like $100 less then he did for what I had at the time


----------



## Geoff

thanks 34erd, i was getting the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition and Pentium Extreme Edition mixed up.


----------



## Praetor

> Why would you even say that?


Perhaps I was being too subtle ... the point i was making is that "people who can get their 2GHz K8 to run at 3GHz ... dont waste time with polls like this ... 

_Whilst I have no objection to people's opinions whether differing from mine or not ... fanboyism, in whatever form ... is generally bad for people who read threads like this to "get a feel for people's opinions"  Which is why there is such a reaction to fanboyism (which, any mature individual should agree, is generically "bad")_



> I think Praetor was getting all technical on us again


Ya well ... facts rule 



> Nice post Praetor. I see your using AMD


Actually, running two X2s, a K8, CeleronD, two PentiumMs, P4-M, Opteron 265, and a P3 ... also, randomly swapping entire platforms depending on what I feel like and/or what I need for the task at hand (i.e., gaming on X2 whilst rendering on the PEE840 back when i had it etc)



> We both ran 3DMark 2001SE, and my score was a lil bit higher then his. Go figure. He was like wtf when I showed him my screenshot


I concur entirely, the *performance* of an AMD chip may be better,  but it, for the most part, is certainly not *faster*



> if you have a $1200 budget for buying a PC (not including OS, monitor, keyboard, mouse) for gaming, multi tasking, and multimedia, what processor you get, preator?


Please make a new thread and I'll deal with .. since you're asking about a complete system, make your post *here*


----------



## iggy101

*Amd All The Way*

never buy that junk intel they are to WAYYYYYYYY to hot and all they have going for them is high clock speed.
AMD IS DA SH*T


----------



## apj101

iggy101 said:
			
		

> never buy that junk intel they are to WAYYYYYYYY to hot and all they have going for them is high clock speed.
> AMD IS DA SH*T


*sigh*


----------



## tweaker

apj101 said:
			
		

> *sigh*


 
The fanboys are typically recognized by their av.


----------



## 4W4K3

lol i have an AMD XP-M avatar on another forum...i better go change it quick


----------



## Geoff

Well i say Intel, since it has the best processor right now.


----------



## 4W4K3

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> Well i say Intel, since it has the best processor right now.



Which one is that? All Conroe benchmarks I have seen have put it against older AMD chips, which is a bogus comparison.


----------



## Geoff

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> Which one is that? All Conroe benchmarks I have seen have put it against older AMD chips, which is a bogus comparison.


If you consider the AMD X2 oc'd to 2.8Ghz old, then what do you consider new 

True we dont know how the AM2 compares, but with that benchmark the Conroe deffinetly an extremely powerful processor.


----------



## Cromewell

> Which one is that? All Conroe benchmarks I have seen have put it against older AMD chips, which is a bogus comparison.


A good point, as they aren't comparing future release to future release, but look at it this way: Intel went from being quite far behind to comfortably ahead.  Weather it beats new AMD chips is irrevelant, they have made a huge leap in performance.


----------



## 34erd

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> Well i say Intel, since it has the best processor right now.


Conroe isnt going to be out untill Q3, ALOT can happen untill then.


----------



## thirdleft152

Im happy with my AMD 64 3200+. So i'd have to say AMD all the way.


----------



## Jet

the poll should start over soon, since now the tides are turning. Newbies, after reading this, won't be mislead by going always for amd.


----------



## Bobo

Jet said:
			
		

> the poll should start over soon, since now the tides are turning.


Yes the tides are turning.  In the 4th quarter of 2005, AMD sold more products than Intel did, for the first time.  But of course they did not get more profit, because Intel's stuff is overpriced.....


----------



## andy5667

I dont agree with that. I feel that £125 for a 3GHz processor is a good price and £55 for a celeron d is also a good price.


----------



## Bobo

andy5667 said:
			
		

> I dont agree with that.


That is quite fine 





> I feel that £125 for a 3GHz processor is a good price and £55 for a celeron d is also a good price.


I am not saying that is not true.  But I see no other way for them to make more money by selling less products, when their processors already cost less than AMD's.  Well except for the EEs, which are a total ripoff.


----------



## Dr Studly

i voted intel when i first came to CF... 
i wish i could change that...


----------



## Geoff

Encore4More said:
			
		

> i voted intel when i first came to CF...
> i wish i could change that...


same here, lol.  When i voted for Intel, i thought it was really nice... that was before i tried AMD.


----------



## Bobo

> the poll should start over soon, since now the tides are turning. Newbies, after reading this, won't be mislead by going always for amd.


By saying this, it appears that you think that Intel is gaining ground over AMD.  But yet the next 2 people to post say exactly the opposite:



			
				[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> same here, lol.  When i voted for Intel, i thought it was really nice... that was before i tried AMD.





> i voted intel when i first came to CF...
> i wish i could change that...



Where do you get this information?  Or is it just more fanboyism?


----------



## Geoff

Bobo said:
			
		

> By saying this, it appears that you think that Intel is gaining ground over AMD.  But yet the next 2 people to post say exactly the opposite:


Hold up just a minute... i did say that when i voted for Intel, i never tried AMD.  And after i tried it i thought it was much better (and it was), however Intel's new chips look surprisingly good, vs AMD's new chips which dont show a drastic performance increase over the current X2 series.  Once the next two chips are out, i feel that Intel is going to gain the lead at multitasking, and gaming.


----------



## Bobo

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> Hold up just a minute... i did say that when i voted for Intel, i never tried AMD.  And after i tried it i thought it was much better (and it was), however Intel's new chips look surprisingly good, vs AMD's new chips which dont show a drastic performance increase over the current X2 series.  Once the next two chips are out, i feel that Intel is going to gain the lead at multitasking, and gaming.



OK, so it wasn't quite exactly the opposite.  But you still proved my point.


----------



## Geoff

Bobo said:
			
		

> OK, so it wasn't quite exactly the opposite.  But you still proved my point.


Yes i know, right now AMD is the best


----------



## Geoff

OK, im sure you guys will enjoy some of these posts made several years ago.  They are all from this thread, some are just funny because they talk about old chips, while some are from noobs:



> AMD are just faster chips. The P4 is too slow because of the large L2 Cache. Since AMD hasnt brokent he 256 mark they are alot faster. I think Intel has learned from their mistake though and brought the L2 Cache from 512 back down to 256.





> I agree with AainaalyaA, Macs are best and fastest





> I also heard that AMD are about 5% slower than Intel Chips... is that true?





> this salesman told me that an AMD Athlon XP at 2.2GHz is comparable to a P4 at 3GHz.





> well AMD is better and the intel is rubbish i've got an AMD athlon 3.4 GHZ and the Intel only has the new P4 which is only about 2.4 GHZ the AMD has more choice of speed than the intel





> AMD's are so much better at multitaking and gaming IMO.





> Decent idea but ....I still think the Dual Core shouldnt be their primary focus for (for now)... the single core still has quite a bit of life in it





> I'd love to get my hand on an AMD CPU anything above 2400+





> get the 64 bits and imrpove your 32bit programs.





> AMD doesn't do anything faster than 2.4GHz





> I think P4 HT is better then AMD for gaming, business, home use, and theres alot more software and hardware thats compatible with intel vs AMD.


----------



## Bobo

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> well AMD is better and the intel is rubbish i've got an AMD athlon 3.4 GHZ and the Intel only has the new P4 which is only about 2.4 GHZ the AMD has more choice of speed than the intel
Click to expand...

all I can say is wow.  Wow.


----------



## Geoff

Bobo said:
			
		

> all I can say is wow.  Wow.


ya, lol.  I thought that one was one of the best


----------



## Jet

lol. got a little mixed up? 

I was just saying that the end of this year there needs to be a new Intel vs. AMD poll.


----------



## Geoff

Jet said:
			
		

> lol. got a little mixed up?
> 
> I was just saying that the end of this year there needs to be a new Intel vs. AMD poll.


Was that you that posted that?  I dont think it was, since it was from 2003/2004.


----------



## Jet

no I was commenting that the person was mixed up. I guess the wording of my last post here was a little messed up. lol


----------



## apj101

> Yes the tides are turning. In the 4th quarter of 2005, AMD sold more products than Intel did, for the first time. But of course they did not get more profit, because Intel's stuff is overpriced.....


that is an overbloated stat, looking at only a small section of market sales. Intel market share is about 5 times that of amd



> I was just saying that the end of this year there needs to be a new Intel vs. AMD poll.


that is probably a good idea, we'll cross that bridge later


----------



## Cromewell

> Yes the tides are turning. In the 4th quarter of 2005, AMD sold more products than Intel did, for the first time. But of course they did not get more profit, because Intel's stuff is overpriced.....





> that is an overbloated stat, looking at only a small section of market sales. Intel market share is about 5 times that of amd


Thank you for bringing some sense to the masses apj 

Also, Intel stuff is not over priced, last time I checked they offered cheaper dual core solutions then AMD.  AMD can't possibly sell more product than Intel (at this time), they can't even touch Intels manufacturing base (quite possibly the only companies that can are IBM and Samsung but Samsung doesn't have the engineering team to put together a CPU and IBM targets a different market)


----------



## WeatherMan

bit of a subject change but i only just realised that the new Intel CONROE chip is gonna have 2 x 2MB L2 Caches


----------



## Computer Man5

i dont think that will have much effect on amd as amd's cache on their line of cpus are generally lower than intel, but amd still raises the upper hand in peformance


----------



## Geoff

Computer Man5 said:
			
		

> but amd still raises the upper hand in peformance


not against the conroe though


----------



## geek 0001

dunno don't care


----------



## Geoff

Im actually leaning towards Intel again, since i love my CPU.  Sure it doesnt beat an AMD X2 4800+, but it performs about the same as an AMD X2 3800+.  I get 30sec in SuperPi 1M using only one core.  It also gave me a cpu score of 1530 in 3DMark06.


----------



## 34erd

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> Im actually leaning towards Intel again, since i love my CPU.  Sure it doesnt beat an AMD X2 4800+, but it performs about the same as an AMD X2 3800+.  I get 30sec in SuperPi 1M using only one core.  It also gave me a cpu score of 1530 in 3DMark06.


Yonahs a great CPU.  It rocks at Spi also


----------



## Charles_Lee

if we re do the poll, its obvious amd will win by far...


----------



## tweaker

Naturally since there's more AMD users on the forum.


----------



## Dr Studly

and since amd outsold intel in 2005...


----------



## dragon2309

i think this thread has proved its point and is now jsut a breeding ground for AMD fanboys to enhance their ego (PC ego, whatever)

If i were a mod here it would be locked.....

dragon


----------



## Geoff

What do you guys think about starting a new CPU Poll?  Since this is extrememly old, and with new cpu's people have different views now.


----------



## Dr Studly

dragon2309 said:
			
		

> i think this thread has proved its point and is now jsut a breeding ground for AMD fanboys to enhance their ego (PC ego, whatever)
> 
> If i were a mod here it would be locked.....
> 
> dragon


thats cus u have an intel 
(so do i... )  


the only people that complained about wut he said aobut AMD winning were intel users... interesting


----------



## dragon2309

i wasnt complaining, simply stating a fact.... but yes i do have and prefer intel, you just wait for conroe to come and kick your asses....

dragon


----------



## Cromewell

> and since amd outsold intel in 2005...


They did?  I was under the impression of Uh....No.

AMD out sold Intel for the month of October, not for all of 2005





> Chip-making underdog Advanced Micro Devices edged past Intel in October in supplying processors for the U.S. retail PC market, according to a study by research firm Current Analysis.
> Intel has a firm hold on the overall number-one chip supplier spot for all U.S. consumer PCs, thanks in part to its exclusive deal with direct-selling powerhouse Dell. Still, AMD's October milestone illustrates the progress it has made in eating away at Intel's dominance.


----------



## Skizzor

AMD 4 Life


----------



## 4W4K3

A new poll when Conroe has been out for a bit would be interesting.


----------



## i.Angel

Intel now, AMD for AM2


----------



## Geoff

I have a strong feeling that the Conroe is going to outperform the AM2 out of the water, since the only major improvements are that it supports DDR2.


----------



## Bobo

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> A new poll when Conroe has been out for a bit would be interesting.


 Well that won't be till the end of this year, I think they are scheduled to come out in October  





			
				omega said:
			
		

> I have a strong feeling that the Conroe is going to outperform the AM2 out of the water, since the only major improvements are that it supports DDR2.


But AM2 is coming out earlier, which should give AMD at least a slight advantage, especially for people buying Vista (when does that come out?)  Will AM2 have anything in the mobile area?  I am planning to buy a laptop in the coming 4 months (hopefully sooner) and depending on how much money I get I will either buy a Turion or an Intel Core Duo.  I am not waiting for Conroe to get my lappy, but will AM2 have anything mobile?


----------



## Dr Studly

who is supposed to be making the first quad cores...
and i'll give it till late 2008 for the first 8x cores


----------



## jancz3rt

*Pff*

I am not so sure about the performance of the Conroe (yes I have seen the reviews). It's a game being played by Intel....a demonstration of them working on something good, but nothing astronomical. I think the hype is greater than what the reality will bring. Wait and see 

JAN


----------



## i.Angel

Damn... this sucks. If Conroe beats AM2's efforts I'm going to be pissed.

I almost damn sure that I am going to upgrade when the new socket 940 releases, but if Conroe is as good as the hype is I might just wait... Thing is is I don't know if my computer will hold out for much longer... 

What do you guys think?


----------



## Bobo

Well Tom's Hardware Guide has reviews out right now of an AMD X2 4800 AM2 against the regular X2 4800, and it is really about the same, but only because it is only using DDR2 667.  When they can use DDR2 800, supposedly, the performance will be leaps higher.


----------



## Cromewell

There's nothing interesting about AM2 and a Conroe release sample hasn't been seen yet.  I'd suggest you wait and see how they stack up once they are released instead of making decisions on engineering samples 

Vista isn't scheduled for release until 2007 last I heard.


----------



## Geoff

jancz3rt said:
			
		

> I am not so sure about the performance of the Conroe (yes I have seen the reviews). It's a game being played by Intel....a demonstration of them working on something good, but nothing astronomical. I think the hype is greater than what the reality will bring. Wait and see
> 
> JAN


They had benchmarks of it in sisoft sandra benchmarks, and it totally owned the X2.  It got around double the X2 4800+ i think in the multimedia test.


----------



## Vigor

*Eh?*

I prefer AMD for pure gaming, and Intel for other features and is still good for gaming.


----------



## AMD gs player

amd is da bomb


----------



## Geoff

AMD gs player said:
			
		

> amd is da bomb


Do you mean AMD in general, or are you talking about a certain type of AMD?


----------



## Christian Darrall

intel are slower at producing there chips, maybe because amd are in a higher league then intel. intel are more intrested in working with dell. amd are more focused as a company


----------



## Filip

You are all wrong, 16 000 MHz Sempron PWNS all.  

Dude, edit your signature.


----------



## Christian Darrall

i havnt heard of power pc are they any good,

what chips do they make


----------



## Bobo

Christian Darrall said:
			
		

> i havnt heard of power pc are they any good,
> 
> what chips do they make



They make the old Mac processors and the Xbox 360 CPUs


----------



## Huang Zhipeng

ian said:
			
		

> On the one hand AMD seems to be the first to release the latest advances, however Intel is in a much stronger financial position.
> I have swayed towards Intel for the processors on the computers I have bought.



Great, me too. Because Intel are cheaper, right?


----------



## Christian Darrall

no intel are the nike and addidas in todays clothes market, EXpensive

amd rule


----------



## tweaker

Christian Darrall said:
			
		

> no intel are the nike and addidas in todays clothes market, EXpensive


Actually that havent been the case in along time now. Intel used to be more expensive, but nowadays its quite the opposite.


----------



## AMD gs player

i stil find amd beter if u got duo core from intel be ready to pay about 100 more for teh prossesor i find intel are alto like m$


----------



## Christian Darrall

i would say intel pack a punch, ok, they started out good. what making a cpu that could add simple sums, lol. but having said that amd have come along way. you know what i would say there equal and they are planning something a sort of, team work production. i hope they do i wanna know what they got in mind


----------



## Bobo

Christian Darrall said:
			
		

> i would say intel pack a punch, ok, they started out good. what making a cpu that could add simple sums, lol. but having said that amd have come along way. you know what i would say there equal and they are planning something a sort of, team work production. i hope they do i wanna know what they got in mind


 Teamwork my butt!  They aren't going to work together.  Microsoft and Mac just got together because people don't want OS X, they want XP, and Mac saw that they could make more money.  But AMD and Intel together, no.


----------



## Christian Darrall

ok i was only sayin, cuz dat would be cool


----------



## jimmymac

Intel and AMD being seperate is a much bigger help to us than it could ever be with them combining forces.

As two seperate entities they are continually competing to be the market leader and so are pushing the boundaries with their CPU's more and more to out do the other.

End result is we see the benefits of this by getting newer CPU's and sockets all the time and prices are starting to compeete

As a single company they would have a monopoly on the market as other manufacturers dont come close, end result would be higher prices as people would be "forced" to use them and technology wouldnt move as fast


----------



## certified engineer

Intel is better.


----------



## Geoff

if intel and amd joined, then there wouldnt be much competition, so the prices could sky rocket.


----------



## Christian Darrall

i rekon CPUs have hit the boundary of what they can do,

i say this because now they have started putting two in one, dual core etc.

thats why AGP was changed to PCIE wasnt it, because they could build better cards.

i say they should make something better than a CPU, and maybe even smaller.

also it would improve sales


you know in the poll, whats the other for, i thought there were only 3 types of processor what are the other types.


----------



## thealmightyone

Well, they've hit the boundary SO FAR. Both companies will continue to shove more cores into the chip until quantum physics supplies a new technology for processors (isnt there some reasearch in the middle-east going on for a new cpu technology, involving beams of light rather than electricity? Sure I read this somewhere)


----------



## Bobo

Christian Darrall said:
			
		

> i say they should make something better than a CPU, and maybe even smaller.


I believe that is what they are doing in the PS3 with the "cell"


----------



## Cromewell

Cell is a CPU, there's nothing overly remarkable about it.  It's basically a PowerPC core with 8 DSP cores attached.


----------



## Cromewell

Cell is a CPU, there's nothing overly remarkable about it.  It's basically a PowerPC core with 8 DSP cores attached.


----------



## Christian Darrall

ok i mean make summing else, more, futuristic sounding. like the "Logic brain"

that sounds cool


----------



## Christian Darrall

> involving beams of light rather than electricity? Sure I read this somewhere)



wow that sounds really wicked but they will have to improve on ther physiscs to find out everthing about light.

well it will be like on halo when you see cds, as light disks etc.

but i wanna be able to walk across light.


----------



## Geoff

Christian Darrall said:
			
		

> wow that sounds really wicked but they will have to improve on ther physiscs to find out everthing about light.
> 
> well it will be like on halo when you see cds, as light disks etc.
> 
> but i wanna be able to walk across light.


thats similar to fiber optic cables instead of copper cables.


----------



## Bobo

Christian Darrall said:
			
		

> but i wanna be able to walk across light.


You aren't asking for much...lol


----------



## AMD gs player

i just read in a direct comparison even the lowest amd dual core outperformed its top cpu the extreme edition


----------



## Geoff

AMD gs player said:
			
		

> i just read in a direct comparison even the lowest amd dual core outperformed its top cpu the extreme edition


It does outperform it in some tasks, but not everything.  However for the price difference, the X2 is much better for the money.


----------



## JamesBart

Intel its all i know! but hey its cool! am still learing hahaha


----------



## Sophocles

Call me fickle, but I don't care if it's AMD or Intel, I only care which is the fastest at the time I'm ready for a new build.


----------



## Impr3ssiv3

does anyone here have the url where they did a comaprison with Intel's Dual Core and AMD Dual core. It had graphs and everythign and the AMD swept it in everything


----------



## Bobo

Impr3ssiv3 said:
			
		

> does anyone here have the url where they did a comaprison with Intel's Dual Core and AMD Dual core. It had graphs and everythign and the AMD swept it in everything


It is a bit outdated, but I think that this is the one that you are talking about.


----------



## Geoff

Bobo said:
			
		

> It is a bit outdated, but I think that this is the one that you are talking about.


That is a bit outdated, since they dont even compare the 9xx series.


----------



## Impr3ssiv3

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> That is a bit outdated, since they dont even compare the 9xx series.




no that was the exact one i was looking for

but is there a new one out there thts like this


----------



## Geoff

Impr3ssiv3 said:
			
		

> no that was the exact one i was looking for
> 
> but is there a new one out there thts like this


Heres a new one: http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=pd900&cookie_test=1

Scroll down to about half-way to see the benchmarks.


----------



## Impr3ssiv3

dam


AMD owned INTEL


in 3 or so all of the AMDs between every INTEL


----------



## Geoff

Impr3ssiv3 said:
			
		

> dam
> 
> 
> AMD owned INTEL
> 
> 
> in 3 or so all of the AMDs between every INTEL


Well the AMD X2 is a very nice CPU.  But the Pentium D's are alot cheaper.


----------



## Bobo

Intel should really be embarrassed that AMDs dual core processors really kick their butts.


----------



## Mac OS X

I preffer Intel


----------



## XFs

zkiller said:
			
		

> that's like saying i like microsoft out loud at a linux convention!




If Linux had a *much* nicer user interface, it would be more popular.
Looks matter to most people ...


----------



## Geoff

It looks like the Core 2 Duo (Conroe), will be shipping in July of this year, instead of August-September like previously announced.  The first CPU to be launched will be the Core 2 Duo Extreme, followed by the lower end models.


----------



## Bobo

Does anybody have any exact information on the Turion X2 release dates and such?


----------



## u.k.man

Go Go Go AMD !!!!


----------



## Geoff

They should have another poll, since peoples opinions can change dramatically over the course of 3+ years.  Especially this summer once the Core 2 Duo is released.


----------



## ZeroWarrior

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> They should have another poll, since peoples opinions can change dramatically over the course of 3+ years.  Especially this summer once the Core 2 Duo is released.



yea i agree it should be like that..they should change it around every 3 years.

Hey but AMD got a far lead in this poll.


----------



## Charles_Lee

i'd still go amd~

do you guys think that core 2 duo will be better in gamings?


----------



## Bobo

Charles_Lee said:
			
		

> i'd still go amd~
> 
> do you guys think that core 2 duo will be better in gamings?


Better than what?  An AMD X2? No.


----------



## Geoff

Bobo said:
			
		

> Better than what?  An AMD X2? No.


The Core 2 Duo's will be much better in gaming than the AMD X2's...


----------



## Bobo

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> The Core 2 Duo's will be much better in gaming than the AMD X2's...


 oh right core 2....i was thinking core duo, the one out right now.


----------



## Geoff

Bobo said:
			
		

> oh right core 2....i was thinking core duo, the one out right now.


The one thats out now is nice, but it doesnt outperform the mid-high end X2's in gaming.


----------



## AMD gs player

is core 2 duo the conroe


----------



## Geoff

AMD gs player said:
			
		

> is core 2 duo the conroe


Yes, Core 2 Duo is the official name, Conroe was just the codename.


----------



## Bobo

AMD gs player said:
			
		

> is core 2 duo the conroe


That is what I thought...but then which one is out right now?  I thought that conroe didn't come out until july?


----------



## Geoff

Bobo said:
			
		

> That is what I thought...but then which one is out right now?  I thought that conroe didn't come out until july?


The *Core Duo* is out right now.

The *Core 2 Duo* is coming out in July.

The *Core 2 Quad* is coming out in January.


----------



## Charles_Lee

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> The *Core Duo* is out right now.
> 
> The *Core 2 Duo* is coming out in July.
> 
> The *Core 2 Quad* is coming out in January.



didn't you post that page like 5 different places? (i exaggerated a little)


----------



## Geoff

Charles_Lee said:
			
		

> didn't you post that page like 5 different places? (i exaggerated a little)


If your talking about what you quoted, thats was the only time i said it like that.


----------



## ro0kie

are they making Core 2 Quad for notebooks?


----------



## 4W4K3

I believe they are. I'm at a notebook forum and I know I've heard talk of the Quad's.


----------



## dragon2309

0MEGA said:
			
		

> The *Core Duo* is out right now.
> 
> The *Core 2 Duo* is coming out in July.
> 
> The *Core 2 Quad* is coming out in January.


thanks for clearing that up, for a while now ive been slightly confuddled about all that, cheers geoff

dragon


----------



## Burgon

Aleksey said:
			
		

> I hate macs. They're jsut cheap. Sure, Lunix is a great OS, but you odn't have to have a Mac to operate on that.


Macs are NOT cheap! 

I go for AMD, better performance. 
Dual Core rocks


----------



## fade2green514

not cheap for you... but cheap for MAC to build. worse hardware + higher prices = super high profit for apple.
then add a fancy look and people will buy it.
i mean, the iMac comes with x1600 graphics... even omega threw his out the window for a 7600gs. lol x1600 = bad graphics.
not to mention core duo, which is a laptop processor. 
btw is merom the quad or whats merom?


----------



## Clutch

fade2green514 said:
			
		

> not cheap for you... but cheap for MAC to build. worse hardware + higher prices = super high profit for apple.


"MAC" isn't an acronym. It's Mac.

And Mac doesn't build Macs, Apple builds Macs.


----------



## johnny

I own an AMD computer system I am happy with it.  I prefer the Pentium processors, due to the fact that I find they run more efficient.  Now AMD processro are stronger and apparently better then the Pentium processors dont get me wrong.  One thing Ive notice with my AMD and with 2 of my friends AMD's is that sometimes they tend to lag opening programs such as Photoshop.  But In the end as long as its a good processor it doesnt bother me which one it is as long as I can do my work.


----------



## jp198780

i like Intel, i dont game.


----------



## m0nk3ys1ms

ive got 2 AMD systems, 3 intel, and another intel one on the way (in my sig)


----------



## Bobo

monkeysims said:
			
		

> ive got 2 AMD systems, 3 intel, and another intel one on the way (in my sig)


What sig?

I am getting the AMD system in my sig, it should be here either tomorrow or monday.  If I was building one later, I would have gone with Conroe....but oh well I didn't.


----------



## Filip

Bobo said:
			
		

> What sig?
> 
> I am getting the AMD system in my sig, it should be here either tomorrow or monday.  If I was building one later, I would have gone with Conroe....but oh well I didn't.



lol, he must have deleted it, he is getting a Pentium D 805


----------



## m0nk3ys1ms

oh i forgot i delted my sig, oops


----------



## zenhawx

Forget AMD Look for some new intel product.


----------



## Geoff

Here are some actual benchmarks on the Conroe done by people who arent running under Intel's strict conditions:


----------



## m0nk3ys1ms

what kind of board does conroe need?


----------



## dark_legacy2006

INTEL all the way


----------



## Geoff

monkeysims said:
			
		

> what kind of board does conroe need?


It requires newer motherboards with either the Intel 965 or 975 chipset.  Older 975 chipsets wont work since they dont support Conroe's lower voltages.


----------



## mojo_stevo

Now do more *gamers* choose AMD? Or is it just everybody.


----------



## Geoff

mojo_stevo said:
			
		

> Now do more *gamers* choose AMD? Or is it just everybody.


Right now a majority of the gamers here choose AMD, since the Athlon 64 line is an extremely well built (and fairly cheap) CPU.  The AMD X2 is also one of the best desktop CPU's currently available, and is among the highest ranking dual-core CPU for gamers.  However next month that may change, with the introduction of Intel's new Core 2 Duo line, which shows that it easily outperforms an overclocked FX-62 (according to recent benchmarks).


----------



## holyjunk

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> It requires newer motherboards with either the Intel 965 or 975 chipset.  Older 975 chipsets wont work since they dont support Conroe's lower voltages.


I thought it required lga775 ( I think that is right) but intel did not guarentee that it would work in the older 775 sockets because of voltage requirements.


----------



## m0nk3ys1ms

holyjunk125 said:
			
		

> I thought it required lg775 ( I think that is right) but intel did not guarentee that it would work in the older 775 sockets because of voltage requirements.



they require a lga775 socket with the 965 or 975 intel chipset


----------



## Geoff

holyjunk125 said:
			
		

> I thought it required lga775 ( I think that is right) but intel did not guarentee that it would work in the older 775 sockets because of voltage requirements.


LGA775 is the socket, and 965/975 are chipsets.  In order for Conroe to remotely work on a current motherboard, it has to be socket LGA775, and support newer Intel 965/975 chipsets, since those support the lower voltage requirements of Conroe.


----------



## Ramodkk

Dont know, i'd choose AMD, since i have a Celeron


----------



## Nutcase

Conroe has some impressive bechresults. I heard they´ve reached over 5GHz with it.
It´s well priced too if you aske me. It would be nice if ADM would release their 65nm processors soon because then the price of Conroe will drop due to competition..And AMD probably drops their prices dramatically too  So we all would be happy.


----------



## mojo_stevo

A few day's ago I accidentally got the tiniest bit of Arctic Silver on the socket (like a 2mm hair of it) and didn't know it... tried to boot her up nothing happen... Open it back up and saw it, had to look hard. 
*Important:* If you ever do this don't fret, your not F'd yet. If you have a nylon bristle (and only nylon) brush, must be firm (I used the one I clean my Norelco with)... take the brush soak it in 91% rubbing alch (not the 70% too much h2o in it), clean it good, get the large drops off the brush, then brush it along the grain of the little wire-ends in the socket. 
It works, computer ran fine, and saved me from a big whoopsies. 

Just my 2 cents, though I might be preachin to the choir.


----------



## holyjunk

[-0MEGA-] said:
			
		

> LGA775 is the socket, and 965/975 are chipsets.  In order for Conroe to remotely work on a current motherboard, it has to be socket LGA775, and support newer Intel 965/975 chipsets, since those support the lower voltage requirements of Conroe.


O I see. I really wasn't really thinking.


----------



## wicked859

AMD all the way.........


----------



## krimson_king

i tend to think i already voted on this, but.........yea, amd.

alright amd woohoo!............amd!

i mean, come ON!  you have to be a computer EXPERT to know that an amd 4800 ISNT ACTUALLY 4.8 GHZ!


----------



## SC7

I've stuck to Intel, and with conroe, looks like i will keep that.  Don't get me wrong, at the time I got this current rig, Intel was the leader over the Athlon Xp, same goes when it was my PIII vs an Athlon.  If there was ever a time to get a new rig (which ironically is soon, it's gonna be Intel), and AMD was the leader, I would with no doubt choose AMD.  I don't go based on the company, I go wherever I get more performance out of my dollar.


----------



## ckfordy

Id have to choose Intel cause thats all i have ever bought but i dont go with the company i just go with what the best has been and what i have needed and it looks like i am going to be staying with intel for awhile cause of Conroe.


----------



## Mattu

I'm an Intel man  I tend to stick with Celerons but if I ever become a true gammer I'll go with a Pentium Extreme Edition.


----------



## ckfordy

Mattu said:
			
		

> I'm an Intel man  I tend to stick with Celerons but if I ever become a true gammer I'll go with a Pentium Extreme Edition.


 
if you ever become a gamer dont go with the Pentium Extreme Edition go with Conroe it will be much better performing then the PEE.


----------



## SC7

Mattu said:
			
		

> I'm an Intel man  I tend to stick with Celerons but if I ever become a true gammer I'll go with a Pentium Extreme Edition.


Wow is that a jump in performance


----------



## ChrisDVD

intel and AMD are great....but i chose intel, since i do more multitask, then gaming.....for sure, AMD is better for gammers, but for me, i chose intel!


----------



## SC7

ChrisDVD said:
			
		

> AMD is better for gammers,


Old stereotype, AMD was better in a lot of areas more for a while, including multimedia, and now, Conroe wins all those again, plus taking gaming.  Why that fact stuck around is because ever since the early Athlons through the end of the Athlon Xps, they really only had gaming, Intel took almost all multimedia.


----------



## Nutcase

http://techsearch.cmp.com/blog/archives/2006/06/amd_vs_intel_an.html

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~110132,00.html

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=104773


----------



## jp198780

most of my pc's have Intel, except my Compaq, which has AMD.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

Well, as of when i first got this Intel last year, i was leaning towards the AMD 64 cpus, but with the new Intel cpus coming out.........it seems like Intel will be the leader this year.


----------



## Praetor

Hehe think we should remind all the original question of this thread ... which CPU brand do you choose...


----------



## Rambo

Praetor said:
			
		

> Hehe think we should remind all the original question of this thread ... which CPU brand do you choose...



I voted AMD, but now I'm getting an Intel... In a way, I feel like I am betraying AMD. I have always built AMD PC's, and now I'm am going with an Intel.


----------



## Praetor

> In a way, I feel like I am betraying AMD.


LOL unless you made a promise to them long long ago for your soul or something that you'd always build AMD then you shouldnt feel bad .... go with what happens to be the best when you're building


----------



## Bobo

Well hey, AMD is suing a bunch of people for not keeping their promises, so you had better be careful Rambo, they might be coming after you next


----------



## marquita188

i love intel!


----------



## martyvice

I prefer AMD


----------



## Charles_Lee

intel or amd,,, who cares, they always differ from each other,
at this moment people prefer intel, only because they brought out a new core...
but you will see in 6 month, things will change...


----------



## jbennet

Odd question. I have a server with 4x 3ghz ish 64 bit intel xenons.Could i use this as a game machine and would it be better than a dual core 2.80ghz p4?


----------



## Bobo

Probably not, considering the graphics card it is bound to have, and what it is meant to do (not gaming)


----------



## jbennet

well it has superfast hdds and 4gb of ram as well as the xenons. It has server 2003 but i have xp and a  gfx card so im gonna try bf2


----------



## ducis

AMD was the first to say they would relese a quad core


----------



## robina_80

amd


----------



## jp198780

i dont game, soo i have all Intels.


----------



## Bobo

jbennet said:
			
		

> well it has superfast hdds and 4gb of ram as well as the xenons. It has server 2003 but i have xp and a gfx card so im gonna try bf2


You aren't going to succeed well, servers like that are not designed for gaming.


----------



## jimmymac

jp198780 said:
			
		

> i like Intel, i dont game.





			
				jp198780 said:
			
		

> most of my pc's have Intel, except my Compaq, which has AMD.





			
				jp198780 said:
			
		

> i dont game, soo i have all Intels.



please for god sake explain to me why you need to keep telling us what your systems have, your previous post was only just under a month ago it like your just trying to up your post count or something!!!


----------



## SC7

The Core 2 Duo is better than AMD at gaming, people need to realize that.


----------



## jimmymac

yes it is, well done, however this thread was started a long time before core 2 duo and thus a lot of the comments and votes were from a time when AMD was the best for gaming


----------



## Burgerbob

Some of us also dont have the money to change right away to Conroe... and a game hasnt come out that i cant run with my little 3200+ just fine. I may not get as much FPS, but they still run. By the next time i upgrade, K8L will be out, and ill prob get that.


----------



## Jet

I think that now would be the time for another poll.... , now that Intel has made a comeback.


----------



## Redbull{wings}

i think intels conroe is a joke because all they are doing really is catching up(and then some) to amd, and its not like amd isnt going to come out with some advandced new processor....itll go back and forth and from my experiences with amd ill stick with them...intel u pay for the name and to tell the truth id much rather put an amd sticker on my case...


----------



## Shady

Redbull{wings} said:
			
		

> i think intels conroe is a joke because all they are doing really is catching up(and then some) to amd, and its not like amd isnt going to come out with some advandced new processor....itll go back and forth and from my experiences with amd ill stick with them...intel u pay for the name and to tell the truth id much rather put an amd sticker on my case...


don't be a fan boy
and yes AMD will come with a respond to that
but for now.... Intel is the current best
and yes we need another poll


----------



## Bobo

Redbull{wings} said:
			
		

> i think intels conroe is a joke because all they are doing really is catching up(and then some) to amd, and its not like amd isnt going to come out with some advandced new processor....itll go back and forth and from my experiences with amd ill stick with them...intel u pay for the name and to tell the truth id much rather put an amd sticker on my case...


Don't you understand that is the way it always works? Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel.

Sorry, I had a little too much fun with that. 

But there is no reason for a new poll, really ever. So maybe some people who voted AMD before want to change their vote to Intel now, or vice versa. It will be the same thing when AMD brings out their latest and greatest.


----------



## SC7

Redbull{wings} said:
			
		

> i think intels conroe is a joke because all they are doing really is catching up(and then some) to amd, and its not like amd isnt going to come out with some advandced new processor....itll go back and forth and from my experiences with amd ill stick with them...intel u pay for the name and to tell the truth id much rather put an amd sticker on my case...


Ill tell you what, fanboy, you get your sticker, and I'll pay half as much for my conroe, and my machine will still kick the crap out of yours.  Only friggin morons buy because of brand, because they think Intel will care.  Get the hell out of here, I HATE people like this.  I'll pay money for that name, and performance.  If you do some reasarch and stop being such a closed minded fool, you'd realize that they aren't just catching up, they're beating AMD in almost, if not all departments.  If you're gonna be like that, just stop posting, because arguements like that will not be met well.


----------



## 4W4K3

SC7 said:
			
		

> Ill tell you what, fanboy, you get your sticker, and I'll pay half as much for my conroe, and my machine will still kick the crap out of yours.  Only friggin morons buy because of brand, because they think Intel will care.  Get the hell out of here, I HATE people like this.  I'll pay money for that name, and performance.  If you do some reasarch and stop being such a closed minded fool, you'd realize that they aren't just catching up, they're beating AMD in almost, if not all departments.  If you're gonna be like that, just stop posting, because arguements like that will not be met well.



Bit of an exaggeration, not *quite* half as much. But then again, what will you say when AMD holds the top end of the market again? Will you eagerly dump your Conroe, and switch to AMD? Or will you stick with Intel, despite what you have just said?


----------



## SC7

4W4K3 said:
			
		

> Bit of an exaggeration, not *quite* half as much. But then again, what will you say when AMD holds the top end of the market again? Will you eagerly dump your Conroe, and switch to AMD? Or will you stick with Intel, despite what you have just said?


I've already said, I will go with whatever gives me the best performance per dollar at the time i feel I need to build a new machine, and will stick with that until I feel the need to go again.  I've also said, if the AMD price cuts make it worth my while, and give me better performance for my dollar, I'll happily go for AMD.


----------



## 4W4K3

Cool, that's all I wanted to hear  Too often I see Intel fans only post when Intel holds the upper hand, and the same for AMD. When there preference is not the leader, no posts from them. Then everyone says sticking with a name brand just because of dedication is stupid. I surely love my brands, and would pay more just to have them...but if I payed more and did NOT get good performance, then yah' I'd have to switch too.


----------



## SC7

Yep, dedication only hurts you.  I always do what is best for me, and how I can get the most from my dollar.  I always used to be an ATI user, but when I latest needed a graphics card, nVidia gave me more of what I wanted, so I went nVidia, and I actually really like it.


----------



## Redbull{wings}

wow all i did was post an opinion i really didnt think id get flamed so much i mean if i knew you would take it offensivley i wouldnt of said all i wanted to get across was that my experiences have been better with amd for instance if you went to a reasaurant with fast service and great food ud go back again and again right? i just think that amd will counter it is all....o and bobo amd had that last word  lol


im not a fanboy just a sastified customer which is what buisness is about putting out a good product and getting a good rep so they keep coming back


----------



## Jet

Bobo said:
			
		

> Don't you understand that is the way it always works? Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel. Intel comes out with a new processor that beats AMD. AMD comes out with a new processor that beats Intel.
> 
> Sorry, I had a little too much fun with that.
> 
> But there is no reason for a new poll, really ever. So maybe some people who voted AMD before want to change their vote to Intel now, or vice versa. It will be the same thing when AMD brings out their latest and greatest.



AMD being better is the exception, not the rule. Think of all the years when Intel was undefeated. AMD was all value and not much performance, at the top, intel always had the performance king, and usually the value as well. You guys think now that AMD is always going to be able to catch up. With a profit margin of 2 1/2 times that of AMD, Intel has the resorces to crank out top performance processors.


----------



## Shane

I have AMD but im probably gonna be going Intel next time.


----------



## SC7

AMD said:
			
		

> I have AMD but im probably gonna be going Intel next time.


Judging by your current system, your Intel would probably be an Intel Core 2 Solo.


----------



## Shane

SC7 said:
			
		

> Judging by your current system, your Intel would probably be an Intel Core 2 Solo.



Sorry,Ive lost you.

What you mean bro?


----------



## wicked859

I was going with amd for so long and am still running it, but now that Ive seen what intel can do with conroe and what Ive heard about the 4 mb caches coming out, my new cpu, will be a core 2 duo.


----------



## jancz3rt

*Hmm*

Well,

I have posted here before but let me get my point of view across:

For long, the X2 line reigned the processor market in terms of performance. Now that Intel released their new Core 2 Duo processor line, the weight has tilted in advantage of Intel. However, that said, it should be mentioned that it is quite natural that the newest processors needed to be more powerful than the competition. AMD will most likely introduce processors that will be more powerful in a while. That will be followed by Intel and the cycle will go on. Basing ones decision in the future on the current situation is not such a good tactic.

JAN


----------



## knockout34

mac all the way!


----------



## 4W4K3

If I could justify the pricing on a Mac I'd get one. But they are just too expensive for what you get IMHO. A different color costs an additional $200, what's up with that? Does paint cost $200 these days? Fine for what I would want to do with it, I wouldn't be interested in upgrading or overclocking...but the price kills me.


----------



## SC7

knockout34 said:


> mac all the way!



Hello, mac uses Intel!  I'll just put it this way, if your on a budget for a desktop, Macs plain suck.  Unless you need Mac OS, it's stupid.  The macbook may be a nice laptop, but desktops, ridiculously overpriced, and problematic.  Also, suppose the internals of my iMac are outdated, I must dispose of a perfectly working screen, and pay apple for a new one.  Never.

As 4W4K3 said, $200 for a price difference, some of this stuff is just stupid.



> Well,
> 
> I have posted here before but let me get my point of view across:
> 
> For long, the X2 line reigned the processor market in terms of performance. Now that Intel released their new Core 2 Duo processor line, the weight has tilted in advantage of Intel. However, that said, it should be mentioned that it is quite natural that the newest processors needed to be more powerful than the competition. AMD will most likely introduce processors that will be more powerful in a while. That will be followed by Intel and the cycle will go on. Basing ones decision in the future on the current situation is not such a good tactic.
> 
> JAN


But Intel has already said a new architecture is in the working for 2008/09, around the same time Hector Ruiz said the K8L will be released.


----------



## ckfordy

I go with whatever is the best that i can afford at the time and i usually like intel but went with amd this time and it is an unbeilveable processor it is faster then my Pentium 4 @2.8 and the amd is at 2.4.  But my next upgrade may be the begginging of next year or the summer if i have enough money and ill probably get the Intel Core 2 DUO.


----------



## Charles_Lee

jancz3rt said:


> it is quite natural that the newest processors needed to be more powerful than the competition. AMD will most likely introduce processors that will be more powerful in a while. That will be followed by Intel and the cycle will go on.


we all know that amd will somehow come up with some better core soon, but the question is how soon?
like you said before x2 series bee dominating the market for awhile,
i'd say intel core 2 due will last at least half a year on the top of the line,..
you know intel 930~ series were so cheap, even though they probabily spent as much money as amd did in order to develop a dual core cpu.
now amd must make their cheaper cores or they are lowering down their prices on all their origional prices...
and then when the time comes, they might be able to create something new...
suppose FX series are their top of the line cpus, but since its been crushed by conroes, for sure they will take time in making a new series of cores...
which will take some time, not short....


----------



## Le GoogelGuRu

I went with Intel when I got my computer, but it doesn't really matter a whole lot to me...


----------



## Master Mind

i went amd for gaming, i have intel on my laptop, but it dont compare to my comp.


----------



## Geoff

I was running SuperPi on the family comp (Celeron D 2.4Ghz), and look at the temps it got up to!


----------

