Amd 64 Or Intel 64?

R

RubberDuck

New Member
Hi guys, this is my first post here, I wanted your feedback on a new computer I'm going to be building in the next few months. I have a fast laptop, but I'm looking to build a kick-ass gaming desktop. I'd like a processor that's fast and 64bit, because I'd like this computer to last me a few years. I'm currently looking at a Pentium 4 660, which is 3.6 ghz I believe, and an AMD Athlon 64 3800+ with a Newcastle core. I don't know a lot about Athlon chips, so I was first wondering the difference between the Newcastle and the new Venice cores? Also, which one of these chips is going to stay cooler? I'd prefer to not have the processor fan running at full speed at all hours. This is going to be installed in a standard mid tower case, not a Shuttle, etc, micro case, so airflow shouldn't be a problem. I believe that the AMD will be slightly faster than the Intel in gaming, but which will be a better performer in multi-tasking? (I guess on the topic of multitasking I do plan on putting in a 1gb of RAM at least) Any feedback is greatly appreciated, I've been lurking on this forum for a few months now and you guys really seem to know your stuff. Thanks again.
 
I don't know a lot about Athlon chips, so I was first wondering the difference between the Newcastle and the new Venice cores?
Click to expand...
They fixed the memory controller, thats all I know.
I believe that the AMD will be slightly faster than the Intel in gaming, but which will be a better performer in multi-tasking?
Click to expand...
The Intel.
 
Hey

I am not sure about the difference between the Newcastle amd Winchester, but I can tell you that the Venice core has full SSE3 support added. However, the main difference of it is that there is a new memory controller on the Venice core that allows 4GB at 400Mhz (or any other sized, all four slots filled), unlike the Winnie which had difficulties even running 333Mhz in some cases when all slots were filled.

JAN :D
 
I am not sure about the difference between the Newcastle amd Winchester
Click to expand...
Winchies were the "E revision" processors (and possibly Fs) if i recall correctly (whereas the newcastles were "D revision"), and are the lowest power consuming proces of AMDs current lineup :)

but I can tell you that the Venice core has full SSE3 support added.
Click to expand...
Well its got SSE3 - 2 instructions (which are HT related :P)
 
well if i may say from my own experiences go AMD for gaming, Intel for heavy graphic programs & stuff ? others agree with me ? i dont know me too was first in dillema but i decieded 4 amd ... and i'm not sorry ...
 
Well there's a new line of AMD's that beat the Intel's, they're dual core 64-bit processors. They're also really fast (4200+ to 4800+), so if you're looking for something that might last a long time since it's got all the next-generation technology, you should look at those.
 
Sorry if I'm repeating questions talked about earlier on in this forum, but why is it that AMD is a better choice for gaming, rather than Intel? Just curious, I have always been an AMD guy myself, I usually game and use software apps throughout the day, but when I get asked the question of why I preferably use AMD, I say "They are a better choice for gaming", when I don't even know why...
 
the new amd 64 X2's are coming out in about a month, they have two chips combined into one which provides vry good multitasking and gaming, if u want to wait till then
 
AMDCam said:
Well there's a new line of AMD's that beat the Intel's, they're dual core 64-bit processors. They're also really fast (4200+ to 4800+), so if you're looking for something that might last a long time since it's got all the next-generation technology, you should look at those.
Click to expand...

Thew AMD Dual Core's arnt out yet, and when they come out, they will be designed mainly for servers. The best chip right now would be the AMD Athlon FX-55 (Which is around $800), although they have Intel Dual Cores, the dual cores allow for better multitasking.

And i think Intels are fine for gaming, besides, cpu's are so high is speed and fsb, that the product you should be looking mostly at for gaming is a video card.
 
Are you sure about servers? I mean it sounds kind of alright, but usually they have huge caches and lower speeds I thought. With 64-bit processors and dual-cores on the market, why wouldn't one with both be on the consumer market too? It seems to me a lot like the new generation of processors, not a server-built processor.
 
I read PC Magazine, and it said that the AMD dual cores wont be available to consumers for a little longer after they put them in servers.
 
the X2's are way better than the intels, look at this thread and the links in the 1st post
http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=13043
they are reviews on the X2's

and why would the intels be better than amd in gaming? u cannot compare the clock speads at all because each processor does a different amount in each clock cycle, amd doing more which means it can have a lower clock speed
 
ripken2004 said:
the X2's are way better than the intels, look at this thread and the links in the 1st post
http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=13043
they are reviews on the X2's

and why would the intels be better than amd in gaming? u cannot compare the clock speads at all because each processor does a different amount in each clock cycle, amd doing more which means it can have a lower clock speed
Click to expand...


The Intel extremes are also very good, check out this link: http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1735,s=25144&iid=102487,00.asp
Who said intel is better at gaming? i said it would be fine to play games on an intel and intels are better for multitasking or heavy app usage.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top