Intel vs. AMD.... what do you prefer?
- Thread starter McG
- Start date
The Astroman
Active Member
I don't know what's best for my needs... I play games (Far Cry, Morrowind, etc...) but I also use apps. What's best??
Blue
<b>VIP Member</b>
Well as far as apps go it would depend I guess on what apps and how often but to be truly honest a fast AMD proecesser is just that
. it's going to do all apps fast and well. If you do video encodeing alot then your prob. going to want Intel although the AMD equivelent is going to do it very fast as well . Most cases the difference is not noticable and only noticable when benchmarked of course. In other words your not going to rip a dvd into a divx file on an intel and then do the same on the AMD machine and say geeeeeeee that was slower . you'll most likely not notice.Soooooooooooooooo basicly for the average home user I'd say it comes down to price and availability. AMD is usualy cheaper... Both AMD and Intel are solid processers.
The Astroman
Active Member
So, what's better:
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ : 2.0 GHz, 512 Ko L2 Cache
Intel Pentium 4C 3.0 Ghz: Socket 478 0.13 micron FSB800 (or should I wait for the massive EE sale?)
Intel Pentium 4E (Prescott) 3.2 Ghz: Socket 478 0.09 micron FSB800 (or should I wait for the massive EE sale?)
They all cost the same.
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ : 2.0 GHz, 512 Ko L2 Cache
Intel Pentium 4C 3.0 Ghz: Socket 478 0.13 micron FSB800 (or should I wait for the massive EE sale?)
Intel Pentium 4E (Prescott) 3.2 Ghz: Socket 478 0.09 micron FSB800 (or should I wait for the massive EE sale?)
They all cost the same.
The new Pentium Mobile chip beats out an A64 4000+ (@2.8ghz ~40C) That's something to consider if you can afford it (~$450 i believe) compared to a 4000+ ($700) it's a good deal. It takes voltmods to get ~2.8ghz of course, and the new DFI board...but if you got the bucks then no problem. I prefer AMD all the way, but if Intel one day becomes affordable, i'll probably switch.
Forget clock speed (Intel advantage). Forget memory speed (mostly Intel advantage). Forget insane 'bus' advntage (AMD). Forget a much more clock efficient chip (AMD). Forget the chipset (mostly AMD advantage). Forget overclocking (AMD advantage). AMD will win hands down because .... on die memory controller.
Lets have a look at a few systems with the following as a baseline machine
- AthlonXP 2500 running 2.2Ghz (200x11.0)
- ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe (NF2U)
- 1GB PC3200 Dual Channel
System 1:
- P4C-2.80GHz
- ASUS P4P800SE (i865PE)
- 1GB PC3200 Dual Channel
Coming stock, this is a superior platform next to the base model and a worthy upgrade for some people ... the price/performance difference is prolly worth $250USD (naturally you wont find that kinda pricing because of markups etc). The P4C-2.80 is a very OC friendly chip and often people will be playing in the 3.20GHz range ... running in its OC'd state the machine will hands-down run-over the base system. For anyone looking to build a (performance) Doom3/FarCry type system this would prolly be the lowest platform being considered.
System 2:
- Athlon64-3400 (2.2Ghz, Socket754, Clawhammer)
- MSI K8N Neo Platinum (nForce3-250)
- 1GB PC3200 Single Channel
This configuration will take out the base model with ease despite any (percieved) disadvantage of running single channel memory. That disadvantage is removed by the fact that the memory controller is on-die. The NF3-250 chipset alllows it to *easily* OC and *easily* challenge many Socket939 processors. Pricewise, this is comparable to the System 1 (with a 3.0GHz processor instead of 2.8). Compared to System 1 (even in OC state), this here will win out in almost every respect ... why? Because of the on-die memory controller. OCers will be quite familiar with this system config and often hit 2.7Ghz-3.1GHz with it (and thus damn near negate any "advantage" in clock speed). It is also worth noting that Atlon64s run a 17stage pipeline (compared to 15 for the K7s, 20 for the P4Cs and 31 for the P4Es -- and this means that clock for clock the Athlon64s are more efficient ... and if you remove/limit the clock advantage ... the P4s dont look so great anymore).
System 3:
- Pentium4E-3.20 (Socket775)
- ASUS 915 board (cant remember the model num)
- 1GB PC2-4200 Dual Channel (thats not a typo, its DDR2)
The SocketT Prescotts dont have the heat problems their Socket478 predescors had however as a 'price', they dont OC nealy at all with many being capped at 10% and maximums reaching 25% (as opposed to 50% which is easily obtainable off a Socket478 Prescott). In stock form this will handily run over the base system and overclocked (prolly to 3.4GHz max), will be roughly on par with System 1 (overclocked). Comapred to System 2 (stock) it's probably roughly on par depending on the task at hand but comparing them in overclocked conditions, System2 (OCd) will take off leaving this system quite far back. Unfortunately the advantage of running DDR2 is offset by the relatively high latencies (caused by different factors than latencies as found in DDR). Price-wise, the processor and mobo are cheaper than their System 1 counterparts but that is severely offset by the increased price of the video card and RAM
System 4
- Pentium4E-3.6 (Socket775)
- ASUS 925 board (cant remember the model num)
- 1GB PC2-4200 Dual Channel (thats not a typo, its DDR2)
Up till now, System 2 has been the system-to-beat but here we have a serious contender. System4(stock) runs about on par with the System2(stock) and System4(stock) gives serious ground to the System2(overclocked) ... running System4(overclocked) reduces that deficit considerably ... of course, as a result of the 925 chipset, overclocks are limited to roughly 24%. From a price/value perspective the System2 is still a better pick ... for users not comfortable with overclocking or doing stuff that doesnt permit them to overclock, this becomes the new benchmark system. Suffice it to say this machine will walk all over base system as well as System1
System 5:
- Athlon64-3500 (Newcastle/Winchester, 2.2Ghz)
- ASUS A8V/Abit AV8
- 1GB PC3200 Dual Channel
In all respects this platform will chew the base system and System1 out for breakfast. With both systems in stock mode, System5 here will outpower its Socket754 little brother regardless of any advantages in the NF3-250. Comparing System5(stock) to System2 (overclocked) makes for an interesting comparison. In many cases the System2 will come out clearly on top as the benifit of dual channel memory is (a) negligible in generl and (b) further minimized by having the memory controller on die anyways. Although slightly more difficult with the K8T800Pro, comparing System5(overclocked) to System2(overclocked) results in the Socket939 part coming out on top in general. In stock form, SYstem5 here will outpower System3 (stock and overclocked) and it will also be "at least" (although in many cases, slightly faster) than System4 (stock and overclocked) ... from a price perspective System5 is significantly less expensive than System4 and thus makes a better choice. Now System5(overclocked) will dominate the entire set from Base sysstem to System4.
Now swapping out the mobo here for a NF3-250 parts (System5B), results in the new bar setting platform. With good memory, upclocking this platform allows it to easily challenge the other systems.
It is important to note that with many major benchmaks System4 is compared to a FX series processor rather than a vanilla Athlon64
Verrona
New Member
My opinion is that AMD is the better of the 2. I'll run down the history of AMD for ya.
Cast your mind back to the days of the AMD K5 and K6 and you'll remember that AMD was in danger of finishing the last millennium as a company that was only capable of manufacturing inferior versions of Intel's Pentium processor.
The big change came late in 1999 when AMD moved from its K6 core to the first Slot A Athlon, which used the new K7 core. Athlon went head to head with Intel's new Socket 370 Pentium III which used a 0.18-micron process, but AMD had the advantage of a new core, while that particular Intel technology was reaching the end of its life. Against all odds AMD reached the landmark of 1GHz ahead of Intel, and when Intel kicked off Pentium III and introduced the Willamette Pentium 4, the fastest processor on the market was Athlon.
AMD had a tough time persuading motherboard manufacturers to break ranks with Intel, and at first it was only able to forge alliances with similar manufacturers such as Biostar, Epox and Iwill who essentially had nothing to lose. There was little or no chance of AMD persuading the major PC manufacturers such as Compaq, Dell and HP to use an Athlon in their PCs, notebooks and servers, so at first the AMD market was limited to enthusiast gamers and home builders.
As AMD made the transition to the Socket A form and a 0.18-micron process it worked hard to broaden its product range, introducing the budget Duron which could compete against the Celeron, as well as mobile Athlon for the notebook market. What AMD didn't have was a workstation processor that could compete against the Xeon, and neither did it have a server processor. It also lacked the reputation that Intel had earned over the years, so corporate customers were unlikely to switch from Intel to AMD. Part of the problem was that AMD chose not to manufacture their own chipsets, although it had proved that it was reliant on ALi, SiS and VIA, just as it was reliant on motherboard partners to support Athlon.
AMD could make processors for the desktop but by contrast Intel could produce complete white boxes to suit and market sector from notebook, through desktop and workstation, right up to server.
As Intel got ready to release the Northwood Pentium 4, there weren't many options open to the Texan chip maker; it could either settle for making desktop processors for enthusiasts, or it could raise the stakes.
The AMD ANSWER
The answer came in early 2003 when AMD released its K8 coree that had been codenamed Hammer, but was now called Opteron. This new core was staked full of features, including integrated memory controller, the NX bit for hardware antivirsus support, HyperTransport and the ability to run both 32-bit and 64-bit software natively. This was completely different to Intel's approach with Itanium, that ran 64-bit natively but could only emulate 32-bit support, and slowly at that. Operon was released in three models 1xx, 2xx and 8xx to denote its ability to run one-way, two-way and up to eight-way.
When AMD first introduced Opteron it pushed the chip as a server processor in two-way configuration, presumably to highlight the fact that it now had a product could compete with Xeon. The vast majority of PC users have no interest in running Linux, so the 64-bit nature of Opteron was interesting, but essentially irrelevant for the time being. Even though we have had Beta 64-bit Windows XP since mid 2004, driver support is patchy and there are no mainstream 64-bit applications, and we probably won't see 64-bit Windows until mid 2005. AMD kept the presence of its hardware antivirsus feature secret until Microsoft released Service Pack 2 for Windows XP, and then it announced that every K8 had included this feature from day one. Intel, by contrast, has yet to release a desktop processor that can support this new feature, although it will inevitably come sooner rather than later!!
As always my opinion is AMD 64!! U cant go wrong
Cast your mind back to the days of the AMD K5 and K6 and you'll remember that AMD was in danger of finishing the last millennium as a company that was only capable of manufacturing inferior versions of Intel's Pentium processor.
The big change came late in 1999 when AMD moved from its K6 core to the first Slot A Athlon, which used the new K7 core. Athlon went head to head with Intel's new Socket 370 Pentium III which used a 0.18-micron process, but AMD had the advantage of a new core, while that particular Intel technology was reaching the end of its life. Against all odds AMD reached the landmark of 1GHz ahead of Intel, and when Intel kicked off Pentium III and introduced the Willamette Pentium 4, the fastest processor on the market was Athlon.
AMD had a tough time persuading motherboard manufacturers to break ranks with Intel, and at first it was only able to forge alliances with similar manufacturers such as Biostar, Epox and Iwill who essentially had nothing to lose. There was little or no chance of AMD persuading the major PC manufacturers such as Compaq, Dell and HP to use an Athlon in their PCs, notebooks and servers, so at first the AMD market was limited to enthusiast gamers and home builders.
As AMD made the transition to the Socket A form and a 0.18-micron process it worked hard to broaden its product range, introducing the budget Duron which could compete against the Celeron, as well as mobile Athlon for the notebook market. What AMD didn't have was a workstation processor that could compete against the Xeon, and neither did it have a server processor. It also lacked the reputation that Intel had earned over the years, so corporate customers were unlikely to switch from Intel to AMD. Part of the problem was that AMD chose not to manufacture their own chipsets, although it had proved that it was reliant on ALi, SiS and VIA, just as it was reliant on motherboard partners to support Athlon.
AMD could make processors for the desktop but by contrast Intel could produce complete white boxes to suit and market sector from notebook, through desktop and workstation, right up to server.
As Intel got ready to release the Northwood Pentium 4, there weren't many options open to the Texan chip maker; it could either settle for making desktop processors for enthusiasts, or it could raise the stakes.
The AMD ANSWER
The answer came in early 2003 when AMD released its K8 coree that had been codenamed Hammer, but was now called Opteron. This new core was staked full of features, including integrated memory controller, the NX bit for hardware antivirsus support, HyperTransport and the ability to run both 32-bit and 64-bit software natively. This was completely different to Intel's approach with Itanium, that ran 64-bit natively but could only emulate 32-bit support, and slowly at that. Operon was released in three models 1xx, 2xx and 8xx to denote its ability to run one-way, two-way and up to eight-way.
When AMD first introduced Opteron it pushed the chip as a server processor in two-way configuration, presumably to highlight the fact that it now had a product could compete with Xeon. The vast majority of PC users have no interest in running Linux, so the 64-bit nature of Opteron was interesting, but essentially irrelevant for the time being. Even though we have had Beta 64-bit Windows XP since mid 2004, driver support is patchy and there are no mainstream 64-bit applications, and we probably won't see 64-bit Windows until mid 2005. AMD kept the presence of its hardware antivirsus feature secret until Microsoft released Service Pack 2 for Windows XP, and then it announced that every K8 had included this feature from day one. Intel, by contrast, has yet to release a desktop processor that can support this new feature, although it will inevitably come sooner rather than later!!
As always my opinion is AMD 64!! U cant go wrong
Super_Nova
New Member
a 1.6 ghz Duron can outperform a 2.6 ghz celeron and a 1.8 ghz Pentium 4
Definatly AMD.
Definatly AMD.
SFR
Truth fears no questions
My two and a half cents:
I recently bought (well from my dad.. his work bought one too many) an HP with dual Intel XEON 3.4Ghz processors... its crazy... still messing around with it....
I know AMD will overheat like non-other.. but I think for graphics, games, etc I have heard its great... I have personally never had one..
I recently bought (well from my dad.. his work bought one too many) an HP with dual Intel XEON 3.4Ghz processors... its crazy... still messing around with it....
I know AMD will overheat like non-other.. but I think for graphics, games, etc I have heard its great... I have personally never had one..
Last edited: