Which CPU brand do you choose?

Your CPU brand

  • AMD

    Votes: 455 62.0%

  • Intel

    Votes: 262 35.7%

  • Power PC

    Votes: 8 1.1%

  • other (specify)

    Votes: 9 1.2%
  • Total voters
    734
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.
Click to expand...

But if you take an AMD proc and put it at 3.2GHz imagine how much better it would be...
 
double-dragon said:
thats the idea of oc-ing :D
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

...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.
 
Oh OK. But that is still 1.8GHz off oh Intel's top freq
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
w00t.jpg


On a scale from 1-10, that intel being a 5, where would it be?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
The first open-minded response yet :P ... because AMD's architecture is not-superscalar and their design limits the number of stages in the pipe.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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"
 
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
 
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
 
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. :D
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...



Frosting is the best part! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top