Mature Debate Only - AMD vs. Intel

[DeSetuede]

Right, need an honest and mature opinion of whether to build a new PC using intel or AMD.

What do you lot have? What are the pro's and con's of each one?

I am quite knowledged in this area, but I'd still like other's opinions.

AMD:

Cheaper
Overclocking abilities

Intel:

Higher Cache
Faster speeds
Stability?

New 64bits worth the extra money or not yet?

I don't wanna turn this into a AMD fanboy vs. Intel fanboy so try to keep it mature please... oh and Linux is not an option http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pain is Temporary... Pride is Forever...

[DeSetuede]

Right, need an honest and mature opinion of whether to build a new PC using intel or AMD.

What do you lot have? What are the pro's and con's of each one?

I am quite knowledged in this area, but I'd still like other's opinions.

AMD:

Cheaper
Overclocking abilities

Intel:

Higher Cache
Faster speeds
Stability?

New 64bits worth the extra money or not yet?

I don't wanna turn this into a AMD fanboy vs. Intel fanboy so try to keep it mature please... oh and Linux is not an option http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pain is Temporary... Pride is Forever...

[teebus]

I don't want to say too much, because I am very biased towards AMD (as will become palpable as you read my post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif)...

I would just like to say- AMD are a lot more efficient when it comes to processors, and as you know, the clock speeds of AMD processors are usually considerably lower than that of Intel processors.

Because of this efficiency, AMD processors are cheaper, but still outperform Intel processors in certain key areas. I know that desktop performance (not that 2D performance means much today) is better across the board with AMDs, and I also know that the Athlon 64 3000+ (identical to the 3200+ but with half the cache) is able to outperform any "budget" processor Intel has to offer.

On the higher end of the spectrum, you may be looking at the Intel Pentium 4 "Extreme Edition", but then you will spot the pricetag, and will dismiss that line of processors. Even the yet-to-be-released Athlon 64 FX-55 will cost less than that, but will be a stormer of a processor.

As far as 64-bit performance goes, I can't see this being relevant for quite some time, but since the Athlon 64's offer excellent 32-bit performance at a reasonable price, it is something to consider. Being able to run 64-bit programs when they arrive is always a bonus too.

In terms of stability, I don't think either company has real issues which promt concern... Anybody who has had any stability issues will probably be more than happy to share their experiences with you.

One thing to bear in mind is that Q4 of this year sees the launch of Athlon 64 FX-55 (mentioned above), as well as the A64 3700+ and 4000+ based on the 90nm Winchester core (sucessor to the "Newcastle" core used on the 3000+) as well as quite a few faster Intel P4s. In addition to that, this is when Windows XP 64-bit edition (alongside PC Express and DDRII PC4300 RAM) is introduced... It may be worth waiting, but you can always upgrade later!

ftp://ftp.blueyonder.co.uk/store1/incoming/JSF2.jpg

X35 Joint-Strike-Fighter (F35B US Designation)

[Demon_Mustang]

Also, I think you have "faster speeds" in the wrong place. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

[cuski]

AMD is the suxx0rz, Intel ownz j00.

(How's that for mature? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif)

[teebus]

Well- it is about is mature as an Intel fanboy will get! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

ftp://ftp.blueyonder.co.uk/store1/incoming/JSF2.jpg

X35 Joint-Strike-Fighter (F35B US Designation)

[TheMotec]

It will always go back and forth on whos on top, and you know what thats how it should be. This is why true pc enthusists have no biased opinon or even a company they like more because without silicon competion there won't be cutting edge technology and a race to eb the best which in forth pushes the boundaries to best the other. Same with Nvidia and ATI without ATI upping the geforce ti 4600 with its 9700Pro we may never have seen the now gigantic 16 pipelines that the Nvidia 6800 Ultra will have. Thats my opinion both INtel and AMD rock cause there both great in there own respects and they both come out winners.

[JonZ]

I misread the title like Masturbate on my AMD vs Intel http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

IMO, the AMD vs Intel question is really vague. It all about what components ie motherboard you'll need to socket them. Some motherboard brand offer best performances with that cpu and other brand MB work best with the other cpu if OCed etc. Plus combos with memmory and and graphic cards etc.

I will not consider for now any 64bits cpu/mb since not many games/apps don't support the feature.

[fuglyornotstolemysig!]

I don't speak french sir, I speak 'freedom'

[This message was edited by JonZ on Wed April 28 2004 at 03:12 PM.]

[kimi_]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cuski:
AMD is the suxx0rz, Intel ownz j00.

(How's that for mature? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn you beat me to it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

<left><font color ="FF0099">_______________________________
</left></font color>
http://www.smakclan.com/downloads/ss/sigs/kimi.gif
<font color="FF0099"><font size="1">
irc.gamesurge.net #twl_rvs or #twl_farcry
GameSurge official Far Cry channel #farcry
Ubisoft RVS/AS, GR, and Far Cry Moderator</font color></font size>

[Thoramir]

Hmm, let's see my Intel chipset has a defect in it's AGP implementation. That's right the chipset (made by intel) has a defect in it that can cause it to crash randomly even when doing something as innocuous as using IE (fortunately, there are ways around it, like disabling 8x AGP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif). Intel has decided not to fix the problem or recall their chipsets. Sure, it's a fast machine, but AMD has fast machines too. I don't think I will EVER be buying an Intel POS again.

BTW, sorry if this is not mature enough, but if Intel would be willing to fix their mistakes I wouldn't have a problem with them.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

[This message was edited by Thoramir on Wed April 28 2004 at 05:43 PM.]

[Thoramir]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Demon_Mustang:
Also, I think you have "faster speeds" in the wrong place. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget stability, Mustang. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

[ghost397]

The current leads are (from all I've read):
AMD: Gaming, price
Intel: Productivity/Multimedia Apps

Who is faster depends on the benchmark. But you didn't ask faster, you asked more which to use. Stability isn't really an issue unless you're talking programs written for specific instructions present in one architecture and not in the other.

You mention overclocking abilities as an AMD benefit. Not sure why. All of their new processors are locked, just like Intel's. Overclocking relies on pushing the FSB now for both brands.

AMD's are more efficient than Intel's. That has nothing to do with their speed though (well, it does, but not such that you can compare raw CPU cycles). They use two totally different architectures (differing primarily in pipeline length). Intel compensates for a longer pipe (less efficient) with raw speed (higher clock cycles). AMD does the opposite. And one of them is about to change tactices, but I can't remember who of the top of my head.

And every time I go to look, AMD is not really that much cheaper than Intel. A little, yes, but not much. The price difference between the PEE and the FX53 is between one and two hundred. Not much considering you're already talking about $700 and $850. Same goes for their other procs.

There are no 64bit OS's for home Windows users yet. So unless you're using Linux or a Server version of 2k, 64bit is going to be (mostly) useless. Is it worth the money? That would depend on how much you want to spend and how long you expect it to last.

Right now, I have a P4. Were I going to build a machine now, I'd consider an AMD, but I'd have to look into the current information a lot more.

However, as Teebus mentioned, this fall should see a lot of new architectures (DDR2, PCI Express, etc). Yes, you could build now, but there isn't a whole lot you can upgrade later. Once Express hits, you're looking at a new mobo, which means new memory and likely Processor as well (478 is going away), and to take advantage of the Express you'd need a new video card. That's pretty much why I'm not looking at any upgrades right now. The only thing not current is my core system (266fsb, 1.8GHz proc) and I don't see any reason to spend all the money on a new mobo and proc and memory when it'll get totally blown away in six months. Granted that usually happens anyway, but I think it will be a larger scale change this time.

Anyway there's my two cents. Keep the five. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jakal30/nightsig.gif

"...the Goddess could not spend all Her time persuading
the Kings and Queens of the world of the idiocy of war.
Therefore She invented tacticians..." - Diane Duane

[Demon_Mustang]

Yah, you're right, I used to use Intel Processors, and since I switched to AMD, I've experienced FAR greater stability. I don't know if it's just advancement in technology, or if the change of CPU is actually the cause, but so far, I at least know that AMD processors are extremely reliable and fast.

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

[NapalmFrog]

I don't feel in the mood to write an essay as above, so I'll summarize mho:

From personal experience, Intel is the choice if you use things like Photoshop, 3DStudioMax, and heavily demanding things like that. AMD is imho a better deal for all of the other things, cause it is as powerful (if not even more), for a way cheaper price. If you are cost-wary, definately go amd. If you don't mind throwing away some more money on the cpu, rather than other parts, than an Intel is good too.

Also, my current pc is running the 2500+. With a stock fan (though I do suggest something better), you can easily hit speeds of 3200+ if you are brave enough to overclock. That saves you a lot of money too.

(I am really into squeezing out as mush performance as possible with a bargain)

http://world.guns.ru/assault/c7ft.jpg
I AM. CANADIAN!

[Demon_Mustang]

Well, I'd recommend my fan for AMD users, but I can't seem to remember the name. If anyone does, please say it, it's called the TMD, or tip magnetic drive fan, it's rather nice for the price.

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

[Tacamo]

I like the Intel P4 Prescotts. Where else can you play games and raost a chicken at the same time? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[TomGore]

Our company builds around 100-200 custom PCs each month. I am basing the following "opinions" on our data over 4 years.

- AMD systems are cheaper for the same raw computing (and gaming) power
- Intel systems have less problems in stability and combatibility

I have chosen Intel since I value reliability over speed. Currently I have a 3.0Ghz P4 NW on an Intel 865PE motherboard.

- Tom

[halmex]

5 years ago i had a amd k6 2 500mhz.. with some asus motherboard (savage 4 32mb pci). Many games at that time did not work so well on my pc. And there was a conflict with the onboard sound card and my pci graphic adapter made the whole thing crach all the time.

Now i have a asus p4p800vm with a celeron 1.7 processor and gforce 4 64ddr agp8x( 256ddr 333mhz) Well anyway i never had a system working so well as this one. My pc is not a high spec machine but even fs2004 is working fine with good fps... So i recomend intel processors over adm.

[{GhoZt}UK_Spook]

Me to i used to have a amd 700mhz rig it crashed all the time.

But since i got my p4 2.8ghz rig its a lot more stable only crashed once and that was my falt. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

[Thoramir]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Demon_Mustang:
Well, I'd recommend my fan for AMD users, but I can't seem to remember the name. If anyone does, please say it, it's called the TMD, or tip magnetic drive fan, it's rather nice for the price.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got one of those Vantec fans/heatsinks I recommended to you, right? I can't remember the model name (different for AMD and Intel_ anyhow, but they both similar names. They work great, it took my P4 from running at around 54 degrees celcius on average to about 34 C. Very impressive.

(Edit: I think it's called the Vantec Aeroflow)

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

[Demon_Mustang]

Yes Thor, that would be it.

Halmex and megaspook. From the type of processor, especially you halmex, I'm pretty sure your motherboards had the VIA chipset in it. It wasn't the processor that was causing the problem, it was the motherboard's VIA chipset, they were a bit too complex for their own good and caused a lot of conflicts and compatability issues as well as some serious stability issues.

Today we have the nForce2 chipset and now even nForce3 I think, and they are very good, the first nForce sucked though.

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

[Eur0.]

I didn't read the whole thread, sorry if I repeat anything:
AMD overclocking, you're kidding right? Maybe the 64 bit with some sort of core big enough to transfer heat. I would say the pentium 4's are easier to overclock, you can gain up to 500mhz on some chips on stock fan and heat sink. Overall performance-wise they stomp AMD's chips in gaming, AMD only wins in office programs and math. The price is offset by your ability to buy a slower chip and reliably and stably overclock to even higher than the similarly-rated AMD chip. I've gone the way of Intel, although I still have an AMD machine I'm using right now to surf the net.
Let me also say that AMD's 64 bit chips are indeed impressive, but I don't know how they are at overclocking(why would you need to?), and they are much better at cost than the P4 EE is. But you also know that Intel is set to release a barn-burner of it's own, it's just a tennis game between the two. I wish a 3rd party manufacturer could get into it too.

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/A11Eur0/Signatures/Eur0rx8sig.jpg http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/A11Eur0/Signatures/3980.gif

[This message was edited by Eur0. on Thu April 29 2004 at 03:27 PM.]

[Demon_Mustang]

That's funny, so how does AMD machines of equal clock speeds getting faster framerates in games prove that Intel machines are "stomping" them? Strange, I always thought higher framerates is a good thing... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

You DO realize that they compare higher clocked Intel CPU's with lower clocked AMD ones right? They do that for a reason, if they compared equals, the AMD will always win, so it really isn't "fair."

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

[CHAOS-Atlantis]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DeSetuede:
I don't wanna turn this into a AMD fanboy vs. Intel fanboy so try to keep it mature please... oh and Linux is not an option http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last I knew, Linux wasn't a processor (I always thought it was an Open Source Operating System).... Cyrix and Motorola are pretty much the only other CPU manufacturers...

[ghost397]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHAOS-Atlantis:
Last I knew, Linux wasn't a processor (I always thought it was an Open Source Operating System).... Cyrix and Motorola are pretty much the only other CPU manufacturers...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe he was refering to the OS. As in, is a 64 bit processor worth the money when you're not running a 64 bit OS, since Linux is the only 64 bit (non-server) OS available at the moment, and he won't run Linux.


http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jakal30/nightsig.gif

"...the Goddess could not spend all Her time persuading
the Kings and Queens of the world of the idiocy of war.
Therefore She invented tacticians..." - Diane Duane

[ghost397]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Demon_Mustang:
You DO realize that they compare higher clocked Intel CPU's with lower clocked AMD ones right? They do that for a reason, if they compared equals, the AMD will always win, so it really isn't "fair."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said in my first post in this thread, you can't compare raw clock cycles because they're two different architectures. AMD relies on a short pipeline to be fast, Intel relies on shoving data so much faster through a longer pipeline that it doesn't matter if it has to do it four or five times to do the same job as a single pass through an AMD chip. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "not 'fair'", but it didn't read that way to me.

This thread is starting to degrade to real flaming (as opposed to the early jests). Try and respect the original poster's request.


http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jakal30/nightsig.gif

"...the Goddess could not spend all Her time persuading
the Kings and Queens of the world of the idiocy of war.
Therefore She invented tacticians..." - Diane Duane

[Demon_Mustang]

I know, but I'm wondering if he even realizes that they are not "equals." There will always be comparisons where the Intel would seem to outrun the AMD, but they are simply comparing a fast enough Intel with a slow enough AMD to get the result they want. If they really compare equals, meaning price equivilants, the AMD will almost always have the advantage until you get into the very high end since AMD doesn't even have anything above 2.2GHz. AMD chips have always been faster for the money, so don't know where he's getting the AMD being "stomped" by Intel data from...

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

[Thoramir]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Last I knew, Linux wasn't a processor (I always thought it was an Open Source Operating System).... Cyrix and Motorola are pretty much the only other CPU manufacturers...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cyrix was bought out by another company (I don't recall the name). They are now focusing on making processors for appliances, though they still make wintel compatible processors up to 700 or so Mhz for micro-ATX type systems.

I have no idea what Motorola is doing as far as CPUs go these days, but they are certainly not making them for Apple. Apple now uses IBM for their CPUs.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

[DeSetuede]

Whoa... My comp's been out of action for 3 days so I haven't been able to reply..

Thanks for all the help. I think I'll most likely be steering towards AMD, considering I mainly use my Comp for running games and apps'

Which leads me to my next question... Any Motherboard recommendations? Any to steer clear of? also any good online sites to get cheap components from? remember I'm in the UK tho.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pain is Temporary... Pride is Forever...

[Thoramir]

I'm a big fan of motherboards with Dual-Channel memory architecture, but I honestly have no idea what is out there at the moment. I won't be either, until I start looking for my next PC. I would recommend Newegg.com as the place to go for anyone in the US, maybe they have a UK site too.

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

[halmex]

Demon_Mustang

VIA chipset, they were a bit too complex for their own good and caused a lot of conflicts and compatability issues as well as some serious stability issues.
=========================================0
Thats is thrue my adm 500 k6 2 had the via chipset.

[Demon_Mustang]

DeSetuede, reading the dialogue between halmex and I, you should know what to steer clear of. Steer clear of any motherboard with the VIA chipset. They have updated it, and it's BETTER than before, but it's still not as stable as it ought to be. the nForce chipsets are really nice. Stay away from the first nForce though, stick with nForce 2 or higher, I believe they have nForce3 out now, they are VERY stable and VERY fast. My computer has a nForce2 chipset and an Athlon XP CPU, and it actually has NEVER crashed a single time in the current configuration. There had been a few isolated times where a PROGRAM locked up, but CTRL-ALT-DEL always worked to bring up task manager where I was able to end the task rather easily.

Both processors are good and reliable, but I would recommend AMD because you'll get faster gaming speed for your money.

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

[Thoramir]

I can vouch for the N-force2, I built a PC with one for my brother, very stable and very fast (even though he only has an Athlon 1800+).

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

[Eur0.]

demon, yes I understand that. I figured you could use your head and read the implications I put into my posts. The AMD 3000+ is equivalent to the 3.0 P4, but the P4 does better at games due to the higher speed in the core, as well as various other architectural nuances. The AMD is as fast with a slower core speed because of a shorter pipeline for information to pass through. Jeez. And I know you're going to bring up the price issue, well you can get a P4 at a slower clock speed for less than the AMD of that level, and overclock the P4 to faster than the high-end chip, on the stock fan(as mentioned earlier)

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/A11Eur0/Signatures/Eur0rx8sig.jpg http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/A11Eur0/Signatures/3980.gif

[Demon_Mustang]

"The AMD 3000+ is equivalent to the 3.0 P4"

Actually not really... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nevermind... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

______________________________________________
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

[NapalmFrog]

If you were looking for some crazy overclocking, get the Mobile Athlo XP 2500+. You can get it up way high. Due to the fact that it needs less voltage, and heats up less (hence, mobile), it needs less solutions for heating issus. But if you stick an awesome heatsink/fan on it, and have a good mobo, with speedy ram, you can get waaaaaaaaay high up in overclocking, a lot more than I have seen with other processors. Just browse the internet, and you'll see.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/c7ft.jpg
I AM. CANADIAN!

[Thoramir]

Do the Mobile Athlons clock down if they start to overheat like the mobile P4s do? I could see this as both a blessing and a curse when it comes to overclocking (mostly a blessing if you never have to worry about frying the thing I suppose, but can be problematic if you think you running at a certain speed but you're really not).

http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Thoramir/Troutsig2.jpg
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!