AMD OR INTEL

[BlkScorp 0]

Ok, i am sure this has been asked before but souldn't find it. I have 2 friends and one is saying AMD while the other is saying Intel. Need some help here.........

Which one and why?

[snakebite1967 0]

Cost/performance ratio, and upgrade path

AMD

[Specter 0]

Compatability, known architecture, better chipsets and stability as we ll as driver compatability - INTEL.

You get a few more benchmark points with AMD, but to me, not worth the hasle or the risk if you need your PC up and stable all the time.

Besides, anymore, AMD doesn't outperform them by a margin the human can perceive readily in the apps we are running. Intel a bit more cash, but worth it. More stable, and no heat issues like AMD.

[snakebite1967 0]

actualy Phantom the new intels run at comparable temps to the high end AMD chips that argument isnt valid anymore, i run 3 AMD systems all day and every day no heat issues at all.

first off they dont catch fire and they dont melt if they get too hot all newer AMD mobo's have temp sensors that shut your pc down should a cooling fan fail btw my 2700 runs all day at 36c and 42c under a heavy load

as for chipsets and drivers ive never had a problem my pc never crashes while enduring massive GR fragfests either sis or via or nforce2, the only problem AMD and indeed Intel has is the part that sits between the chair and the keyboard

if you check the tables for the wattage created by both chips in heat youl see they are even.

the only main diference is that intel quad pumps its fsb and AMD double pumps and that AMD does 9 tasks for Intels 6 per cycle.

if u want a work station that somtimes games then by all means buy an Intel if u want a good stable gaming system that ahs plenty of power and the ability to upgrade cheaply without swapping a mobo everytime u want a new chip then buy AMD

[supasniper 0]

i'm with snake here, AMD all the way

[[TCS]BlackMamba 0]

Having had both Intel and AMD systems I believe that they are very close in similarity both have their positives and negatives. However the AMD as im sure you no is far cheaper so go for the AMD any day

[[TCS]BlackMamba 0]

Mess up soz

Edited January 27, 2004 by [TCS]BlackMamba

[Specter 0]

That may be true Snake, but you are always tweaking and tearing your system down for one thing and another, and you are strictly a gamer.

I will still not trust anything mission critical to AMD.

They have been to unstable and unpredictable over the years for me to just jump over to their side of the fence.

Even now we are still seeing driver issues with NForce chipsets. VIA has always been a joke, and SiS and Aladdin have always had compatabilityu issues I know it's minor, but the chipsets for AMD CPU's are just too finicky and always have been.

The fact has always been this. The adventurous types go with AMD, and people who need stability and 100% compatability go Intel.

If you can afford to take a chance, and dont mind alot of quirks popping up all the time, and the few extra benchmark points are what your looking for, go AMD. IF you want rock solid stability, compapability and dependability, go Intel.

It all boils down to preference. And there is a reason most of the corporate world still uses Intel, even when the AMD's have them beat to hell on price.

[Dannik 43]

I've got an Athlon XP 2000+ under my fingers right now, and an Intel P4 2gig a couple of feet to my left. Both systems are almost identical otherwise.

The Intel chip still costs twice as much as the AMD. The AMD pushes out approximately 20% more throughput when performing mathematical calculations, such as SETI@Home work units, or creating 3d renders with Terragen.

Neither machine has ever had a heat-related issue, or driver problems relating to the CPU or motherboard chipset.

Price/performance, AMD, in a real world situation, is vastly superior to Intel's offerings in my personal case.

@Phantom: You wouldn't trust AMD with anything mission critical, and neither would I. That's what SPARC and Alpha chips are for.

[Specter 0]

@Phantom: You wouldn't trust AMD with anything mission critical, and neither would I. That's what SPARC and Alpha chips are for.

HEHEHE ! ! ! ROFLMFAOPIMP ! ! !

You hit the nail right on the head bro ! !

[ReconSnake 0]

AMD all the way scorp - for the reasons already listed here.

[Crimson 0]

The adventurous types go with AMD, and people who need stability and 100% compatability go Intel.

Funny, I've never had compatibility issues, heat issues, and stability issues with AMD. My previous Intel computers didnt make it past a year and a half.

My vote goes for AMD.

[Specter 0]

Lets hear it for DEC Alpha and SPARC ! ! ! GO SUN ! ! ! HOOYAH ! ! !

Real computers ! !

It all boils down to preference. I on the other hand, have Intel machines, still in use after 5 years, and never had an AMD go more than a year before becoming slag.

Anyway, its personal preference. You will get enthusiasm and detraction from both sides.

[WhiteKnight77 1]

I run AMD and have had no problems with it as others have stated. I have had a Celeron (my first PC mind you), a Duron and now have an Athlon XP none have had a heat issue.

I bet if you pull the heatspreader off a P4 CPU, you find a die the size of a fingernail hidden there. Both AMD and Intel are using a .13 micron or smaller fab process to make their CPUs which results in the small area you see on an AMD chip. With transistors so close together and working so fast, you are gonna get heat no matter who makes the CPU.

[Chef-Scott 0]

I look at it this way... If money is tight go with AMD, if you have tons of money to blow then go with Intel. I prefer AMD. I have always had good results with them. NEVER an overheating problem at all (The last overheating problem I had was on Commodore 1581 disk drives, had to keep the cases open with a desk fan blowing on them ). In my household we have all the major "consumer" flavors of CPUs: Intel, AMD and Motorola PPC. All do the job and all do their job well.

Bottom Line:

Decide what *you* want to do with *your* system (games or work or both).

Decide how much you want to spend on *your* system.

Hit the net and do a little research on the parts *you* want (such as you are doing now ).

Compare prices with at least 3 vendors (make sure that you are taking into account shipping charges as well).

Order your parts and wait.

Build and enjoy!!

[snakebite1967 0]

@phantom i tear and tweak my pc down all the time cos i have a sickness its as simple as that when the time comes to waste some tangos or any other chores my pc is up and ready .

ive ran sis and via and nforce and believe me intel chipsets have also had their share of issues, 90% or all issues posted at forums are user error or hardware compatibility issues simple as that

having said that yes u are correct im a gamer pure and simple but my wife and kids pc's are used for many other things other than gaming,

my wifes pc for instance doesnt have a stack of cooling or a fancy hsf and shes running a tbred 2600+ on a gigabyte kt400a with no issues at all and her pc is left on 24/7

this is the same as nvidia versus ATI there is no one answer and no u dont need fire insurance with AMD

btw the new cray super pc's are4 amd powered now i think they need stability

Edited January 28, 2004 by snakebite1967

[warhawk 0]

@Scorpion

In all fairness both chipsets are good. Personally I think SOTOPhantm just has issues that haven't been worked out since childhood. Either that or Intel is paying him under the table.

I have been running AMD chips now for over 5 years myself and in that time I have had one problem. That one problem was a fan issue and a chessy pc retailer that sold me an mobo without a thermal shutdown option. There is nothing wrong as far as I am concerned with AMD. Now I am sure that SOTOPhantm has some good points, he is one of the two people in this particular community I turn to with questions. But AMD is not the problem chip it was so many years ago.

My vote is for AMD. They give you more bang for your buck.

@Phantom

If your AMD Chips are turning to slag after one year then you need to remember one thing. The cpu fan is your friend. Sorry bro couldn't resist.

Stout Hearts

=UE=Warhawk

Edited January 28, 2004 by warhawk

[Ruin 17]

AMD... done deal.

Don't give Intel any more money than they deserve, keep AMD ALIVE!

That's all.

[Yodasplat 0]

Since it looks like you guys know about the comparison between the 2 types of chips ... answer me this:

is a AMD 3000 the equivalent in performance of an Intel 3.0 GHz?

Is the AMD 3000 a 3.0 GHz processor?

I never could figure this out ...

[Chef-Scott 0]

is a AMD 3000 the equivalent in performance of an Intel 3.0 GHz?

Yes

Is the AMD 3000 a 3.0 GHz processor?

The AMD 3000 runs at 2.17GHz.

I never could figure this out ...

Neither can anyone else!

AMD chips are named to give an idea of what would be the equavilent Intel chip. So an XP 3000+ is equal to an Intel CPU of 3.0GHz

When I built my current system I decided to get the AMD XP 2500+ barton core. I easily overclocked it to 2.17GHz in the bios (with the stock AMD HSF, core temp only went up 2 degrees under full load). Cost half the price of a XP 3000+

[Dannik 43]

is a AMD 3000 the equivalent in performance of an Intel 3.0 GHz?

Depending on the benchmark, superior/inferior, but in essence, yes.

Is the AMD 3000 a 3.0 GHz processor?

Nope. It runs at a very similar (meaning higher/lower depending on the situation) throughput rate as the actual 3 GHz P4. It is named as a 3000+ to indicate that despite it's slower clock speed, it's performance is on par, in general.

Like I said earlier, my Athlon XP 2000+@1.667 gHz is, for my environment, faster in comparable operations than the Intel P4 2GHz cpu in the tower right next to mine. Slower clock speed, but more efficient in it's use of cycles.