WytchDokta Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 I never wanted to this but.... ....this could start a flame war.... Which is better? - Intel or AMD - ATI or nVidia Now, maybe Intel are leading the markte right now (I dunno) but in six months time it could be a different story. I been lookin' at AMD processors to find a suitable processor for my ne super-rig that I gettin' soon. I wanna get something like an AMD Athlon XP 3200....but there's something I don't understand. 3200 = 3.2 right? 3.2 is the processor I want. The processor I got in this rig (the rig i usin now) is an AMD Athlon 1200 (1.2) that runs at 1.2. But the AMD Athlon XP 3200 DOES NOT run at 3.2....I been lookin' in a PC mag, it says here: CPU Type/ Clock (Ghz): Athlon XP 3200/2.20 Therefore the 3200 runs at 2.20....or am I mistaken? Bah, I dunno....I no understand, pleeeeese rrrrepeeeeet!! So I thought, I'll look at Intel....Intel Pentium 4 3.2 runs at 3.2 right? Ah, what the hell, I dunno. Help me out here guys. I'm sick of this "Laginator Deluxo" rig I usin at the mo'. Me wanna have no lag in games with me new rig! 2.20 won't do.... 3.2 will! Also, is the Athlon 64 processor better than the Athlon XP processor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supasniper Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 amd processors do not run at the number they are named, due to different internal construction amd cpu's do more per cycle of the clock than intel so can do as much as intel's equivalent cup at a lower speed. i think the number in amd cup's name refers to what speed you'd need if you were running intel and the AMD64 is a 64bit processor thus better and faster than non-64 AMD's in referance to the topic title, AMD all the way and i'm leaning toward ATI at the moment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakebite1967 Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 I run with AMD and ATI, tho i used to run Intel and Nvidia. my present rig was built to last me awhile and i wanted the best my meagre dollars could buy and to allow easier upgradability of certain components hence AMD, but at the end of the day its your choice both camps have equal quality and peformance my tbred 2700 runs at 2170 actual clock speed but its more than enough for me till i switch to 64 bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 All four companies are good. Go with what ever you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefly2442 Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Nvidia has good support for Linux drivers but currently I would say ATI has the faster cards. As for AMD and Intel, Intel is usually a little more reliable and a little more expensive. But as was stated with the new 64bit support... AMD proves they are worthy to take on Intel for the number one spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RooK Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Intel more reliable? No. They're equal. The person that makes the difference is the driver/software designer, both have they're bad apples in that department. You can just about say the same for nVidia vs Ati. AMD proved they were worthy when they introduced the original Athlon line and were the first to hit 1ghz. Since then its been a battle with AMD playing catchup because they mostly hold the low end sector and didn't want the top end bad enough. With the new 64's, they still match any P4 currently available in 32bit mode, let alone 64, while still costing less. That may change with the next P4 revision, but for all intents and purposes, as fast as PCs are today it doesn't matter one bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRP 56 Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 This topic sure seems to come up often. Common sense would tell you that if one company was that much better than the other we would all know it and that company wouldn't last long in this competitive market because nobody would want to throw their money away on junk. I use Intel and Nvidia because I've never had any failures with their products not because I think one is better than the other. Buy what you think will be best for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[TCS]BlackMamba Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 So let me get this straight cos im still confused. A 3200 AMD even tho its not 3.2GHz runs as fast as a 3.2Ghz Intel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakebite1967 Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 in theory but not always the case pretty hard to explain thats the PR they release with each chip. im happy with my Tbred 2700+ no matter what p4 its as fast as Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteKnight77 Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 BlackMamba,Mar 17 2004, 11:15 ] So let me get this straight cos im still confused. A 3200 AMD even tho its not 3.2GHz runs as fast as a 3.2Ghz Intel? AMD preforms better in some applications (specially floating point) than Intel and vice versa. Games are a good app for AMD CPUs. AMD CPUs can do as much if not more than an P4 with fewer clock cycles. One reason why custom builders use an AMD chip vs an Intel chip is price vs performance. AMD CPUs are cheaper than a comparable P4, I.E. AMD64 FX-51: $600+; Intel P4EE (Extreme Edition and aimed at gamers) $900+. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted March 20, 2004 Author Share Posted March 20, 2004 Hmmm....Athena Sword does'nt support Radeon 9800 or higher....it only supports up to 9700....Gimme my GeForce FX 5950!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted March 21, 2004 Author Share Posted March 21, 2004 (edited) Ok, I don't care what you say, I ain't gonna build me own PC. I gonna get a custom built PC. I thinkin about getting a Maxx 4D puter from Special Reserve. Special Reserve are best known for their games PC's. Will an Athlon 64 (64-bit) 3200 run faster than/as fast as an Intel P4 (32-bit) 3.2? I can get this puter with an Athlon 64, it got Microstar K8T800 NEO mainboard too - that any good? Edit: link - Maxx PC Check the Maxx 4D range, not the 4DV range. Edit edit: you can customise PC on there too. Alienware puters are way too expensive for me. Help me out here guys. Edited March 21, 2004 by -[NCM]- .:Nightmare:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightCrawler Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 I just got a P4 3.2, 800mhz FSB, 1gb pc3200 golden dragon on the board with a 120gb HD, cd/dvd rw combo,Nvidia FX5200 for just under $1100 USD. You can do better then that one you posted if you shop around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYR_32 Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 - .:Nightmare:.,Mar 20 2004, 11:05 ] Hmmm....Athena Sword does'nt support Radeon 9800 or higher....it only supports up to 9700....Gimme my GeForce FX 5950!! Just curious where you came up with this? RvS and AS both say they support up to only the 9700 and Ti4600... but they both run with 9800's and FX cards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brass Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 @ nightmare I personaly would go with technology. If you can get 64 compaired to 32 then get 64. because in buying a new system what do you have to lose. 32 bit stuff is going to die once the price of 64 hits the break. (unless there is some new technology that I dont know about that only uses 64) think of future upgradeing. there is a possiblity that your motherboard will take a higher 64 chip with just a bios firmware upgrade. thats just smart so instead of haveing to buy a new computer in 2 years you may have to just buy a processor. thats my 2 cents Brass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRP 56 Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 - .:Nightmare:.,Mar 20 2004, 11:05 ] Hmmm....Athena Sword does'nt support Radeon 9800 or higher....it only supports up to 9700....Gimme my GeForce FX 5950!! No problem with high end cards on any of the newer games it's the older cards you have problems with as a lot of them don't support T&L and most new games use it. FX 5950 sounds good give me one to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakebite1967 Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 all it means is someone was too lazy to update the original raven shield system requirements, i play rvs with a 9800 pro max everything and its beautiful. Minimum Requirements Windows® 98/ME/2000/XP ONLY 800 MHz Pentium® III, AMD Athlon, or equivalent 128 MB RAM (XP users: 256 MB RAM required) 32 MB DirectX 8 compatible 3D video card with hardware T&L ***(supported chipsets listed below) DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card DirectX 8.1 or higher (DX9 included on the disc) CDROM 16x or faster (NOT recommended for use with CDRW drives) 2 GB minimum hard drive space Windows® compatible mouse required Internet connection for play on ubi.com (56k modem supported but not recommended) Recommended System Specifications Windows® XP Professional 1.3 GHz Pentium 4, AMD Athlon, or equivalent 512 MB RAM 128 MB DirectX 8.1 compatible 3D video card ***(supported chipsets listed below) High Speed Internet connection (Cable/DSL) Supported Video Chipsets ATI RADEON™ 9700 Pro RADEON™ 9000 Pro RADEON™ 8500LE RADEON™ 8500 RADEON™ 7500 RADEON™ ViVO RADEON™ RADEON™ VE Nvidia GeForce 4 Ti 4600 GeForce 4 Ti 4400 GeForce 4 MX 460 GeForce 4 MX 440 GeForce 3 Ti500 GeForce 3 GeForce 2 GTS GeForce 2 MX400 GeForce 2 MX Geforce 256 DDR GeForce 256 SDR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recon Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 From Google Answers: Why are Intel Processors more expensive than AMD Processors? This is a very simple question... The fact is that Intel likes to do things right, they spend millions of dollars testing there processors and trying to make them best that they can be for the right price. AMD is a great company dont get my wrong, I happen to be A+ certified and I dont think that they spend as much time mastering the art of processors as much as intel does. They dont have as much money backing them. Also AMD is kinda like the poor mans processors, they developed a way to make processors cheap for the public and trying to get the same quality as you would with an intel processor (great inovators). They kinda cut corner and dont add as many pipelines as much as intel does which damages the overall speed but yet they manage to some how keep up with Intel Processors. If you are worried about what type of processor to pick you have to ask your self... How much am I willing to spend? If it was me I would say, If I had the cash Go for an Intel P4, My personal experience is they have rock solid performance. But, I've also made my sister a AMD Athlon XP computer and it gives my pc a run for its money... In the end it really doesnt matter which one you go for. It all boils down to $. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Please... please tell me you didn't actually pay for that answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurFACE Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Not another Intel vs AMD, or ATI vs Nvidia. Wake me when everyone shares the same opinion to say winner is in the eyes of the beholder. No true winner in this debate other than they all win all the way to the bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recon Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 Please... please tell me you didn't actually pay for that answer. No it wasn't me you can look through other peoples questions and answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRP 56 Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 Not another Intel vs AMD, or ATI vs Nvidia. Wake me when everyone shares the same opinion to say winner is in the eyes of the beholder. No true winner in this debate other than they all win all the way to the bank. Looks like Intel and Nvidia are the ones with the fat piggy bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted April 3, 2004 Author Share Posted April 3, 2004 Looks like AMD Athlon 64 it is then....considering Intel don't do 64-bit processors yet.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 You may want to wait... Intel should be releasing theirs later this year, which would make AMD drop their prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.