yeah true..but ive noticed that with intel based chips..anything to do with
multimedia ..intel will outdo amd in that field...
but ima gamer and just general use...so im happy with my amd system
hah! actually intel's been really good at "matrix operation" (need in
photoshop operation) while AMD's really good at floating point operation
(gaming, multimedia operation, etc...).
Quote by andiiyeah true..but ive noticed
that with intel based chips..anything to do with multimedia ..intel will outdo
amd in that field...
but ima gamer and just general use...so im happy with my amd
system
not really, if your motherboard equipped with Nforce chipset.
Quote by andiiyeah true..but ive noticed
that with intel based
chips..anything to do with multimedia ..intel will outdo amd in that
field...
but ima gamer and just general use...so im happy with my amd
system
not really, if your motherboard equipped with Nforce
chipset.
Actually, Intel's still beter with media creation than AMD no matter which
chipset you use. Tho' AMD seems to be closing that gap fast with their new .9nm
64-bit chips and the new mobo's that are coming out.
Right now I have a AMD Athlon XP 1700+ chip running at 2.4 GHz (default is 1.47
GHz), I have had mostly AMD processors but I was very happy with my Pentium III
700e (that I promptly overclocked to 1 GHz). I'd say right now AMD has the
upper hand as far as price and performance in the benchmarks I am interested in.
As far as which one is actually better, I dont think I can say, it depends on
each persons point of view. Intel seems to have a better research budget, but
AMD is no slouch either, things are sure interesting in the processor market and
it will be fun to watch how the next year turns out.
I say if you want killer gaming performance without the price go with AMD, when
a friend of mine told me about his AMD 64 3200+ system i had to switch and here
is what i got
amd 64 3400+ 2.2Ghz
MSI K8N Neo (Nforce 3 250gb chipset)
1 GB of pc-3500 RAM(2x 512mb)
Maxtor SATA 250 GB hd
ati Radeon X800 XT PE 256mb Video Card
3Dmark03 score: 11079
AMD since their CPUs are cheaper, faster and currently run much cooler than
intels P IVs, which also lack the upcoming 64bit instructions
The quality problems of AMD are also a thing of the past and were main board
problems (wich were from 3rd parties) in most cases , currently intels errata
list is much longer than AMDs
Mihi, who is a proud AMD fanboy, since he lives in dresden where AMDs mainfab is
located
Hard for me to say, I have both (2 computers), I like that Intel has been around
longer and have more reliable and stable systems, but that may only last another
year or 2.
amd64 if you have a OS capable of doing 64bit processes(XP64 and linux and
freebsd and etc etc etc)
i like the Intel P4 hyperthreading...
its basically having 2 cpus for the price of 1... (well thats how the system
treats it anyways)
still im not a chooser since i like them both for they things they are good
at
well AMD64 wont do much for you in a regular desktop home use environment, you
need a OS capable of doing the 64 bit instructions to see the difference... so
eh
and P4 heat up problems are in the new Prescott core... silly lil bugger heats
up like crazy, but its got SSE3 support in which the Northwood core dont have...
but then again... i dont really see much home programs/games using the SSE3
yet... so eh also
I would go with AMD. Solely for the fact that they offer the same efficieny and
performance of the Intel processors for a much cheaper price. I've been using
AMD processors since I was about 10 years old, and I have not had any problems
with them whatsoever. They are long lasting and they give me the performance
that I paid for.
Also I like the fact that AMD came out with the Athlon XP chipsets made just for
Windows XP. Those give smooth performance and no problems at all. Although I
would have to go with Intel when it comes to laptops. They just perform and last
longer with laptops.
i built my last system on intell p4 2.8 that i was able to efortlessly run at
3.15 with about 38C full load temps and as low as 17.5 cold idle with air
cooling, came together fast and easy witout any glitches..i havent played with
AMD but i have read than my 2.8c will easily do 3.4 bit with some tweaking..i
shal try it once i satisfy self that i know enough to do it haha so far i like
it, current temp 27.5 C running at average~light load
yeah true..but ive noticed that with intel based chips..anything to do with multimedia ..intel will outdo amd in that field...
but ima gamer and just general use...so im happy with my amd system
hah! actually intel's been really good at "matrix operation" (need in photoshop operation) while AMD's really good at floating point operation (gaming, multimedia operation, etc...).
not really, if your motherboard equipped with Nforce chipset.
personally i think AMD is better bang for the buck, intel slightly overpriced
AMD has always been my choice as well. Intel hasn't been progessing at all in the past, er 8 years I'd say.
Actually, Intel's still beter with media creation than AMD no matter which chipset you use. Tho' AMD seems to be closing that gap fast with their new .9nm 64-bit chips and the new mobo's that are coming out.
Intel...hands down.
Right now I have a AMD Athlon XP 1700+ chip running at 2.4 GHz (default is 1.47 GHz), I have had mostly AMD processors but I was very happy with my Pentium III 700e (that I promptly overclocked to 1 GHz). I'd say right now AMD has the upper hand as far as price and performance in the benchmarks I am interested in. As far as which one is actually better, I dont think I can say, it depends on each persons point of view. Intel seems to have a better research budget, but AMD is no slouch either, things are sure interesting in the processor market and it will be fun to watch how the next year turns out.
hey ppl whats intel centrino
It is a set of technology that Intel uses in its laptops and is intended to increase the battery life.
Read this article for more info
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=1800
amd for the ocing
Exactly why i like AMD more. There babies were built to burn!
I say if you want killer gaming performance without the price go with AMD, when a friend of mine told me about his AMD 64 3200+ system i had to switch and here is what i got
amd 64 3400+ 2.2Ghz
MSI K8N Neo (Nforce 3 250gb chipset)
1 GB of pc-3500 RAM(2x 512mb)
Maxtor SATA 250 GB hd
ati Radeon X800 XT PE 256mb Video Card
3Dmark03 score: 11079
AMD since their CPUs are cheaper, faster and currently run much cooler than intels P IVs, which also lack the upcoming 64bit instructions
The quality problems of AMD are also a thing of the past and were main board problems (wich were from 3rd parties) in most cases , currently intels errata list is much longer than AMDs
Mihi, who is a proud AMD fanboy, since he lives in dresden where AMDs mainfab is located
Hard for me to say, I have both (2 computers), I like that Intel has been around longer and have more reliable and stable systems, but that may only last another year or 2.
amd64 if you have a OS capable of doing 64bit processes(XP64 and linux and freebsd and etc etc etc)
i like the Intel P4 hyperthreading...
its basically having 2 cpus for the price of 1... (well thats how the system treats it anyways)
still im not a chooser since i like them both for they things they are good at
well AMD64 wont do much for you in a regular desktop home use environment, you need a OS capable of doing the 64 bit instructions to see the difference... so eh
and P4 heat up problems are in the new Prescott core... silly lil bugger heats up like crazy, but its got SSE3 support in which the Northwood core dont have... but then again... i dont really see much home programs/games using the SSE3 yet... so eh also
AMD = desk
Intel = notebook
i've got an AMD A64 3200+ in the new desktop i built. as soon as i return home, i'm going to put a 64bit Fedora on there...
g4/g5 all the way!
I would go with AMD. Solely for the fact that they offer the same efficieny and performance of the Intel processors for a much cheaper price. I've been using AMD processors since I was about 10 years old, and I have not had any problems with them whatsoever. They are long lasting and they give me the performance that I paid for.
Also I like the fact that AMD came out with the Athlon XP chipsets made just for Windows XP. Those give smooth performance and no problems at all. Although I would have to go with Intel when it comes to laptops. They just perform and last longer with laptops.
I am sticking with Intel until I eventually switch over to a Mac G5 with their new upcoming dual core IBM PowerPC chips...and of course Tiger ^_-
i built my last system on intell p4 2.8 that i was able to efortlessly run at 3.15 with about 38C full load temps and as low as 17.5 cold idle with air cooling, came together fast and easy witout any glitches..i havent played with AMD but i have read than my 2.8c will easily do 3.4 bit with some tweaking..i shal try it once i satisfy self that i know enough to do it haha so far i like it, current temp 27.5 C running at average~light load
Intel provides great stability for me. Never made my comp. break down, of course. I have a 3.4 GHz Chip in it right now.
AMD is good too - but its more game-preference wise, and I'm not much into PC Games.
i prefer AMD
I like AMD. It is a a lower prise, then Intel.
But you need to be careful with it. Do NOT owerheat, and be careful with attaching a cooler.