PDA

View Full Version : Amd vs. Intel



voodoomagik
05-19-2005, 12:00 PM
I figured we should have something like that here, for those interested.....
Discuss...

notoriousdoc
05-19-2005, 12:01 PM
I choose .

voodoomagik
05-19-2005, 12:03 PM
I choose to be ignorant.
Good choice!

c0d3r
05-19-2005, 12:04 PM
intel - that's what i have

but i had amd - no diff.

guess intel is more popular. i'll go for intel

notoriousdoc
05-19-2005, 12:08 PM
Good choice!

YAY!!! Go ignorance, YAY!!!

RXP
05-19-2005, 12:11 PM
I am not a gamer but a huge multitasker. I prefer AMD Sempron's cause they're dirt cheap and no way anyone needs the huge clock speeds we have now days (unless you are a gaymer).

I'd much rather skimp on the chip and purchase more RAM. It would be a lot more noticeable than CPU speed.

I've tried to explain this concept to many a lay person but they refuse to believe me. They just MUST have the latest 64bit 3ghz chips. Gay. There is no need for that. It's just successful marketing.

notoriousdoc
05-19-2005, 12:14 PM
I'm not a big knowledge on CPUs but I like the sound of the AMD 64 XP. If I bought a new PC, I would base it around that

RXP
05-19-2005, 12:16 PM
Wow that's a good reason for buying a waste of money chip. Cause you like the sound of it. Profound.

notoriousdoc
05-19-2005, 12:21 PM
Wow that's a good reason for buying a waste of money chip. Cause you like the sound of it. Profound.

As I said, I don't know much about CPUs. The sempron 2600 is supposed to be good for overclocking though isn't it? I'd go between them

Endymion
05-19-2005, 12:22 PM
my next pc will have a cell processor.

RXP
05-19-2005, 12:28 PM
How much is that gonna cost?

My next one is gonna be a quantum chip omg.

sKratch
05-19-2005, 12:36 PM
AMD all the way. AMD's are cheaper than Intel chips, and outperform them at lower speeds. I thinkt he Bartons have ridiculous FSB's, which is much more important than overall speed with multiplier. If you raise your FSB and lower your multiplier to come up with less Ghz (we're talking like .1 or something small) than you had before, your performance will increase.

voodoomagik
05-19-2005, 12:36 PM
intel - that's what i have

but i had amd - no diff.

guess intel is more popular. i'll go for intel
there's not only that! there are alot of issues to discuss here:like their marketing programs, production, technology used and so on...well amd has the low-end at it's feet, the problem appears in the mainstream and high-end market, where most of the major companies and users choose intel...intel has the advantage of being a huge corporation, has huge production potential, lots of employees!!! But, Amd was the first one to reach 1000mhz, and the first one to incorporate the 64 technology on it's microprocessors so it’s an adversary that muss not be under-appreciated. With all that, Athlon64, although an up-standing processor, with it's remarkable chipsets(754,939) failed to make a huge difference due to small amount of existing 64bit optimized applications!!! And Intel launched it’s processors with EM64T support almost perfect...just before the launch of Windows 64, when the change to 64 bit will be most necessary. Also the extreme edition processors (dual-core em64t..double northwood with 1 mb cache lv2 at 3.4 ghz and double prescott 2mb lvl 2 at 3.8 Ghz) and the future dual-core technology pentium d represent a major threat for amd, who also announced their athlon 64 X 2(dual-core). The good thing is that the future athlon x2 will be 939 compatible so you won’t have to change ya motherboard in order to purchase that.
Sorry for the eventual spelling mistakes….

sKratch
05-19-2005, 12:42 PM
When the AMD64's came out, there also were very few motherboards that supported the socket type. It's not really a problem any more though. I suppose by being such a large corporation, Intel also has more room for mistakes and chips that don't quite make it. Remember when they released a celeron that could be overclocked to outperform much more expensive chips? Yeah, they stopped producing unlocked copies of that pretty quick.

voodoomagik
05-19-2005, 12:42 PM
and outperform them at lower speeds.
it has nothing to do with the frequency....if you didn't know intel and amd use different technologies...amd processor does more instructions on a clock roll, intel does less, but it has faster clock rolls....that's why amd processors are nick-named 2200+, 2000, 3200 etc. although they run on lower frequencies. That numbers are used to show that that amd processor does the same amount of instructions per total as an intel processor at 3200, 2000 mhz and so on...

voodoomagik
05-19-2005, 12:45 PM
When the AMD64's came out, there also were very few motherboards that supported the socket type. It's not really a problem any more though. I suppose by being such a large corporation, Intel also has more room for mistakes and chips that don't quite make it. Remember when they released a celeron that could be overclocked to outperform much more expensive chips? Yeah, they stopped producing unlocked copies of that pretty quick.
yeah..i remember..i had one...took it from 600 to 1000 mhz without any problem...but let's look at duron and sempron-you can make wonders with both of them.......
and also..remember k6-3???..boy what a failure that was....and it was supposed to be the replacement for pentium 3

c0d3r
05-19-2005, 12:46 PM
duude, this is totaly beyond my knowledge...

i'm more into software than harware...

but i see you know a lot about it

sKratch
05-19-2005, 12:47 PM
it has nothing to do with the frequency....if you didn't know intel and amd use different technologies...amd processor does more instructions on a clock roll, intel does less, but it has faster clock rolls....that's why amd processors are nick-named 2200+, 2000, 3200 and so on although they run on lower frequencies. That numbers are used to show that that amd processor does the same amount of instructions per total as an intel processor at 3200, 2000 mhz and so on...
Yeah, I know what the numbers mean and why they are entitled as such.

K6-3 I'm not familiar with, though.

voodoomagik
05-19-2005, 12:53 PM
Yeah, I know what the numbers mean and why they are entitled as such.

K6-3 I'm not familiar with, though.
so you see the frequency is irrelevant, at least now, in the past it was a different thing... :p
k6-3 wasn't that bad but it had one of the most retarded marketing-campaigns ever.
not the case of k6-2 ......jesus....everybody was saying great stuff about that processor......damn, i bought one(dammit again)...it was inferior even to celeron, pentium 2 klamath pulverized it...it had a good price though

Evil-Dead
05-19-2005, 01:29 PM
http://www.chez.com/simpson2000/bio/nerds_orig.gif

NERDS!

voodoomagik
05-19-2005, 02:26 PM
http://www.chez.com/simpson2000/bio/nerds_orig.gif

NERDS!
Stupidity hurts....Here's a knife, use it wisely.....Stick it where it hurts....

Kitten
05-19-2005, 02:49 PM
I prefer AMD. I'd like to increase the RAM again though.

Evil-Dead
05-19-2005, 03:27 PM
Stupidity hurts....Here's a knife, use it wisely.....Stick it where it hurts....

oh no. it's the übernerd :D

voodoomagik
05-19-2005, 03:32 PM
hahaha...what's your reason for being alive???....because i don't see it!!!...considering the magnitude of your stupidity, it must be a pretty solid one...

voodoomagik
05-19-2005, 04:37 PM
by the way *off-topic*
i read that rambus is releasing a new memory type, with multi-threading technology....xdr..it will soon replace gddr3 on the video boards and shortly with minimal expences,will also become available as dram....on dual-channel, they say, it will give 4X the performances dual-channel offers today!

voodoomagik
05-20-2005, 06:10 PM
Wow that's a good reason for buying a waste of money chip. Cause you like the sound of it. Profound.
:D lol if there were more people like him, cyrix would still be in business

HornyPope
05-20-2005, 07:00 PM
A better comparision is a showdown of model/series. I don't know specifics but I remember I consulted some experts (I have my people) when deciding between P4 LGA775 and AMD64 and I finally went with the P4 for what it offered. I really liked the mobo too.

Currently I bought a sempron for parents' comp and that's one piece of crap. Runs at over 100 degrees. Though now that I think of it, i'm not entierly sure if those are celcius degrees or farnheit. I'm pretty sure it's C but it just sounds too crazy to be true. I'll get around to double check it next week.

voodoomagik
05-20-2005, 07:18 PM
A better comparision is a showdown of model/series. I don't know specifics but I remember I consulted some experts (I have my people) when deciding between P4 LGA775 and AMD64 and I finally went with the P4 for what it offered. I really liked the mobo too.

Currently I bought a sempron for parents' comp and that's one piece of crap. Runs at over 100 degrees. Though now that I think of it, i'm not entierly sure if those are celcius degrees or farnheit. I'm pretty sure it's C but it just sounds too crazy to be true. I'll get around to double check it next week.
Well what kind of sempron is it? I mean amd launched sempron both for socket a and for socket 754( paris core-130nm,256 cache l2 and palermo-90nm 128kb cache l2-both for socket 754).
I bet it runs at 100F, because at 100C that processor wudn't work at all.
and 100,100+ F is about right for an amd processor...around 40, 40+C
There would also be more to discuss about the different models of athlon64...because although people only know about 1 processor there are in fact 3 different models, every one with it's ups and downs...(just a suggestion)..

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 09:40 AM
wow! nobody really cares about this shit, huh?
and i was thinking to make a hardware thread.....guess not.... :(

HornyPope
05-21-2005, 10:03 AM
Mine's A socket.

and i'll check on the degrees again when I have a chance, but 40c sounds too low. Most AMD cpus from my experience ran at much, much higher. I had an Athlon XP and that thing ran at over 70c. I'm surprised 100 is possible at all, but either way it doesn't make much sense. But no need to discuss it now. I'll report back when i'm availible to check it (the pc isnt at my place btw)

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 10:18 AM
the amd processor runs quite ok while under 60C...from 70C you should really start to worry.. but anyway, once it has passed 60C , 70C, depending on the model, the computer will automatically shut down...
100C is out of the question ..no such thing, never, ever...not even a miracle…..

HornyPope
05-21-2005, 10:23 AM
I'm aware of that concerning previous models. My LGA775 used to crap out on me too because the bitch got waaay too hot until I bought a new cooler, but I thought maybe just maybe this one is different. Fuck knows. I admit i'm surprised myself. I'll see later on.

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 10:30 AM
by the way what do you use for temperature monitoring?

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 10:31 AM
yeah on the lga775 you need some serious bad-ass coolers....

HornyPope
05-21-2005, 10:35 AM
Actually I just check it from the bios. I used to have some programs installed on older systems but I don't care much now.

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 10:50 AM
hmmm...yeah, guess your right....i use Motherboard Monitor...don't know how good or accurate it is though.....

sKratch
05-21-2005, 11:50 AM
My Abit AN7 came with very good software for all sorts of monitoring. I am currently running at 43C, and the case temperature is a cool 26C. I have yet to figure out what the fuck PWM means, but that's at 33C.
Upgrading my NorthBridge fan helped the case temperature a LOT.

arak0r
05-21-2005, 12:45 PM
hahaha...what's your reason for being alive???....because i don't see it!!!...considering the magnitude of your stupidity, it must be a pretty solid one...

you are stupid yourself to assume everyone or anyone that dislikes these kind of topics, or doesnt really care about pc tech is stupid or ignorant.

and for the record amd SHITS all over intel. popularity has NOTHING to do with how good something is. well almost nothing. ill take a cooler, faster, stronger processor over intel pos' that cant even be kept safe with stock fans

sKratch
05-21-2005, 12:46 PM
I may be mistaken, because I really haven't used Intel in a long time, but don't AMD's run hotter with stock hsf's?

RXP
05-21-2005, 12:51 PM
and for the record amd SHITS all over intel.

Purely incorrect. I'd take xeons while building a server over any AMD. Cache alone.

arak0r
05-21-2005, 12:55 PM
I may be mistaken, because I really haven't used Intel in a long time, but don't AMD's run hotter with stock hsf's?

not the more recent intels, tho i havent researched it alot, some pentium 4's apparently burn up with stock fans :p

arak0r
05-21-2005, 12:55 PM
Purely incorrect. I'd take xeons while building a server over any AMD. Cache alone.

yea, sure, building a server. that doesnt mean that intel is better in any other way.

RXP
05-21-2005, 12:57 PM
Of course it does! Some of us aren't gaming geeks. I have an AMD cause it's dirt cheap. But for workstation performance (i.e. businesses) I'd take intel for them too.

Endy posted about that cell chip. Man that things gonna be in the new PS3. That thing KNOCKS THE SOCKS off anything we currently have.

RXP
05-21-2005, 01:02 PM
Also the whole CPU thing is way over-rated. Can you actually when your sitting t a terminal tell the difference between a similar AMD and Intel?

The things that make a much bigger difference, at least for me because I'm a huge multitasker/downloader/entertainment PC (record, watch tele etc.) is hard-drive and RAM.

Stick a fast hard-drive in (e.g. raptors) and a 1gig stick of RAM and it makes a HUGE difference. I'd rather have a machine with dual raptors in RAID0 with 2GB RAM than the latest AMD64 taht costs like £600 cause it would be far superior.

I really don't get the thing with CPU's, unless you're a heavy gamer. But don't the GPU's do the business now days?

arak0r
05-21-2005, 01:05 PM
intels are generally more expensive than amd, and intel has been the one going on about the clockspeed. amd doesnt deal with that, they dont even name their chips after clockspeeds, which is something intel has been doing for ages

arak0r
05-21-2005, 01:05 PM
for gaming, you want a great vid card, decent processor, and great memory. id have to say the problem is, if you dont get it set right, you get bottle necked

RXP
05-21-2005, 01:07 PM
Man I'm glad I'm not a gamer cause I spend enough on my rig as it is and that's without expensive components.

arak0r
05-21-2005, 01:08 PM
ive got 300 gigs of space and i want to get a 300 gig hard drive now :p its amazing how fast piracy will fill hd's up. i should just back most of it up on dvd but im too lazy atm

RXP
05-21-2005, 01:11 PM
Including the hard-drives in London I have 700 odd gigs. The thing about me is tho I download so many TV shows. There is no way in hell that I can watch them all. I just don't have the time. ANd yeah I wanna get another HD. I got a 200GB one but it died and when it came back to life was missing 70GB. But if I get a bigger hard-drive I will just fill it up with shit I will never watch.

sKratch
05-21-2005, 01:14 PM
I'd back shit up on DVD's too, but the lack of ctrl+F in real life makes me not want to do it. I'd just misplace everything, more than likely.

RAM is just as important in a gaming computer as a multimedia computer. In fact, RAM is one of the most common overclocking bottlenecks.

RXP
05-21-2005, 01:17 PM
RAM speed is not important in a multimedia computer. Quantity is.

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 01:56 PM
you are stupid yourself to assume everyone or anyone that dislikes these kind of topics, or doesnt really care about pc tech is stupid or ignorant.

and for the record amd SHITS all over intel. popularity has NOTHING to do with how good something is. well almost nothing. ill take a cooler, faster, stronger processor over intel pos' that cant even be kept safe with stock fans

his presence here had nothing to do with this thread...he named all the people interested in this topic nerds.....by your brilliant judgement he is neither an ignorant or a stupid asshole, right?

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 02:03 PM
ive got 300 gigs of space and i want to get a 300 gig hard drive now :p its amazing how fast piracy will fill hd's up. i should just back most of it up on dvd but im too lazy atm
wow!

RAM speed is not important in a multimedia computer. Quantity is.
let's not forget about people who build graphic engines, use multi-task aplications etc.

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 02:05 PM
for gaming, you want a great vid card, decent processor, and great memory. id have to say the problem is, if you dont get it set right, you get bottle necked
that's right. although you gotta be carefull how you you combine them, that's really important.

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 02:08 PM
Purely incorrect. I'd take xeons while building a server over any AMD. Cache alone.
Cache memory is an important issue.
From that point of view Extreme edition kicks ass....the prescott dual-core version@3.8ghz has 2mb cache level2, 1mb for each core...

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 02:17 PM
Of course it does! Some of us aren't gaming geeks. I have an AMD cause it's dirt cheap. But for workstation performance (i.e. businesses) I'd take intel for them too.

Endy posted about that cell chip. Man that things gonna be in the new PS3. That thing KNOCKS THE SOCKS off anything we currently have.
athlon64 does pretty well in the game area..i'll post some tests as soon as i can....

Endymion
05-21-2005, 02:32 PM
once cells are out for the general population, no one will be looking at 64 bit x86. plus for servers you can scale to 8 cells (each of which have 8 subprocessors) for a 64 cpu cluster. cells just kick the shit out of x86. don't expect windows to run on them for a while, though.

RXP
05-21-2005, 02:35 PM
Yeah cells look insane.

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 03:50 PM
once cells are out for the general population, no one will be looking at 64 bit x86. plus for servers you can scale to 8 cells (each of which have 8 subprocessors) for a 64 cpu cluster. cells just kick the shit out of x86. don't expect windows to run on them for a while, though.
me neither, microsoft has to honor it’s “secret” contracts first...
but hey, ibm has lots of resources...although i think the response from intel&amd will come soon..

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 03:56 PM
RAM speed is not important in a multimedia computer. Quantity is.
i don't think it's gonna be much of a problem


by the way *off-topic*
i read that rambus is releasing a new memory type, with multi-threading technology....xdr..it will soon replace gddr3 on the video boards and shortly with minimal expences,will also become available as dram....on dual-channel, they say, it will give 4X the performances dual-channel offers today!

once these bad babies appear on dram format..... :rolleyes:

Endymion
05-21-2005, 03:58 PM
netbsd and linux will be the first general purpose OSes to run on cells. possibly linux before netbsd, due to IBM.

voodoomagik
05-21-2005, 04:11 PM
netbsd and linux will be the first general purpose OSes to run on cells. possibly linux before netbsd, due to IBM.
true, true...although it is said that linux is more unstable than windows 2003 on servers(Never tested it but I read an article. I can’t accord it maximum credibility because the test was done under microsoft’s supervision.) it can be a very powerful ally for ibm......
microsoft should take the cells in consideration or else they risk losing a lot of customers, at least on the server market, that is if intel and amd don’t come up with some new technologies…we shall live and we shall see….

voodoomagik
09-12-2005, 09:21 AM
does any1 have an intel extreme edition or in dual tehnology(D)?