• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

amd vs intel

A

amped

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
77
can anybody help me on a topic of AMD vs Intel maybe a posted thread before? or just awnser here which you think is better AMD or Intel and why
 
Its really hard to say.... Basically you need a scenario to say which is better. In certain cases AMD may be better (ex: value/performance), but in other cases Intel may be better (ex: hyperthreading and shit like that).

I dont know much about how the two compare, i just know many people will ask for what scenario is each better
 
I prefer AMD's nowadays for the price to performance and what I consider a wider variety of motherboard & chipsets avaiable. I own both Intel and AMD powered rigs and you cannot go wrong with either one. Neither one is "better" than the other, each has it's strength's and weakness' compared to the other. The best way to choose is to figure out what tasks your computer will be doing, and your budget you have, and then using benchmarks and recommendations find the one that suits your needs best.
 
Originally posted by tdg
I prefer AMD's nowadays for the price to performance and what I consider a wider variety of motherboard & chipsets avaiable. I own both Intel and AMD powered rigs and you cannot go wrong with either one. Neither one is "better" than the other, each has it's strength's and weakness' compared to the other. The best way to choose is to figure out what tasks your computer will be doing, and your budget you have, and then using benchmarks and recommendations find the one that suits your needs best.
Click to expand...

I'm with this good fellow, I own both and neither really is a clear winner in anything, it all depends on the applications you are running.
 
Umm.

A better question would be "Which is better in my case?". Are you building a system? If so, how much are you spending, and what will it be used for?
 
amd ownz j00 for word and microsoft apps

but unless your talking about the A64 series, Intel may be a better way to go for a gaming system.

I had a 1 gig amd(compaq) and now a 2.4intel so i couldnt tell you which one was better, because their so far apart in technology and plus i built this one.... which makes it better.

Intels do also seem to be the more expensive route than amd xp's. I do believe though that intel's "c" is much better for gaming unless your willing to go with A64
 
They both rock, but, obviously, VIA takes the crown with their low-power series.
 
it also depends on your a budget

a 2500+ with a 9800Pro would be much better than a 3.2c and a 9600xt for gaming
 
Originally posted by Cloud15x
it also depends on your a budget

a 2500+ with a 9800Pro would be much better than a 3.2c and a 9600xt for gaming
Click to expand...

This person speaks with very smarts words. CPU's are very important for system performance, but if you have a shitty video card, or not enough (or slow) memory, you ae going to feel "the pain".

The system as a package means more.

-Skystalker
 
Intel pwnzxrs in benchmarks, so if you want to benchmark, get an Intel.

And invest in Futuremark!! and BAPco.
 
Based on the articles and reviews I have read they seem to be pretty consistent on a few points. This all pre Monday, Prescot Day.

OC = Intel
Gaming = AMD
Video editing and 3D Render = Intel
Heavy multitask = Intel - hyperthreading

For me, I mainly game, surf, email, 2-D graphics, and burn MP3s. Personally, nothing I do is all that heavy on the multi-task and FRs in Far Cry mean more to me. So, unless Prescot pulls a quick reversal, I will be changing to an AMD 64 with my next upgrade (waiting for 939 mobos).
 
I hope Prescott does really well and beats the competitive A64's in alot of the benches.

And not cause i only like Intel. Because if Prescott DOESN'T get its shit togethor and kick some ass with its 3.4E or at least its new 3.6E on socket T then AMD is going to keep their prices on the A64 WAY up there. If prescott does do good then both chips will be competively priced and affordable.
 
I'm waiting for the Prescott reviews and see how it overclocks and then see if it's worth to upgrade to it. :D
 
W0W GOOD PRICES DAMNIT

i was thinking like 400+ bucks for a 2.8ghz damn....just... damn

My 2.4c was like 161 or someting
 
Prescott is going to push prices of the remaining Northwoods way down. So even if Prescott doesn't do good i can buy me some cheap Northwoods :).
 
Originally posted by Benny Blanco
You sure about that?

I'll bet you they won't drop much at all, given the minimal pricedrops of the previous cores:

P4 2.66 (B) - $159

P4 2.4 (B) - $162

P3 1.4 - $205

P3 1ghz - $93
Click to expand...

They'll have to drop the prices. Just look at the prices that Prescott is already showing up as.

http://www.pcprogress.com/product.asp?m1=pw&pid=INP4-800-2801MBOX

2.8E @ $203

http://www.spartantech.com/product.asp?m1=pw&pid=INP4-800-2801MOEM

2.8E OEM @ $187

The 3.2E will be going for the same price as the current 3.2Ghz Northwood. They'll have no choice but to drop prices some or they wont sell.

Intel will be slowly moving the fabrication process of the Northwoods over to 90 nanometer also and that will cut prices.
 
According to your logic, the P4 B's should have dropped significantly more by now. They have not. Therefore my logic says that the northwoods won't drop either. All hail chipzilla :rolleyes:
 
Intel is moving into the 90 nanometer production now. The 3.06b and 3.0c are both on 130 nano. Its more expensive to produce. One of the major reasons of moving to 90 nano is to cut prices. Thats why AMD is having to now move onto 90 nano to stay competitive in prices.

The last article i read on this i know said Intel would continue production of the Northwoods on 90 nano from the 2.8c up.
 
Originally posted by Mark Larson
And i'm sure 90nm has nothing whatsoever to do with higher clock speeds.
Click to expand...
Well, that and the fact that using a 90nm process, you can put out more chips on a single wafer. And each chip will dissipate less power.
 
Originally posted by Stiletto One
Well, that and the fact that using a 90nm process, you can put out more chips on a single wafer. And each chip will dissipate less power.
Click to expand...

Which means cheaper prices, and better overclocks.
 
It makes it cheaper for them to put out a faster chip, but not cheaper for us :)

As far as i know, there is 0 price differance for intel to put out a 3.2 compared to a 2.4 for example, the only thing that effects their price is quantity, even that is sketchy because they wont lower prices if its selling well. If it were up to intel we'd still be paying 2 grand for a pentium 1, and i bet the pentium 2 wouldnt even be out yet.
 
Originally posted by Wixard
It makes it cheaper for them to put out a faster chip, but not cheaper for us :)

As far as i know, there is 0 price differance for intel to put out a 3.2 compared to a 2.4 for example, the only thing that effects their price is quantity, even that is sketchy because they wont lower prices if its selling well. If it were up to intel we'd still be paying 2 grand for a pentium 1, and i bet the pentium 2 wouldnt even be out yet.
Click to expand...
Well, chip yields too—theoretically, not all 2.4s can hit 3.2, although there's a good bit of arbitrary speedbinning these days. (Arbitrary as in the chips COULD be used to run higher speed, but if they did, then there wouldn't be enough supply at the lower end of the market.)
 
Yea they do, do that. They've been doing it for a long time now.

I was just using a generic example of chipzilla
 
Who said not all 2.4's cant run at 3.2

Not all 2.4's can run a 265 mhz fsb, but no one said that a 2.4 cant run a 16x multiplier instead of a 12x and run at 3.2ghz....if the multiplier was unlocked
 
Originally posted by Cloud15x
Who said not all 2.4's cant run at 3.2

Not all 2.4's can run a 265 mhz fsb, but no one said that a 2.4 cant run a 16x multiplier instead of a 12x and run at 3.2ghz....if the multiplier was unlocked
Click to expand...

Yea but only ES versions are unlocked. And not many people can get ahold of those. Intel sends them out sometimes to hardware sites to use in a review.

And i'm sure 90nm has nothing whatsoever to do with higher clock speeds.
Click to expand...

Yea it does but the deeper pipelines has alot to do with that too. In order to increase the clock speed higher you have to have more pipeline stages. The A64 only has 12 stages. The Pentium 4 has 20 stages. And Prescott is suppost to have 30 stages. Fewer stages like in the A64 will yield more work per clock cycle but it also cannot increase in speeds very high. It has lower latency also from few pipelines. Consumers buy the fastest rated processor and thats what Intel goes for with less work higher speed processors. Whether or not the Pentium 4 is as efficient compared to the A64 is not even a question. Of course its less efficient. But the more the clock speeds are increased the more it outweighs the innefiency.

Also to me it seems like the A64's are becomming less efficient with each release. At least according to their rating system. When you had the barton cores it was usually quite a bit less then 100Mhz increases for each upgrade in speed like from the 2800+ to the 3000+ and do the 3200+. But with the A64's, the 3000+ and 3200+ start out at 2.0Ghz and then it takes a 200Mhz increase to equal a 3400+. The next is suppost to be a 3700+ @ 2.4Ghz so it looks to be more efficient according to their rating then the 3200+ -> 3400+ jump but still much less efficient then the Athlon XP's. AMD will try to keep to their efficient processors but in order to keep ramping in speeds to keep up with Intel they may have to start sacrificeing efficiency for raw clock speeds later on.

If it were up to intel we'd still be paying 2 grand for a pentium 1, and i bet the pentium 2 wouldnt even be out yet.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make much sense. Of course the chips would probably be more expensive if Intel didn't have any kind of competition but that doesn't mean they would not put out faster processors all the time. Faster processors enable businesses and consumers to get their work done quicker. Its Intel and AMD's job to supply faster new technology to accomplish these tasks more quickly all the time. Technology wouldn't come to a stand still if Intel was the only supplier, it would just be more expensive. It would be that way with any company. If Nvidia was the only video card maker not many people could afford the FX 5950. Because ATI is such a strong competitor prices are forced down.

According to your logic, the P4 B's should have dropped significantly more by now. They have not. Therefore my logic says that the northwoods won't drop either. All hail chipzilla
Click to expand...

The main reason older chips dont drop is because their production has ceased. There are fewer and fewer left all the time. The quantitiy left determines the price settings. The 2.8Ghz and higher Northwoods will continue in production up through the first releases of Prescott. The 2.4c and 2.6c have been canceled. If intel starts producing their 2.8Ghz Northwoods on 90 nanometer like they should then prices will most likely come down quite a bit. 90 nano is a much cheaper fabrication process. The high end processors always come down in price when new top of the line versions are released. Just look how much the A64 3200+ dropped when the 3400+ was released.
 
Socket A makes it too easy to damage your chip/mobo when installing heat sinks. I prefer the new 4 point hsf cages on the p4 boards.

I am recommending Intel Platform to all my friends these days, AMD runs too hot and socket A is zzzzzzz.
 
Originally posted by smatts
Socket A makes it too easy to damage your chip/mobo when installing heat sinks. I prefer the new 4 point hsf cages on the p4 boards.

I am recommending Intel Platform to all my friends these days, AMD runs too hot and socket A is zzzzzzz.
Click to expand...

Yea i hate having to be so careful when installing heatsinks on other peoples computers that opt to use an Athlon XP. Its just more hassle then throwing in a Pentium 4 and slamming down the heatsink lol.
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
That doesn't make much sense. Of course the chips would probably be more expensive if Intel didn't have any kind of competition but that doesn't mean they would not put out faster processors all the time. Faster processors enable businesses and consumers to get their work done quicker. Its Intel and AMD's job to supply faster new technology to accomplish these tasks more quickly all the time. Technology wouldn't come to a stand still if Intel was the only supplier, it would just be more expensive. It would be that way with any company. If Nvidia was the only video card maker not many people could afford the FX 5950. Because ATI is such a strong competitor prices are forced down.
Click to expand...
He was exaggerating... Are you sitting too close to your monitor? LOL
Originally posted by burningrave101
The high end processors always come down in price when new top of the line versions are released. Just look how much the A64 3200+ dropped when the 3400+ was released.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is true... For some reason I wasn't even thinking about the 3.0/3.2 :rolleyes:

Probably because I'm generally disappointed that intel doesnt drop the prices lower for the B cores and everything else prior to that. It's just doesn't seem right to me, but anyway, that's chipzilla for ya :p
 
Originally posted by smatts
Socket A makes it too easy to damage your chip/mobo when installing heat sinks. I prefer the new 4 point hsf cages on the p4 boards.

I am recommending Intel Platform to all my friends these days, AMD runs too hot and socket A is zzzzzzz.
Click to expand...
bah... sure, they run too hot...





...if you're a pussy :p

long live socket A (ok not too long, but at least another 2 years i bet! :D )
 
Originally posted by Benny Blanco
bah... sure, they run too hot...





...if you're a pussy :p

long live socket A (ok not too long, but at least another 2 years i bet! :D )
Click to expand...

Ehhh i think 2 years is a bit much to hope for. I think in two years i'd upgrade to one of the new Celerons out then lol. In benches right now between the Pentium 4, A64, and Athlon XP, the Athlon XP is usually pretty well down there on the bottom of the list especially against Pentium 4's running over 3Ghz. They'll still be good processors for quite a while as far as common uses most people use computers for but for how long they will hold up as a gaming solution is iffy. With 64-bit around the corner it could be the thing to have in 6-8 months if there are some big name games released in 64-bit and Windows 64-bit is out with enough drivers to support most of the hardware. Although Microsoft has said they wont be releasing a retail version in stores for Windows XP 64-bit so i havn't really stopped to figure out how they are going to be offering it. I'm guessing maybe as an OEM to computer suppliers like HP, Dell, Gateway, and so forth? Thats just a guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top