how do i know which processor to get AMD or INTEL ?

interesting question that will get a touch muddy once the dual cores (think 2 cpus in one) come out.
Ok if you multitask (surf the web, download, rip mp3s & watch movie at the same time) a higher end intel with hyperthreading should do well (allows 2 programs to access the cpu at the same time, unlike the older intels/amds where the programs get in one at a time...)
IF you game - hands down amd 64 is THE route to go PERIOD. Most bang for buck and out runs intel clock per clock - by wide margins.
from what little you said - amd seems to be the recommendation.
 
64bit makes no difference, that's what they say.
i would go with an intel p4 550 or better if you have $.
a 3.4ghz is fast enough to do anything.
 
If your just downloading the games and not playing them then get the intel for the multitasking which is hard for me to say cause I wont own one.
 
He said "downloading movies", games. Playing games, not downloading them. An Athlon 64 is more advisable, P4s are slower in almost every task to the comparable A64 and only have an advantage (small one) in media encoding and some occasional software rendering tests (not games)... which he won't be doing. A64s are also MUCH faster in games than P4s. They also cost much less, emit about half the heat (or less) letting the machine be quieter, use less power, and will run even faster when XP 64-bit is installed (64-bit is NOT meaningless and if you believe that, you have a lot of reading up to do.)

Also, Socket 939 will let him upgrade to AMD's (superior in performance, efficiency and heat level) later this year, when they cost less anyway. Intel's dual-core P4s are underwhelming, miserable for gaming and will clearly be toppled by AMD's better engineered DC-A64s later this year. Not only will the dual-core A64s run faster in most tasks, especially gaming, early benchmarks show faster performance on Engineering samples. They'll also of course, run cooler and use less power than their P4 counterparts. Their AMD64 instruction set implementation is also far superior as the benchmarks clearly show, compared to the P4's butchered EM64T mess of a 64-bit extension.
 
Epicenter said:
He said "downloading movies", games. Playing games, not downloading them. An Athlon 64 is more advisable, P4s are slower in almost every task to the comparable A64 and only have an advantage (small one) in media encoding and some occasional software rendering tests (not games)... which he won't be doing. A64s are also MUCH faster in games than P4s. They also cost much less, emit about half the heat (or less) letting the machine be quieter, use less power, and will run even faster when XP 64-bit is installed (64-bit is NOT meaningless and if you believe that, you have a lot of reading up to do.)

Also, Socket 939 will let him upgrade to AMD's (superior in performance, efficiency and heat level) later this year, when they cost less anyway. Intel's dual-core P4s are underwhelming, miserable for gaming and will clearly be toppled by AMD's better engineered DC-A64s later this year. Not only will the dual-core A64s run faster in most tasks, especially gaming, early benchmarks show faster performance on Engineering samples. They'll also of course, run cooler and use less power than their P4 counterparts. Their AMD64 instruction set implementation is also far superior as the benchmarks clearly show, compared to the P4's butchered EM64T mess of a 64-bit extension.
Click to expand...

I second that - AMD64 will give you best performance in games and won't be a bad performer in other things...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top