my budget is $400 on a cpu, and i wanted the new 600 series, so i've been looking at the 3.2 gig 640, i've also been looking at the 3800+ as well, the 3800 only has 512kb cache while intel has 2mb cache, does 4x the cache really matter that much? will it make a huge difference in what i'm doing? i play games mostly.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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.
intel or amd?
- Thread starter hershey
- Start date
The amount of cache a processor has doesn't determine how fast the processor is.
For example, Northwood P4's have 512k cache, but are faster clock for clock than Prescott P4's with 1MB of cache. (and these are the same brand, same family CPU)
This becomes especially true when you start comparing different brands of CPU's. The amount of cache that an AMD cpu has is not relavant to the amount of cache that a Intel CPU has, they are just not comparable. The CPU's are far too different. The AMD has the memory controller on the CPU, while the Intel has to depend on the chipset to provide a memory controller, so the AMD in general does not need as much cache as the Intel CPU does just to stay busy.
But really forget all of that, look at the benchmarks in the games you play. Right now, for gaming, AMD's current processors leave Intel's current processors in the dust.
Personally I have never owned an AMD system, but if I were to build one right now for the purpose of playing games on it, I would go AMD with a nForce 4 socket 939 MB, probably the DFI SLI one. (Though if I had the money, I would be tempted by a Intel Dothan desktop system, esp if a dual channel memory one was available.)
==>Lazn
For example, Northwood P4's have 512k cache, but are faster clock for clock than Prescott P4's with 1MB of cache. (and these are the same brand, same family CPU)
This becomes especially true when you start comparing different brands of CPU's. The amount of cache that an AMD cpu has is not relavant to the amount of cache that a Intel CPU has, they are just not comparable. The CPU's are far too different. The AMD has the memory controller on the CPU, while the Intel has to depend on the chipset to provide a memory controller, so the AMD in general does not need as much cache as the Intel CPU does just to stay busy.
But really forget all of that, look at the benchmarks in the games you play. Right now, for gaming, AMD's current processors leave Intel's current processors in the dust.
Personally I have never owned an AMD system, but if I were to build one right now for the purpose of playing games on it, I would go AMD with a nForce 4 socket 939 MB, probably the DFI SLI one. (Though if I had the money, I would be tempted by a Intel Dothan desktop system, esp if a dual channel memory one was available.)
==>Lazn
delusion_2005
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 805
I would have gone wif the p4 since it has the 2mb cache, and p4 is not too bad for gaming its ok. I would never build a amd or celeron, because p4 owns.
delusion_2005 said:
Not at everything. You should look at:
1) Overall performance, if you don't spend 100% of time in one single application.
-or-
2) If you are building a machine for a dedicated purpose, you should build the best machine for the task.
(cf)Eclipse
Freelance Overclocker
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 30,027
only at equal model 'ratings' (3400+ compared to 3.4c)
if you go by price, amd wins everything, because the 3700+ is just a tad more expensive than 3 of the 3.4ghz intel's and 100 less than the 3.4ghz/2mb prescott, and the 3700+ wins almost all benchmarks over those chips
if you go by price, amd wins everything, because the 3700+ is just a tad more expensive than 3 of the 3.4ghz intel's and 100 less than the 3.4ghz/2mb prescott, and the 3700+ wins almost all benchmarks over those chips
honestly. It really doesnt matter. I've run the both types of systems. So you loose 5 fps by going to intel, or it will take you 5 more seconds to encode a mp3 if you run AMD. For 95% of all users it really doesnt matter.
EDIT: Get what ever is the best value for you money.
EDIT: Get what ever is the best value for you money.
Don't listen to the AMD !!!!!!s with the price quotes, nor the intel !!!!!!s. Where the last poster is right (you can't really go wrong, 5% speed vs 5fps etc).
Hyperthreading is noticably smoother in multitasking, so if you do everything, intel is a slightly better choice. However, if you're a single-tasker more than a multitasker (i.e. you encode a video and wait till it's done before loading up CS) you will probably be happier with the AMD. If you're on a tight budget, as the amd person said, the amd is a bit better bang for the buck, despite the lower clock speeds.
Hyperthreading is noticably smoother in multitasking, so if you do everything, intel is a slightly better choice. However, if you're a single-tasker more than a multitasker (i.e. you encode a video and wait till it's done before loading up CS) you will probably be happier with the AMD. If you're on a tight budget, as the amd person said, the amd is a bit better bang for the buck, despite the lower clock speeds.
freddiepm61
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 836
amd 3500+ is the best all rounder.
cheapish
excellent performance in games and encoding
far far far cooler and quieter running
supports sli now!
f
cheapish
excellent performance in games and encoding
far far far cooler and quieter running
supports sli now!
f
freddiepm61
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 836
I mean i do not want to be rampantly !!!!!!ish, but the amd is better.
also, the decent mobos are more expensive, and the memory is more expensive but with less good performance.
also, on the ocing front, you can get better ocing ram, and do quite good oc on the stock amd cooler, which would be impossible with the prescott
f
also, the decent mobos are more expensive, and the memory is more expensive but with less good performance.
also, on the ocing front, you can get better ocing ram, and do quite good oc on the stock amd cooler, which would be impossible with the prescott
f
Please don't listen to zealots that try pushing you towards Intel or AMD. Listen to people like ThomasE66, who give you unbiased information based on the truth and not based on their personal favorite.
It has been said before: They perform very similar in all day tasks, one is a little better here, the other one there. Overall, it boils down to price/performance ratio and i personally think the AMD is the best choice. That doesn't mean i hate Intel (I am running both my rigs with intel right now), that just means i can open my eyes and am not blinded by brand loyalty.
AMD is just as stable as Intel, runs cooler, is easy to overclock for the most part (just as easy as intels) and are cheaper for the same performance. Simple as that.
It has been said before: They perform very similar in all day tasks, one is a little better here, the other one there. Overall, it boils down to price/performance ratio and i personally think the AMD is the best choice. That doesn't mean i hate Intel (I am running both my rigs with intel right now), that just means i can open my eyes and am not blinded by brand loyalty.
AMD is just as stable as Intel, runs cooler, is easy to overclock for the most part (just as easy as intels) and are cheaper for the same performance. Simple as that.
Redefined said:
Why wouldn't it be stable? Stability has nothing to do with a Processor unless its a defective one. Motherboards and other system parts are what affects stability.
The only time a stability issue can be the processor is when you OC, and getting a A64 to 2.6-2.7ghz, is just to easy.
I would rather save myself $100 or so, and put that in getting a better vid card or ram.
Rad777
S
solofly
Guest
Redefined said:
Yes Intel uses a harder shell so it takes a larger hammer to break one. Like the guy said, AMD is not as solid.
CCUABIDExORxDIE
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
if you get an amd, expect better memory efficiency, around 20%, cause most intel systems run aroudn a 75% ram effiecency rate, where as most amd(i love you integrated mem controller) gets around 95%. and amds are cheaper, have less pipes(10 compaired to the 31 prescotts have) so at lower frequency they can do better, and generally run cooler.
(cf)Eclipse
Freelance Overclocker
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 30,027
agreed. i say biased stuff, but i try to back it up.
CCUABIDExORxDIE: not pipes. stages. prescott has 31. northwood has 20. the p3 has 10.
a64 has 12
redefined: i guess that would make lga775's the strongest of them all, no pins to bend!
CCUABIDExORxDIE: not pipes. stages. prescott has 31. northwood has 20. the p3 has 10.
a64 has 12
redefined: i guess that would make lga775's the strongest of them all, no pins to bend!
Rad777 said:
Poor stability on the part of AMD machines is more often the motherboard chipset drivers than anything.
When it is hardware it's because of crappy motherboards that are being put out by many companies trying to make a buck by cutting as many corners as possible. That's why I am very discriminating when choosing my components.
AMD's are just a bit pickier than Intel systems. Simply put, you can get a way with alot crappier components in an Intel rig and have it run stable. When it comes to validation of memory modules and R&D, testing Intel is second to none.
Motherboard makers using Intel chipsets must comply with many guidlines when building boards. This kind of control is advantageous where quality is concerned. Intel simply has the muscle in the market place to do that.
With AMD's they often suffer from various chipset issues mostly relating to drivers. But if you pick quality components from reputable manufacturers that are known to work well together you will not have problems with an AMD based systems.
After a couple driver releases the problem is usually smoothed out just fine.
I build alot of machines and although Intel systems are easier to build and generally more problem free during setup, AMD takes the performance cake in most areas.
I built my first AMD rig (for my own use) since the T-bird days last night, and I've had ZERO problems with it. No lockups, no problems. Even SLi is working right. It was the fastest Windows installation I've ever done.
While the system doesn't multitask as well as my other rig, it's pretty damned fast anyway. The game performance more than makes up for it though.
I also agree with the cost statements. AMD simply put offers more bang for your dollar. Still I recommend Intel systems to people depending on what it is that they are doing with their machines.
S
solofly
Guest
This is what I think. Intel has a better (better defined as more compatible, safer, standard, etc) mobo chipset and AMD better CPUs. Intel-nForce chipset is just around the corner too. Came across a pic of MSI SLI board HERE. (Click on the motherboard pic/link [top-right] and then choose 'P4N Diamon') Another chipset to think about. Bottom line, there is no winner between AMD and Intel anymore. If you only own one computer, get whichever should/will last you longer. Not much help but still.
Intel_Hydralisk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,743
Has anyone noticed what a poor forum section he chose to make this topic in?
Anyways, if you're going to game then go AMD. End of story.
Anyways, if you're going to game then go AMD. End of story.