question for Intel people.

[jordan12]

Guys,

I have always used AMD and really do appreciate the easy of use and cost. Always does what I have needed it to do.

However, I have been reading about how AMD is the best for gaming and that Intel is fantastic for multi tasking, and blows AMD out of the water.

I do game, but not a great deal. I mainly play My madden 2005. That is about it.

However, I do a lot of multi stuff. Like burning cd's, downloading and playing music at the same time.

Would an Intel Proc be better suited for me?

 

[mattsmall]

i like my amd computer alot better then my intel computer for multi tasking if i had the chance to change my intel computer i would go amd.

amd m2500+@2.5ghz
intel 2.8c@3.4ghz


amd is much cheaper and best bang for the dollar.

 

[Dan_D]

I've used both and I have to say that multi-tasking seems smoother on HT P4's. That's just my opinion and I'm sure that some people share that opinion.

 

[Xenarchy]

I don't belive it is the proc but more so the entire system. I've always felt my intel system as whole was more solid then any AMD system. Now that is not to say AMD makes bad stuff because they don't. Their 64bit chips proved that they know what they are doing. However I am waiting for the dual cores =)

 

[BlindedByScience]

I don't belive it is the proc but more so the entire system. I've always felt my intel system as whole was more solid then any AMD system. Now that is not to say AMD makes bad stuff because they don't. Their 64bit chips proved that they know what they are doing. However I am waiting for the dual cores =)

...exactly. One of Intel's biggest strengths, IMHO, is the fact that they make the chipset and the CPU and they play very well with each other. I've always had Intel CPU / chipset combos, and I have to say the overall smoothness and stability of my systems "feels" better than other non-Intel answers I've had at work / on the bench at home.

You bet it's subjective.......

The truth is they are both good CPU's and each has good / less than good features. But - when considered as a whole, not just on the merits of the CPU, my vote ( = $$$ ) goes to the Intel / Intel answer. I've not been dissapointed. My current system (sigged) is very fast, very stable, and is a pleasure to drive.

True story about HT - so, last night I'm playing HL2 and I think.....no, there again.....a lag! Crap! How can this be...?? I keep playing......fine...fine...there! Again for just a half a second or so. About that time, the DVD drawer opens; I'd started a DVD burn, took a phone call, forgot about the burn, and launched HL2.... Truth is that it ran just fine during the burn, but lagged when Nero finished and ejected the disk. I was impressed....

FWIW - YMMV - etc......B.B.S.

 

[Dan_D]

...exactly. One of Intel's biggest strengths, IMHO, is the fact that they make the chipset and the CPU and they play very well with each other. I've always had Intel CPU / chipset combos, and I have to say the overall smoothness and stability of my systems "feels" better than other non-Intel answers I've had at work / on the bench at home.

You bet it's subjective.......

The truth is they are both good CPU's and each has good / less than good features. But - when considered as a whole, not just on the merits of the CPU, my vote ( = $$$ ) goes to the Intel / Intel answer. I've not been dissapointed.

FWIW - YMMV - etc......B.B.S.

I agree with that statement.

 

[xonik]

However, I do a lot of multi stuff. Like burning cd's, downloading and playing music at the same time.

Would an Intel Proc be better suited for me?

If that's the extent of your multitasking, then no, don't get an Intel processor just for that. If you do more, or intend to do more, then go with an Intel Pentium 4 or Xeon with HyperThreading, or go with any modern dual processor system. HyperThreading is what you want if you would like to multitask smoothly under heavy load. Look for that feature specifically. It's marketing speak for simultaneous multi-threading, which is essentially a crippled form of simultaneous multiprocessing (multiple processors doing work simultaneously). Still, it's more effective under heavy load than a processor working by itself, without HT or a similar technology.

 

[jordan12]

Thanks guys for the help.

Sounds like it might not make the most sense to switch. And it also seems the cost is pretty high for them as well.

All in all, would you all say that an AMD Proc Vs a comparable Intel Proc that the intel proc would be quite a bit more?

 

[PvP-ForLife]

Why can't you people understand that HT is just an optimisation, an emulation. I don't think there's anyone that seen to processors instead of one, so please.
As for the moment if you want to go Intel, you are plain stupid, lame ass ddr-2 and 1 pci-e slot(x16) ? WTF IS THAT ?? Invest in this and you'll be sorry in about one year from now.

 

[jordan12]

Why can't you people understand that HT is just an optimisation, an emulation. I don't think there's anyone that seen to processors instead of one, so please.
As for the moment if you want to go Intel, you are plain stupid, lame ass ddr-2 and 1 pci-e slot(x16) ? WTF IS THAT ?? Invest in this and you'll be sorry in about one year from now.

So you are saying that I personally would be better off sticking with AMD regardless??

 

[Dan_D]

No, that last comment was from an AMD fan boy. Ingnore it. PCI-Express is a viable technology that is going to replace our standard PCI interface. Face it, it's fact and if you know anything about it, you'd see the bennefit of even a 1x socket over PCI. That's not the main point.

If it's so worthless than why are Athlon boards comming out with support for it?

DDR 2 is an evolutionary product. When AMD first went to DDR1@266MHz speeds it barely offered anything over existing PC133 SDRAM. Why? The latancies sucked.

Look! It's the same thing all over again. One day we'll all have DDR2 @(Insert retarded high speed/bandwidth here) and no one will call it worthless.

Many nay sayers said DDR was worthless years ago and I bet they've all got DDR in their machines now. Eventually the technology will evolve. SDRAM evolved, RDRAM evolved and so did DDR. DDR in fact had probably more spec changes and implimentation changes than any other technology that predated it.

Knock Hyperthreading all you want. It's a virtual processor or an emulated processor of course. If you knew how that worked you'd understand what benneifits it can have. The technology is viable. It does make for more seamless multi-tasking. But like all things it's subjective. Some people will not see it, either because they don't use their machine in such a way to see it's performance or because they just can't notice it. You can't really benchmark it very easily if at all. So you'll have people claim it doesn't make any difference and others will claim it does.

It's like the butt dyno on a car. Sure a Civic feels fast when your trying to corner at 80MPH but is it a fast car? Not really. But it can be made to feel fast.

Although Intel processors aren't always the fastest in every situation, the overall platform is VERY high quality. Low DOA rates and ease of driver software installation. You will not have chipset driver issues and stability problems with an Intel setup. As long as the board you select has an Intel chipset on the motherboard. Bottom line is stability is the hallmark of the Intel platform. Plain and simple. This is one of the key reasons why 90% of all corporate workstations are still using Intel processors. Features, stability, compatibility and quality are all key features important in the corporate sector.

 

[jordan12]

No, that last comment was from an AMD fan boy. Ingnore it. PCI-Express is a viable technology that is going to replace our standard PCI interface. Face it, it's fact and if you know anything about it, you'd see the bennefit of even a 1x socket over PCI. That's not the main point.

If it's so worthless than why are Athlon boards comming out with support for it?

DDR 2 is an evolutionary product. When AMD first went to DDR1@266MHz speeds it barely offered anything over existing PC133 SDRAM. Why? The latancies sucked.

Look! It's the same thing all over again. One day we'll all have DDR2 @(Insert retarded high speed/bandwidth here) and no one will call it worthless.

Many nay sayers said DDR was worthless years ago and I bet they've all got DDR in their machines now. Eventually the technology will evolve. SDRAM evolved, RDRAM evolved and so did DDR. DDR in fact had probably more spec changes and implimentation changes than any other technology that predated it.

Knock Hyperthreading all you want. It's a virtual processor or an emulated processor of course. If you knew how that worked you'd understand what benneifits it can have. The technology is viable. It does make for more seamless multi-tasking. But like all things it's subjective. Some people will not see it, either because they don't use their machine in such a way to see it's performance or because they just can't notice it. You can't really benchmark it very easily if at all. So you'll have people claim it doesn't make any difference and others will claim it does.

It's like the butt dyno on a car. Sure a Civic feels fast when your trying to corner at 80MPH but is it a fast car? Not really. But it can be made to feel fast.

Although Intel processors aren't always the fastest in every situation, the overall platform is VERY high quality. Low DOA rates and ease of driver software installation. You will not have chipset driver issues and stability problems with an Intel setup. As long as the board you select has an Intel chipset on the motherboard. Bottom line is stability is the hallmark of the Intel platform. Plain and simple. This is one of the key reasons why 90% of all corporate workstations are still using Intel processors. Features, stability, compatibility and quality are all key features important in the corporate sector.

You sir, very well described the Intel situation. I feel that what you have said was fair and concise. I do not think you were bad mouthing either AMD or Intel. I think that what you have said definetely gave me something to think about.

My whole issue with Intel though has been the cost of the Procs. It seems that they are much higher in cost than a comparable AMD. And that has made it hard for me to consider switching.

 

[xonik]

Yeah, I'd suggest that you switch to an Intel processor with HyperThreading right now if great multitasking under heavy load desribes your computer activities. However, a year from now, both AMD and Intel will have chip multiprocessing--true multiprocessing, not just a the basic multithreading implementation that is HyperThreading. That will eliminate most multitasking problems completely.

 

[Dan_D]

Well I have nothing against AMD. I've considered an Athlon on an A8V-Sli setup. But I got such a good deal on my 3.4GHz Pentium 4 and motherboard. (Retail Edge Program bundle) that I couldn't pass it up.

 

[BlindedByScience]

One other thing to think about - what generation of hardware are you going to buy....?

My "new" system (a couple of months old) is a socket 478 / i875 board. Why? Prices are very good, and pared with a Prescott it's a very capable system. I bought a "PresHott" specifically to see if the thermals were as bad as folks make them out to be. Prescott's do run a little hotter, but they are not all that bad, when pared with a decent HSF. Check the prices on these boards and you may find a good deal.

My system runs over 20K 3DMarks, plays Doom3 / HL2 flawlessly @ 1600 X 1200.....and should serve me fine until the next generation of LGA / DDR2 / PCIe stuff comes out in about eighteen months..... At least, that was my thought process. The i875 chipset is a dandy; no regrets here.

Regards - B.B.S.

 

[Dan_D]

One other thing to think about - what generation of hardware are you going to buy....?

My "new" system (a couple of months old) is a socket 478 / i875 board. Why? Prices are very good, and pared with a Prescott it's a very capable system. I bought a "PresHott" specifically to see if the thermals were as bad as folks make them out to be. Prescott's do run a little hotter, but they are not all that bad, when pared with a decent HSF. Check the prices on these boards and you may find a good deal.

My system runs over 20K 3DMarks, plays Doom3 / HL2 flawlessly @ 1600 X 1200.....and should serve me fine until the next generation of LGA / DDR2 / PCIe stuff comes out in about eighteen months..... At least, that was my thought process. The i875 chipset is a dandy; no regrets here.

Regards - B.B.S.

He does have some valid points. I upgraded now only because I got such a good deal. I also wanted to make the transition to PCI-E for the possibility of going SLi. Either I'll have to go Xeon to finish that project or I'll have to wait until some SLi capable Pentium 4 boards come out other than that Gigabyte board.

 

[Ezekial]

I think everyone has pretty much hit the head on the nail..

I have a P4 system at home and a AMD system at work. Overall they feel pretty equal in speed, while doing the windows thing, but I think my home system does pull ahead for multitasking.

 

[PvP-ForLife]

No, that last comment was from an AMD fan boy. Ingnore it. PCI-Express is a viable technology that is going to replace our standard PCI interface. Face it, it's fact and if you know anything about it, you'd see the bennefit of even a 1x socket over PCI. That's not the main point.

If it's so worthless than why are Athlon boards comming out with support for it?

DDR 2 is an evolutionary product. When AMD first went to DDR1@266MHz speeds it barely offered anything over existing PC133 SDRAM. Why? The latancies sucked.

Look! It's the same thing all over again. One day we'll all have DDR2 @(Insert retarded high speed/bandwidth here) and no one will call it worthless.

Many nay sayers said DDR was worthless years ago and I bet they've all got DDR in their machines now. Eventually the technology will evolve. SDRAM evolved, RDRAM evolved and so did DDR. DDR in fact had probably more spec changes and implimentation changes than any other technology that predated it.

Knock Hyperthreading all you want. It's a virtual processor or an emulated processor of course. If you knew how that worked you'd understand what benneifits it can have. The technology is viable. It does make for more seamless multi-tasking. But like all things it's subjective. Some people will not see it, either because they don't use their machine in such a way to see it's performance or because they just can't notice it. You can't really benchmark it very easily if at all. So you'll have people claim it doesn't make any difference and others will claim it does.

It's like the butt dyno on a car. Sure a Civic feels fast when your trying to corner at 80MPH but is it a fast car? Not really. But it can be made to feel fast.

Although Intel processors aren't always the fastest in every situation, the overall platform is VERY high quality. Low DOA rates and ease of driver software installation. You will not have chipset driver issues and stability problems with an Intel setup. As long as the board you select has an Intel chipset on the motherboard. Bottom line is stability is the hallmark of the Intel platform. Plain and simple. This is one of the key reasons why 90% of all corporate workstations are still using Intel processors. Features, stability, compatibility and quality are all key features important in the corporate sector.

Too bad for you I own a Pentium 4. (2.4c+P4P800-Deluxe+1024 XL+6800 Ultra).
This guy needs a new system now not over 2 years when the technology will grow up, or are you sugesting him to buy a crappy 6800gt on a 1xPci-e configuration?
Nobody cares about workstations, at least not this guy. One more thing, why do you think Intel's future processors (see roadmap), don't have HT ?

 

[Elijah]

PvP, Im not sure.. WHY?

Maybe it is because they have Dual core processors coming out and what would be the point of Hyperthreading when you have a dual core.

 

[Dan_D]

Too bad for you I own a Pentium 4. (2.4c+P4P800-Deluxe+1024 XL+6800 Ultra).
This guy needs a new system now not over 2 years when the technology will grow up, or are you sugesting him to buy a crappy 6800gt on a 1xPci-e configuration?
Nobody cares about workstations, at least not this guy. One more thing, why do you think Intel's future processors (see roadmap), don't have HT ?

Because when they switch to a Dothan like core HT won't be very effective with the architecture changes in the new cores. The pipelines of those processors won't be deep enough for HT, and the processors will be dual core at that point also. So you will get the same effect with multi-tasking and the efficiency but it will be so much better. A core that doesn't have a deep pipeline wouldn't bennifit at all from HT. True SMP will always win over HT. Thus HT won't be worthwhile to implement.

HT is in place for three reasons. 1 Marketting, 2 Makes the processor more effecient and improves performance, and 3 gets programmers to write multi-threaded applications so that dual core CPU's will perform better than the ones they replace.

That's why HT won't be around anymore.

And I have no idea what you mean on the graphics card. He can buy a 6800GT on a PCI-E x16 connection if he were going to spend the cash on a PCI-E system now.

WTF was your point? My point in mentioning workstations is that, companies choose Intel processors and motherboard solutions/chipsets due to thier unmatched stability and quality. They've got good performance in every type of application, even if the AMD's perform better in some, still the Intel's don't perform badly.

PCI-E has bennifits now. Small ones, but right now a PCI-E system gives you a clear upgrade path. AGP and PCI are dead technologies. They will go the way of ISA and VLB. It's not like you lose performance going with PCI-E. So why not? DDR 2 prices are comming down so it's more and more reasonable. PCI-E vid cards in the mid range are easy enough to come buy.

 

[PvP-ForLife]

Because when they switch to a Dothan like core HT won't be very effective with the architecture changes in the new cores. The pipelines of those processors won't be deep enough for HT, and the processors will be dual core at that point also. So you will get the same effect with multi-tasking and the efficiency but it will be so much better. A core that doesn't have a deep pipeline wouldn't bennifit at all from HT. True SMP will always win over HT. Thus HT won't be worthwhile to implement.

HT is in place for three reasons. 1 Marketting, 2 Makes the processor more effecient and improves performance, and 3 gets programmers to write multi-threaded applications so that dual core CPU's will perform better than the ones they replace.

That's why HT won't be around anymore.

And I have no idea what you mean on the graphics card. He can buy a 6800GT on a PCI-E x16 connection if he were going to spend the cash on a PCI-E system now.

WTF was your point? My point in mentioning workstations is that, companies choose Intel processors and motherboard solutions/chipsets due to thier unmatched stability and quality. They've got good performance in every type of application, even if the AMD's perform better in some, still the Intel's don't perform badly.

PCI-E has bennifits now. Small ones, but right now a PCI-E system gives you a clear upgrade path. AGP and PCI are dead technologies. They will go the way of ISA and VLB. It's not like you lose performance going with PCI-E. So why not? DDR 2 prices are comming down so it's more and more reasonable. PCI-E vid cards in the mid range are easy enough to come buy.

The strong point of Pci-E is the capability of SLI configurations, any single Pci-E solutions<Agp solutions.
If he wants a good Intel setup he should wait for Nforce5(capable of SLI), I'd had it with Intel so far, I will be swiching to Amd in the very near future (A8V+3500 Winc).
2.4c Intel can go to 3.x on air, this+the heavy scores on dual channel were the reasons I went for Intel one year and a half ago.
Amd has cought up to them,both on the memory part and the overclock (see huge temps of Prescotts).
Dude, if you chose a high-end configuration you can't go wrong with it, it's just like 6800 ultra vs x800xt -pe, both have their ups and downs, only that this time the Amd dosn't have so many downs as the Intel has.

 

[0ldman]

While I agree that AMD has less downsides than Intel right now (opinion), most of your reason's are not factually based.

HT is not true multiprocessing, but it helps and leads the way for programs to be coded as such. As mentioned above, why insert virtual multiprocessing in later CPU's if actual single chip multiprocessing is to become the norm?

So now a single 6800GT PCIe sucks? When did I miss this? Its only good in dual card format? AGP is better than PCIe? AGP can't run dual cards, how does this work out logically? Do you have any numbers to back this up or are you just pulling this out of thin air?
PCIe is an evolutionary step, not revolutionary, and it will take time for people to design hardware to take advantage of that. That being said, first gen PCIe is damn near identical to AGP, same as first gen AGP to PCI in its day.

WTF mate?

 

[xonik]

AGP can't run dual cards, how does this work out logically?

Well that's not quite true, the AGP v. 3.0 specification, released at about the time of AGP8X, allowed for dual AGP slots, but to my knowledge this was never pursued.

 

[KuJaX]

I have a few of each Intel, and AMD based systems.

My main rig is P4 3.4e and I have two other systems with barton 2500+'s. I obviously have the p4 3.4e in my main rig for a reason, it is the best for what I do. I cannot say a whole lot because obviously barton 2500+ doesnt compete with the new 64bit 3500+'s, but I personally enjoy my Intel system 10x more than my AMD systems. I enjoy both systems though, because my other rigs are cheap, but still get the job done. The Intel system isnt cheap, but it gets the job done, and it gets it done fantastically great.

for the thread starter: You said you download music, play a single (sports) game, and burn CD's........ that isnt what I would call "multi-tasking". For you personally, I would honestly recommend an AMD system so that you can save some money, and but some of it towards better RAM.

 

[Rix2357]

If Hyperthreading isn't going to be around on future Intel processors, that would be a shame. Hyperthreading is more than an emulation of two processors. The main benefit it provides is keeping the cpu busy with as much work as possible and increasing the processor's overall efficiency. It does it by eliminating some of the penalties associated with switching threads and cache flushing.

 

[xonik]

But if the processor's pipelines ARE kept busy (a la Banias/Dothan, K8) then is it such a shame? Multiprocessing will handle the increasingly parallel nature of our computer activities, but there is no reason to implement an SMT solution like HyperThreading if a constantly full pipeline would never make use of it.

 

[0ldman]

Well that's not quite true, the AGP v. 3.0 specification, released at about the time of AGP8X, allowed for dual AGP slots, but to my knowledge this was never pursued.

Now you're splitting hairs.

I've heard of this too, but I've never even heard of a working prototype, much less a board available to a consumer... or any cards to support it...

 

[xonik]

AGP can't do dual cards != AGP won't feature dual cards

is all I am saying...