![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
What Is So Wrong With Building An Intel Rig?
- Thread starter The Doc
- Start date
- Status
Nothing. Read the quote in my sig. Lots of people build intel rigs. Go over to xtremesystems and youll see more dedicated intel users (albeit more AMD funboys too) but we are still here 
AMD excels in gaming, gamers buy it, some gamers are enthusiasts, enthusiasts post on enthusiast boards, then you get people trying to justify and defend their 1500$ purchases any way they can....and the cycle restarts.
AMD excels in gaming, gamers buy it, some gamers are enthusiasts, enthusiasts post on enthusiast boards, then you get people trying to justify and defend their 1500$ purchases any way they can....and the cycle restarts.
Dillusion said:Nothing. Read the quote in my sig. Lots of people build intel rigs. Go over to xtremesystems and youll see more dedicated intel users (albeit more AMD funboys too) but we are still here
AMD excels in gaming, gamers buy it, some gamers are enthusiasts, enthusiasts post on enthusiast boards, then you get people trying to justify and defend their 1500$ purchases any way they can....and the cycle restarts.
There are Intel gamers and Intel enthusiasts too. I mean some people seem to think that the terms "gamer" and "enthusiast" are exclusive to the AMD side of the fence. I have nothing against Intel or AMD, but it seems to me that Intel fans or people who build Intel systems seemed to get bashed by AMD nazi's.
Asian Dub Foundation
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 7,940
please dont generalise (sp?)
most of the ppl here do not bash Intel
when GAMERS come here to ask what components they should have in there rig, ppl recommend AMD because they do better in games then intel, thats all.
im sure if ppl ask what cpu for a video encoding, photoshop, media intensive machine, most ppl will recommend INTEL.
most of the ppl here do not bash Intel
when GAMERS come here to ask what components they should have in there rig, ppl recommend AMD because they do better in games then intel, thats all.
im sure if ppl ask what cpu for a video encoding, photoshop, media intensive machine, most ppl will recommend INTEL.
Asian Dub Foundation said:
Oh, I understand where you are coming from. You can still game with an Intel processor and get awesome performance. For example, if a P4 670 (3.8GHz) can play Doom 3 at 89 frames per second, and a A64 3800+ can play Doom 3 at 99 frames per second will the user be able to tell the difference? More then likely not. I have played games on both an Intel and AMD systems (both home built) and the biggest difference that I've seen is the difference in load times. Games do tend to load faster on an AMD system due to the memory controller being intergrated on the processor die.
Asian Dub Foundation
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 7,940
Dillusion said:
maybe im oblivious but i dont see that much "bashing" around here LATELY
but if its still that way then yeah thats really sad
i mean not too long ago P4's pwns Athlon Xps in games, its just a never ending cycle of one being on top of another for a given period of time.
its like the GPU wars between Nvidia and ATI
enjoy the competition guys, i bet you if any of the future intel CPU are to pwn AMD in games, everyone will switch. then again i might be wrong, but i dont think there is much of a brand loyalty in CPUs
Asian Dub Foundation
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 7,940
The Doc said:
agreed!
Heat, heat, and heat. I was using a prescott 3.2ghz overclocked to 4.0ghz, but it made my room too hot. Summer in Houston is deadly. I tried stock speeds, but it still was too hot. Went back to my northwood 2.4ghz overclocked to 3.2ghz and it is much better. I don't want to go any lower as I do feel a speed hit when playing games at the non overclocked speed.
The Doc said:
A quick look at PriceWatch's CPU prices page illustrates why many people recommend building an AMD rig over Intel for gaming performance...
The P4 670's lowest price is $851 compared to the A64 3800's $368 (Rev E). Simply put, you basically get more bang for your buck. I have nothing against Intel and I'm no AMD !!!!!!. I've always wanted to build an Intel rig but the performance I get out of building an AMD rig usually matches, if not exceeds, the more expensive former option.
delusion_2005
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 805
Nothing Intel makes great cpu, i would take a p4 over a amd 64 any day.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2004
- Messages
- 1,711
That could be a mistake
/me puts on flame suit
/me puts on flame suit
The Doc said:
Theres nothing wrong with Intel. They have high quality products and wide industry support. That being said, AMD offers more performance for the same or less money. With the introduction of the X2, the last advantage Intel had, which was multi-tasking is gone. The only place I'd put an Intel product right now is in a notebook. The Pentium M simply is a superior product when compared to AMD's mobile alternatvies.
NOTE: I haven't checked out the Turion 64 yet.
What made me switch was simple. My Pentium 4 550@3.9GHz could barely best an A64 3200+ in gaming performance. Which is SAD.
Yeah I myself use a Intel Pentium 4 520 processor. It was a very cheap processor, but performs very well. Only cost around 180 bucks.
I have noticed lately though that if people bash Intel, its because they are shown the worst in benchmarks ever since the X2 came out. Now since the X2 is shown to better in everything that Intel used to have the lead on, I noticed people say "Intel sucks, the X2 is the way to go, it has everything Intel has to offer, but better" and so on.
I have noticed lately though that if people bash Intel, its because they are shown the worst in benchmarks ever since the X2 came out. Now since the X2 is shown to better in everything that Intel used to have the lead on, I noticed people say "Intel sucks, the X2 is the way to go, it has everything Intel has to offer, but better" and so on.
Lazy_Moron said:
Well that's about the truth of it. In everything but the mobile sector, AMD has a faster product for less money. With the exception of some of the Opterons. They cost more, but offer better performance and the same stability.
I wouldn't say Intel sucks. Far from it. Their product is very reliable and very stable. No doubts about that. Its just that it doesn't offer the performance of AMD's products. Believe me, until roughly a year ago I hadn't used an AMD product since the T-Bird 1.33GHz Athlon.
Mahachippy
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Messages
- 207
I've really only used intel..before my current rig I had an old p2 and an amd k6 (I think!) Anywho, the main reason I am running an intel is because three years ago, when I knew nothing about computers, I got my rig from gateway, so I got an intel cpu. I have done a few minor upgrades..ram, vid cards, etc. but in the last three years, my p4 2.4 northwood has served me well and I am probably going to upgrade to a new p4 simply becuase I don't want to get a new mobo. But I am also a heavy multi-tasker and only a moderate gamer, so intel fits for me. My opinion is do what works best for you and what you want. When you ask people their opinions, you get just that...their opinion. I mean sure we would all love to have the biggest baddest dual core systems from both camps (at least I would! ) but until that day comes, make a list of what you need/do on your computer and pick from there. You get !!!!!!s from each side and then you have good solid impartial testers who all agree that each cpu maker has boths its weaknesses and strengths...amd has an edge in gaming..intel has an edge in encoding, etc. I mean I am not saying to not ask for help or anything on forums...Lord knows this forum has helped me more times than I can count, but just do your own research as well as the research from others here or whatever forum you ask for help on. Sorry to be so long winded...I wish all of you the best of luck in whatever you do!
) but until that day comes, make a list of what you need/do on your computer and pick from there. You get !!!!!!s from each side and then you have good solid impartial testers who all agree that each cpu maker has boths its weaknesses and strengths...amd has an edge in gaming..intel has an edge in encoding, etc. I mean I am not saying to not ask for help or anything on forums...Lord knows this forum has helped me more times than I can count, but just do your own research as well as the research from others here or whatever forum you ask for help on. Sorry to be so long winded...I wish all of you the best of luck in whatever you do!Mahachippy said:I've really only used intel..before my current rig I had an old p2 and an amd k6 (I think!) Anywho, the main reason I am running an intel is because three years ago, when I knew nothing about computers, I got my rig from gateway, so I got an intel cpu. I have done a few minor upgrades..ram, vid cards, etc. but in the last three years, my p4 2.4 northwood has served me well and I am probably going to upgrade to a new p4 simply becuase I don't want to get a new mobo. But I am also a heavy multi-tasker and only a moderate gamer, so intel fits for me. My opinion is do what works best for you and what you want. When you ask people their opinions, you get just that...their opinion. I mean sure we would all love to have the biggest baddest dual core systems from both camps (at least I would!
I 100% agree with you on this. Do what you want to do. Its your money, spend it on what you want. Just dont bash or flame people, for doing something you wouldnt do.
As for the dual core part of your statement. IMO, dual core is to early, and would be wiser to wait to the new Intel and AMD processors to come out, and base your dual core decisions off that. For some reason, I see the new dual core processors that will come out next year, to be way better than what we have now. I dont know why I think this, I just am.
Also, I would say that one of the reasons why Intel's dual core performance is somehwhat lackluster is the fact that NetBurst was never designed to be a dual core processor. Intel thought they could use single core processors for a while before switiching to dual core. However, the AMD K8 was designed knowing that it would one day be a dual core processor.Lazy_Moron said:
deathstar550
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 253
Not all AMD fans are bloodthirsty forum e-warriors.
It's just that the rude ones also tend to be the loud ones, so it just seems that way.
That said, Intel systems are great! Three of my systems are Intel-powered (PIII 500 Mhz, PIV 2.4 Ghz, and PM 1.6 Ghz), and I've never had any abnormal processor-related issues with any of them. AMD is just looking more attractive to me right now because of their cooler temps and kickass X2 line... But who knows about the future -- cheers to the technology race.
It's just that the rude ones also tend to be the loud ones, so it just seems that way.
That said, Intel systems are great! Three of my systems are Intel-powered (PIII 500 Mhz, PIV 2.4 Ghz, and PM 1.6 Ghz), and I've never had any abnormal processor-related issues with any of them. AMD is just looking more attractive to me right now because of their cooler temps and kickass X2 line... But who knows about the future -- cheers to the technology race.
Nothing wrong with Intel. Before the X2, I was preaching that if you do a good mix of gaming and heavy multitasking(especially multimedia work), go P4. If you only care about gaming, go A64 or PentiumM.
Since X2(especially now with the 3800+), I preach AMD all the way, if you are cool with overclocking.
Since X2(especially now with the 3800+), I preach AMD all the way, if you are cool with overclocking.
mrtheshaggy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2003
- Messages
- 1,209
I think it depends on the person. I used to be an amd/nvidia !!!!!! until the p4c's and ati 9xxx's came out. Now I just get whatever works best at the time. Ive tried and like both sides.
machwireless
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,193
i have only used intel at work and for the most part, i prefered working on Apple II to intels.
even before i was a gamer, i picked the AMDs. for one they were cheaper and for two they seemed to operate better with multiple applications running at once.
but i do like the intel commercials.
even before i was a gamer, i picked the AMDs. for one they were cheaper and for two they seemed to operate better with multiple applications running at once.
but i do like the intel commercials.
B
bostesseger69
Guest
*runs to get popcorn and waits for flaming to start*
I've been a AMD fan for a long time.
My reasons are
Price/performance
I just plain dont like Intel.
The last point is irrational on my part. I just tend not to like the major player, the incumbent if you will. Same reason I usually steer clear of Nokia etc.
I have found that the larger and more domainant the company, the less inovation it creates (re: Microsoft). I think Intel fell into that trap a bit with the P4 (its been milking that sucker for ages) and since the P4, we have seen the AthlonXP, Athlon64 and the Athlon64 X2 (I know there have also been "revisions" the the P4 core, but not as drastic as say the Athlon XP to 64 for example). Though, I must give credit to Intel for the P-M, thats a fine processor.
So, I am with AMD cause for me, I love to game and now with the X2, I can multitask like a mofo.
My reasons are
Price/performance
I just plain dont like Intel.
The last point is irrational on my part. I just tend not to like the major player, the incumbent if you will. Same reason I usually steer clear of Nokia etc.
I have found that the larger and more domainant the company, the less inovation it creates (re: Microsoft). I think Intel fell into that trap a bit with the P4 (its been milking that sucker for ages) and since the P4, we have seen the AthlonXP, Athlon64 and the Athlon64 X2 (I know there have also been "revisions" the the P4 core, but not as drastic as say the Athlon XP to 64 for example). Though, I must give credit to Intel for the P-M, thats a fine processor.
So, I am with AMD cause for me, I love to game and now with the X2, I can multitask like a mofo.
There is nothing wrong with it. Many people just like to get the better price/ performance ratio and that seems to be in the AMD camp. With the low prices of the entry-level D8xx series, I'd love to build a dual core Intel system, but I also realized that the D820 is probably not much faster in games than my currently overclocked AXP.
Seeing the great deal I got from the AMD tech tour on a new A64 mobo and CPU, I really could not and cannot justify the additional expense of buying intel. Having said that, my notebook is intel and I couldn't be happier with it, since the performance is just incredibly good.
Seeing the great deal I got from the AMD tech tour on a new A64 mobo and CPU, I really could not and cannot justify the additional expense of buying intel. Having said that, my notebook is intel and I couldn't be happier with it, since the performance is just incredibly good.
hnic said:
Sure and only an AMD funboy would try that. Why not pick a 560 or 550J?
$851 - Pentium 4 670
$589 - Pentium 4 660
$399 - Pentium 4 650
$254 - Pentium 4 640
$145 - Pentium 4 630
$449 - Pentium 4 570J
$449 - Pentium 4 570
$401 - Pentium 4 560J
$284 - Pentium 4 560
799 - Athlon 64 FX 55
$895 - Athlon 64 FX 53 939
$386 - Athlon 64 4000
$386 - Athlon 64 4000 90nm Rev
$246 - Athlon 64 3800
$368 - Athlon 64 3800 512K 90nm Rev E
$235 - Athlon 64 3700
$305 - Athlon 64 3700 90nm Rev
$221 - Athlon 64 3500
$221 - Athlon 64 3500 939pin
$234 - Athlon 64 3500 90nm 939pin
$234 - Athlon 64 3500 512K 90nm Rev E
Here I just picked the most popular ones, not the cheapest and not the most expesive, not many folks buy either. Here's where the money in the market is made.
Or even wait for the 561 that has AMD's X86-64. 3800+ looks good while gaming, looks like a Rip-Off with many other apps. Thank goodness for games.
Donnie27
M
Martin Cracauer
Guest
I avoided AMD until very recently, mostly because of crappy chipsets, high power consumption and substandard documentation.
My Athlon XP was only OK, but clearly not that great.
With the Athlon 64 everything changed. Now I cannot get a new Intel CPU with lower power anymore (unless I can live with a Pentium-M). The AMD and the Via chipsets are OK to good. Although I still like the Intel chipsets better the AMD stuff is not a dealbreaker anymore.
I also sold my Xeons and got Opterons for pretty much the same price, and they blast the Xeons pretty good.
My Athlon XP was only OK, but clearly not that great.
With the Athlon 64 everything changed. Now I cannot get a new Intel CPU with lower power anymore (unless I can live with a Pentium-M). The AMD and the Via chipsets are OK to good. Although I still like the Intel chipsets better the AMD stuff is not a dealbreaker anymore.
I also sold my Xeons and got Opterons for pretty much the same price, and they blast the Xeons pretty good.
I hardly see bashing. While I personally love AMD, I am a gamer, and that is where AMD scores points.
However, at the place where I work, I just finished several replacements on the network with Athlon 64 machines. These were the less expensive alternative offered by our outsourced supplier. I personally would have suggested P4's since they would be better for the purposes we do here at my place of employment, but price was the key issue.
I don't think there is a lot of bashing here. I just think there are more gamers, pathetic people such as myself who stare at flashing screens for hours on end
However, at the place where I work, I just finished several replacements on the network with Athlon 64 machines. These were the less expensive alternative offered by our outsourced supplier. I personally would have suggested P4's since they would be better for the purposes we do here at my place of employment, but price was the key issue.
I don't think there is a lot of bashing here. I just think there are more gamers, pathetic people such as myself who stare at flashing screens for hours on end
TheMadHatterXxX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,032
bostesseger69 said:
Intel users are not intel-igent.
j/k! ........Theres nothing wrong with Intel...when the P4 came out i jumped ship and went to Intel P4/ATI 9800Pro before that i was on an AMD 1.4ghz (Non XP series)/Nvidia geforce3 ti500....its just a matter of what product is better and user preference, I was originally gonna stick to Intel but after reading that the A64's were superior in gaming I bought what i needed, but on the otherhand if I was using productivityapplications I would have stiuck with intel.BossNoodleKaboodle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,818
Nothing wrong with Intel as long as you're not talking about the poorly executed Prescott cores. They seem to have made some stupid decisions releasing processors lately, not to their pocketbook and OEM buyers, but to the end user.
My computers have always been Intel. I'm a huge fan of the Pentium 3 and Pentium M but I've never liked the Pentium 4's.
Intel didn't initially do 90nm right. Come on really the Prescott 3.0 being slower AND generating like 30W TDP more than a 3.0 Northwood? WTF. I actually had one of those space heaters.
I think the best thing Intel can do is reslease desktop processors that follow in the Pentium M's footsteps like Conroe is supposed to be. I use a 1.7Ghz Pentium M as my main PC and its faster than my 3.0E was and uses almost no power and makes virtually no heat. Pentium M's are way too underappreciated. In benchmarks they beat A64FX-55's when clocked at 2.53Ghz and using 27W of power. I think more gamers and "enthusiasts" would be using Intel systems if they knew about the Pentium M.
My computers have always been Intel. I'm a huge fan of the Pentium 3 and Pentium M but I've never liked the Pentium 4's.
Intel didn't initially do 90nm right. Come on really the Prescott 3.0 being slower AND generating like 30W TDP more than a 3.0 Northwood? WTF. I actually had one of those space heaters.
I think the best thing Intel can do is reslease desktop processors that follow in the Pentium M's footsteps like Conroe is supposed to be. I use a 1.7Ghz Pentium M as my main PC and its faster than my 3.0E was and uses almost no power and makes virtually no heat. Pentium M's are way too underappreciated. In benchmarks they beat A64FX-55's when clocked at 2.53Ghz and using 27W of power. I think more gamers and "enthusiasts" would be using Intel systems if they knew about the Pentium M.
S
SirKenin
Guest
Nothing. Ignore the advice of lamers that can't afford one and whose parents won't buy them one.
BossNoodleKaboodle said:
Agreed. I cant wait for Conroe to make its debut. That is when im probably building my new computer. I think its the Netburst Archatecture that is holding Intel back as of right now. Pentium M is not based on it, and they are doing great, not saying that if they ditch Netburst, they will do good no matter what they use. Im sure alot of people who understand Netburst, will agree with this, and explain more why it is flawed.
S
SirKenin
Guest
As long as you're not one of..........THEM.Dillusion said:
lol
SirKenin said:
Haha, thats just such a good statement though, i couldnt add anything to it.
Mod Edit - Let's stop this one before it gets really rolling......found on Google:
flame bait: n.
[common] A posting intended to trigger a flame war, or one that invites flames in reply. See also troll.
Discuss the hardware.....please. Debate the competition.....absolutely. Invite flame wars.....probably not. Thanks - B.B.S.
- Status