AMD vs. Intel

[ClayMeow]

Both companies are respectable and very good at what they do. AMD is just like a cheaper version of Intel if you ask me cause i have seen the same if not better Intel technology the difference is the price. Something that costs 500$ for Intel is like 300$ for AMD. Both companies are very good at making chips. I own both so i cant really take sides.

550130[/snapback]

Then I guess you haven't seen the amd64 & fx processors if you think Intel has better technology.

[danyo64]

i was going to say something about that but then i figured that i would end up yelling...

[CoolMaster]

i was going to say something about that but then i figured that i would end up yelling...

550346[/snapback]

LOL, agreed

[TheSternMystic]

Not positive on these numbers, but they're what I remember from some where.

 

Operations per clock cycle;

 

Athlon XP = 12 operations

Athlon 64 = 10 operations

Pentium 4 = 8 operations

[fire_storm]

the clock speed on an amd is not faster than intel, although with intel focusing on dual cores and amds fx-59 comming out soon the GHz game is getting closer. what makes amd better for gaming is that, for one amd cpu's do more than intels per clock cycle,and as well amd's have an integrated memory controller which speeds up significantly the memory. there are many other things i'm sure but those are a couple of the things

550137[/snapback]

 

I hate that there so price the fx-59 will problay cost around 1000$ usd and the fx-57 will cost $800 which is very costly for somone to buy.

[CoolMaster]

yea ill definetly never be able to afford one lol

[ClayMeow]

I went to the New York Rangers Home Opener the other night and was very happy to see the AMD logo on the boards! Finally they're getting into mass advertising!

[LoArmistead]

i was going to say something about that but then i figured that i would end up yelling...

550346[/snapback]

 

me too lol

 

I went to the New York Rangers Home Opener the other night and was very happy to see the AMD logo on the boards!  Finally they're getting into mass advertising!

556745[/snapback]

Hooray! I noticed that eMachines even stopped putting Celerons in their boxes, they're all coming with Semprons or A64's now... I gues Intel got tired of giving eMachines the big discount?

[silkster]

me too lol

Hooray!  I noticed that eMachines even stopped putting Celerons in their boxes, they're all coming with Semprons or A64's now... I gues Intel got tired of giving eMachines the big discount?

556840[/snapback]

 

Not to mention the performance (non-gaming) on these machines with the Semprons are impressive for the money.

[UkJenT]

haha, same here. Now I am seeing Compaq desktop w/ AMD chips. Totally cool. I don't officially have an AMD system built yet, but i am excited about putting it together soon. I still need the video card and Ram.. heehe

 

YeSu

[ClayMeow]

haha, same here. Now I am seeing Compaq desktop w/ AMD chips. Totally cool. I don't officially have an AMD system built yet, but i am excited about putting it together soon. I still need the video card and Ram.. heehe

 

YeSu

557570[/snapback]

Compaq's have had AMD chips for years. Hell, when my family and I was naive and stupid, we got a Compaq that had an AMD K6-2 like 7 years ago. Dell is the one you need to be watching...they've been stubborn, or rather manipulated by Intel, into not carrying any AMD products.

[Wildling]

Depends on what you want your system to do and what it will be used for, is usually the big question.

For games, well the investment into the Athlon64 architecture will rock.

For MultiMedia Applications, it use to be the Intel P4 with its Hyperthread. But if you would like to have a CPU that will run a bit cooler than Intel's Hot Prescott NetBurst S775, than I would suggest a "True" Dual-Core Athlon64x2 4400+ or 4800+ if you want your system to rock.

As for Server Class, Heavy Calculations, well Intel has lost out there. Their Xeon Dual-Cores are nothing when compared to AMD's Dual-Core Opteron 200 series.

 

Lets see 4 Quad Pumped Pipes of 200 Mhz, maybe even 266 if they make it out for the INTEL P4 architecture.

 

And then there's a generous 1 GHz HyperTransport with 2 more at 200 MHz for the Athlon64s and a whopping 3 x 1 GHz HyperTransports for the Opteron.

 

I basically grew up with Intel CPU's from the 8086.

I tickered with some AMD 486DX2-80's when they came out, but stayed with Intel because, hey, they have the market share, so they must be the best. LOL. When I made the change a few years back, I never regretted it. AMD all the way!

 

Basically the only way to see the difference is to try it.

Try taking out you AGP vidcard from your P4 (lets say it's a 3.0GHz and toss it into an Athlon64 class AGP mobo, like the MSI K8N NEO2 PE and use an Athlon64 3500+ (Only a 2.2 Ghz). Your Aquamark, 3D Mark and other benchmarks will be much higher. The AMD 64 Bit architecture does a remarkable job with managing a 32 Bit OS. It's Registers are twice the width as well as twice as many. On-Chip System Memory controller (Being modified to DDR2 and changed to Socket 940 in Spring of 2006) does an amazing task of practically accelerating everything that goes through it.

 

When making a change, make sure you get parts that can work with one another. The biggest problem to system failure with new parts are sometimes the smallest; like incompatible memory. Not all tests can reveal that. And when making a change, the worse is when the parts don't work with one another, and you go back to your old architecture in frustration and then preventing yourself and maybe even others from trying another.