Most people take sides saying they like only AMD or only Intel. I'd like to know all your opinions on which you like better and why... Tough question which I've wondered alot about myself. :P
We've been down this path at Poasters before - if you search, you'll find some extended threads on the issue.
I hope I'm not asking for too much, but could you give me a link to a thread that's what I'm looking for here?
Here's one of them
http://www.poasters.com/forum/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=8068;start=0
The thread linked earlier was started by myself, however, I was looking for a specialized purpose machine. Your computer's use may differ from my own.
Here are some more threads for what you may be wanting:
http://www.poasters.com/forum/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=7911
http://www.poasters.com/forum/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=6975
http://www.poasters.com/forum/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=3788
It is more a thing of preferrence. Both AMD and Intel make good chips. They alternate with having the fastest chip. Asking this question is sort of like the Canon - Nikon debate that photographers argue. Both cameras are great just like the AMD and Intel chips are great.
Mark H
Quote from: ComputerGuy on February 29, 2004, 17:52 hrs
I hope I'm not asking for too much, but could you give me a link to a thread that's what I'm looking for here?
Perhaps you haven't noticed that our forum has a Search function? :-\\ It is located near the top, in the Main Menu.
Ford vs Chevy
Ginger vs Mary Ann
Spy vs Spy
The answer is AMD ;D
Mary Ann & AMD :P
One I hear often as a hobbiest photographer is:
Nikon vs Canon
digital vs film
I think what Pat really meant was:
Mary Ann or Ginger (my pick is Mary Ann from Giligan's Island)
Mark H
Yep, like I said.
Mary Ann & AMD ::)
Also don't forget.
Night vs Day
Yin vs Yang
Scuzzy vs Ace
Quote from: pat on February 29, 2004, 21:45 hrs
Scuzzy vs Ace
No comparison. That is like comparing automobiles to skate boards. I pick Scuzzy any day.
Also, I pick AMD 64 over current Intel offerings.
Mark H
AMD = Best Performance for PRICE
Intel = Best Performance
Ford vs Chevy (Chevy wins)
Ginger vs Mary Ann (Mary Ann wins)
Scuzzy vs Ace (We all lose)
Quote from: Wade777 on February 29, 2004, 22:20 hrs
AMD = Best Performance for PRICE
Intel = Best Performance
I don't quite agree even though I like both. The AMD 64 chips are giving Intel a run for their money and the new Prescott core by Intel is a bust so far. The Prescott will be a great processor once its clock speed get ramped up to around 4 Ghz.
Mark H
In my opinion:
nVidia & AMD
ATI & Intel
8-)
Quote
Perhaps you haven't noticed that our forum has a Search function? :-\ It is located near the top, in the Main Menu.
Quote
Yeah, I know, but I'm too lazy :P
Oops, lol I don't even know how to quote ;)
Quote from: Mark H on March 01, 2004, 10:18 hrs
Quote from: Wade777 on February 29, 2004, 22:20 hrs
AMD = Best Performance for PRICE
Intel = Best Performance
I don't quite agree even though I like both. The AMD 64 chips are giving Intel a run for their money and the new Prescott core by Intel is a bust so far. The Prescott will be a great processor once its clock speed get ramped up to around 4 Ghz.
Mark H
/agree
Yeah.. I was talkin about AMD Athlon XP v P4 :)
In my world the 64 chips dont exist ... yet
They don't exist yet in my world either as my only system is a Athlon 2500 XP, which I love. :)
Mark H
I would love that too ...
Seriously.. for the money that you pay, AMD XP is the way to go.. about 3/4 of the computers I make are AMD XP... best value
Unfortunately, I'm still stuck with my p4 1.7 Ghz CPU that I bought on 7/1/2001 ... can you imagine p4 processors are almost 3 years old!
These are what I've had:
1994 Intel 8086
1997 Intel Pentium P133
2000 Cyrix MII PR300
2000 Intel Pentium III 650
2002 Intel Celeron-S 1.2G
2003 mobile AMD Athlon-4 1600+
2003 Intel Pentium III 1.0G
2004 AMD Athlon XP 2200+
No brand loyalty at all ;D. The AMD based machines are cheaper overall. You can get a really good Socket A AMD motherboard for the same money as a low-end Socket <Pick-A-Number> Intel board.
Similar story with graphics cards:
1997 ATi Video Expression
1998 ATi 3D Charger
2000 nVidia Vanta
2002 SiS 630
2003 nVidia GeForce FX5200
2003 S3 Twister-K
2004 ATi Radeon 9200SE
OK, the SiS and S3 weren't really chosen by me since they came as part of notebook computers. :) I couldn't decide on whether to get a FX5200 or Radeon 9200, the thing which decided for me was the price - I was able to get a good deal on a cheap 9200SE.
Now, for sound cards, I would still be using Aureal, but thanks to Creative, this isn't possible.
1997 - Aztech AZT2320 ISA
1998 - Creative SoundBlaster Live! Value CT4670
2000 - Aureal Vortex 2 OEM PCI
2002 - SiS 7018
2002 - Diamond MonsterSound MX300
2003 - VIA AC'97
2003 - Aureal SuperQuad Digital PCI
2003 - Aureal SQ1500
2003 - Aureal SQ2500
2004 - nForce2 (non-SoundStorm) + ALC650
WOW .. you've had quite a few systems in your lifetime ...
I only remember 3:
*Old Packard Hell 386 w/ Windows 3.1
*PII/ 333 Mhz
*PIV/1.7 Ghz
but I guess you are older so you dont count :p
As for graphics cards.. I'm an all NVidia person.... currently have a Gainward GF4 Ti 4400
Systems that I have had over the years,
1993/'94/somewhere around there:
PI 133Mghz (In my room, runs, a little slow, but still works, cept for the TURBO LED and HDD led because i dont know where to put those on the board ((i rebuilt the computer )) )
~2000:
PIII 866Mghz - Windows XP Professional (mine, now, was my moms first ((Windows 98, when it was my moms)) when it came from my dads shop, i can still remember..."
Travis: HEY DAD!
Dad: what?
Travis: this machine (is) 866mghz! i thought it was alot slower than that!
Dad: ohno, that should've stayed at the shop then!! ;D
2001: AMD 1.2Ghz - Windows 2000 Professional (my dads, sounds like a leaf blower :( )
Dad: Hey, check out my new PC!
Travis: Wow! Whats it got?
Dad: Its got a 1.2 gigahertz processor! Fastest one i could get!
Travis: oh cool!
2002:
P IIII 1.6Ghz - Windows 2000 Professional (my moms, now at the shop)
2004:
HP 2.6Ghz - Windows XP Home (my moms new one :) just got it a week ago, I can still remember,
Travis: uhh...mom? your new computer has Windows XP Home on it, just so that you know. (you see, she, at first, hated the thought of using Windows XP, because it crashed my dads PC)
Mom: wait, why does it have windows XP on it?!
....
Travis: because thats what it came with
Mom: But i dont want to use XP!
Dad: oh, it'll be fine, whats wrong with XP?
Mom: ...ok
(later, she eventually ended up liking it ;) )
My systems of the past:
Radio Shack TRS 80 (8088 processor) gone into oblivion
Gateway 2000 486/33 gone into oblivion
Miconpc PII/300 at my mother-in-law's currently
AMD 2500 that I built myself that I currently use.
Mark H
Quote from: ComputerGuy on March 01, 2004, 13:17 hrs
Quote
Perhaps you haven't noticed that our forum has a Search function? :-\ It is located near the top, in the Main Menu.Quote
Yeah, I know, but I'm too lazy :P
Search function does not work well with this forum version
Quote from: Hoot on March 02, 2004, 00:18 hrs
Quote from: ComputerGuy on March 01, 2004, 13:17 hrs
Quote
Perhaps you haven't noticed that our forum has a Search function? :-\ It is located near the top, in the Main Menu.Quote
Yeah, I know, but I'm too lazy :P
Search function does not work well with this forum version
Please elaborate. It was working just fine when I searched on "AMD or Intel".
I did a search on "AMD and Intel" as Neon and it worked very well.
Mark H
I agree with mark, query and neon, the search engine works fine.
me 2 i am currently getting the money together for my AMD 64 system :)
Neon,
I have tried using the search function many times, 6 times tonight after reading these comments.
In all cases the searches returned zero.
I even copied and pasted "AMD vs Intel" into the search subject and it returned nothing.
In each case I was not within a particular forum but on the main forum index page.
Just for reference, this is win98SE, IE 6, altho I don't see that should matter.
I've tried several of the search options, none of which had any effect.
Bill
bill (and Hoot),
It seems you are correct. If "AMD vs Intel" is searched with the default "Match all words", no results return. If "Match as phrase" is selected, it returns this thread.
That's frankly not very good. The "Match all words" should return this thread, plus any other poasts containing all 3 of those words. Our forum search has a bug - we will have to do some testing.
Neon,
thanks for the validation and the tip for searching.
bill
The way I searched was to search for "AMD and Intel." This worked for me by returning every thread that has both the words AMD and Intel in it.
Mark H
I agree with neon. I likewise searched for "AMD vs Intel" with "Match all words" with no results. Then I tried the same search word with "Match as phrase" and got this thread. Like bill... thanks for the tip neon. :)
My previous systems
1993
Dell - family computer
Intel 486DX 66MHz
4MB RAM, which was upped to 16 right away
Windows 3.1
256 color who the heck knows video card
It had sound and Labtec Speakers.
1998
HP - My computer (now my Mom's computer)
PII 450 MHZ
128MB RAM, several years later upped to 256MB
Windows 98
Integrated ATI Rage pro 2x w/8MB VRAM, several years later upped to a PNY MX420 PCI w/64MB VRAM
Ensoniq sound card
1999
HP - Mom's computer (replacement for 486, now my radio station server)
AMD K6-2 350MHz
32MB RAM > 96MB RAM > 64MB RAM
Windows 98
Integrated Sis video w/4MB shared memory
Ensoniq sound card
2003
HP - My computer (current)
AMD AthlonXP 2600+
512MB RAM
Windows XP Home
Integrated MX video w/64MB shared memory, quickly upped to a PNY FX5600 Ultra
Integrated Realtek 97 5.1 sound.
The K6-2's were okay. They were a lot cheaper than P2s, but didn't perform nearly as well. The current AthlonXPs are a lot cheaper than P4s but perform similarily. I see a brand switch over the years. :)
I've only bought 2 aftermarket video cards, and both were both Nvidia & PNY. Not loyal, just a good deal, and I knew I trusted them.
199? (given to us, since I'm a computer fanatic): 486SX
1992: 486SX
1996: AMD K5 100MHz
1997 (notebook, given to us): Pentium 200 MHz w\MMX
2000: Celeron 400MHz (Won this one :), Albertsons was just opening in the town we lived in them)
2004: Pentium 4 2.6 GHz
Now that AMD's Athlon 64 line is reasonably established, I'd be glad to reccommend an AMD system. I bought Intel because of a) HP media centers only had that at that point b) the Intels gave you dual channel ddr400 thatt was actually used right out of the box. I don't know specifically about the AMD, but I suspect you could rig it to dual channel, thereby blowing away Intel in terms of price\speed (you can get a prcessor probably 500MHz faster, in performance with the same price via AMD). As you can see, though, I've only had one AMD system. But I have relatives (namely by computer-savvy grandad) that would probably rather spend intel-class money on an AMD processor than the other way around. Both processors work great. It's just that enthusiasts and low-fi manufacturers use AMD more (take eMachines as my example) simply because they are cheaper and (at least used to be) come configureable (read overclockable), which added lustre for enthusiasts.
There's my 2 cents. Hope that helped.
The current socket 754 AMD 64 chips are only single channel RAM. When they go to socket 939, they will support dual channel RAM.
Mark H
Okkk.....what's that socket you're talking about?(I totally dont know what that means, not knowing too much computer jargon ???) By "chips" I assume you're talking about chipsets? And what's singel channel and dual channel RAM? Say hello to the newbie... ;)
The socket number is the number of pins that the chips (processors) possess. The 754 and 939 sockets are for the AMD 64 processors.
Single channel RAM has one pathway data to travel. Dual channel RAM has two simultaneous pathways for data to travel, which doubles the throughput. It is like a 4 lane highway being compared to a 2 lane highway. For dual channel systems, you have to buy RAM chips in multiples of two for dual channel to work.
Intel processors use a 478 socket, but will be changing to a different socket in the very near future.
Intel has stability and reliability, plus, it's a good family name. you could name your pet Wintel, and not get looked at funny.
AMD is cheaper, IMHO more aggressive, and you can overclock. Just be careful when you do it. You would use the name 'Athlon XP' to frighten the trick-or-treating kids on halloween.
AMD is typical of gamers and graphics people, while Intel is tyour more stable and sane variety of number-cruncher and Word processor guys.
Okay, maybe not. You've got strengths and weaknesses with both of them. I own 2 AMD's (2200+ and 2500+) and an Intel p4 1.6 and i see much better performance with AMD, but I know that the Intel is far more reliable.
Ok, I get it now. So does the socket number indicate how many pins the chips possess? And um... what's a pin? :P
"pins" protrude from the bottom of the processor (the chip). Internally they connect all the parts. Externally, the pins plug into a socket, that connects the processor to the circuits on the motherboard. It is exactlly the same principal as the prongs or "pins" on a electrical cord plug being pushed into the wall outlet or socket. the differences being the size and number of "pins"
bill
Oh, I see now. Thanks for explaining it to me! ;) And, just out of curiosity, does "pin" stand for something, or is it just a name?
pin ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pn)
n.
1.
1. A short, straight, stiff piece of wire with a blunt head and a sharp point, used especially for fastening.
Quote from: Nestorath69 on March 10, 2004, 10:49 hrs
I own 2 AMD's (2200+ and 2500+) and an Intel p4 1.6 and i see much better performance with AMD, but I know that the Intel is far more reliable.
Could the reason for reliablility lie with the user rather than the processor itself? I have had an AMD 1333 for several years and it has never given me a problem, but I
do not overclock and am quite happy that I can just get the computer to run the loaded programs. I now have an AMD XP 2600 in my main system with very low heat levels (CPU 91?F right now). I think I might be over-stating the case if I compared an AMD user to a snowboarder and an Intel user to a skier, but I have no doubt that AMD overclockers tend to run the failure rate up quite a bit, and "
D*** the torpedoes; full speed ahead!"
you're going to scoff, but I haven't overclocked either one. The 2200 can't be overclocked, and the 2500+ is fine where it's at, though I may overclock in the future. But what I mean by stability, is that I've had less program crashes with my Intel. But the programs lock up more with the Intel. There's a balance, I suppose.
Ok, in my opinion, if a program locks up you might as well have said crash. lol. I have used systems professionaly built using Intel and have noticed that every AMD system i've ever used/built is far better then intel.
I prefer AMD, i personally think AMD is more stable then Intel(or at least as stable)
AMD ALL THE WAY
I will ALWAYS used AMD and NEVER use Intel as long as AMD exists
I got an intel because that's all they had for MCE at that time and i'm satisfied. You'll be satisfied if you do AMD, especially with 64, probably more than if you do it with Intel, even without dualchannel memory, as AMD64s have an on-chip memory controller, which means that you don't have to got hrough the chipset to access the memory, which increases performance. Athlon 64 FXs (51 and 53, da bombs :)) are the ones with tons of pins (950 or so) and they use dual channel controllers, therefore whipping Intel to pieces as of this moment, and can also do bad things to Apple PCs, as PCWorld showed a few months ago. By this I mean they tested a dual 2 GHz G5 system against a single-processor, lower-priced (I think) FX-51 Alienware, and unless the software was optimized for the G5 the FX came out ahead. Now, with the FX-53, that lead is gonna stay, and get larger, until Apple comes out with another "next big thing" system. Well, I can't sit on the internet until kingdom come, so CUL, guys!
I've heard several people say Intel is more reliable and or stable. How is that? I've had no problems with the CPU on either my AMD K6-2 or Athlon 2600+. My P2 has all the problems, but I don't think they are processor realted.
Carskick, of course it is processor related ;) , AMD is much better haha
I cant go and say that though, but i think AMD is just as stable as Intel is
I've had no problems with AMD ... of course, with both processors you are likely to find some with problems.
Yea, I've heard the same arguments - from dealers who sell only Intel-based systems. WAY back in the K5 and early K6 days, there were some problems. Those AMD processors ran quite hot, certainly hotter than the contemporary Intel processors.
The big problem however was buggy chipset designs and drivers, some of which continued to the early K7. Many of you may remember all of the squabbling about the Via KT133 chipset incompatibility with Soundblaster sound cards. Everybody had soundblasters, so there was a lot of wailing. It turned out to be Creative's fault, because their implementation deviated from the PCI standards, but AMD's reputation got the blame.
That stuff is ancient history now.
AHH yes, I remember those days, i started out on a good ol' K6-2 300 MHz AMD. I definatly remember the problesm with soundblasters.
ancient history could only be a month ago.... :-\\
anywho, i thgink i will like my 64 system, when its done :(
:( my PC is out of date :(
866mghz VS 3000mghz
its sad, isnt it? :'(
I think that once again Intel has surpassed AMD in the notebook market. Dothan has come, and is roughly 1.5X GHz speed. That means 2 GHz = ~3000+, AMD's fastest mobile chip. Wait...let me check...no, wait! AMD is still ahead just a tad! Long live AMD!
yes.... long live AMD... yes.... ;D
I don't see any point in building an Intel-based PC anymore; you can put together a much more powerful system using AMD for the same price. I have friends who I've tried to convince to move to AMD but they refuse to go away from Intel.
The reason that I mentioned building is that if you're buying a ready built system such as a Dell then you may be able to get a good price on Intel, and of course for notebooks there's Intel Centrino technology.
The last machine I built was an AMD and installation was painless. My next build is also going to be AMD and costs considerably less than other people's P4 builds of similar speed.
Quote from: Chandler on May 13, 2004, 16:55 hrs
then you may be able to get a good price on Intel, and of course for notebooks there's Intel Centrino technology.
Point of order - Centrino is not a technology, it is a marketing term that designates a notebook with the Pentium-M processor, i855 chipset, and Intel Pro/wireless 2100 chip.
Manufacturers that meet all of those requirements can label their notebooks as Centrino, and have access to Centrino marketing funds. The marketing strategy is apparently designed to force everyone to use Intel 's wireless chip - eventually it will get integrated into the chipset.
You know, (based on what you've said) Intel is beginning to remind me of the Great Blind Elder Gods that H.P. Lovecraft always went on and on (and on) about. Except we can say the 'Intel' and not fear for our sanity...
wait. :o
Ahhh, revelation...
But it is sort of a technology. Pentium M + i855 chipset + 2100 wireless = Centrino. Then if you use it you get eh marketing funds...
I think Intell's only chance is in this, and only this, market...
Long Live Pentium M
Longer Live AMD!
Thanks for clearing that up. I never knew about what Centrino actually was since the ads aren't exactly clear. I always thought "what has the Centrino processor got to do with wireless networking?". Now I know!
I suppose that they use "Centrino" to distinguish it from the Pentium 4-M, which is far less efficient than the Pentium-M used for Centrino.
Quote from: Chandler on May 14, 2004, 10:32 hrsI suppose that they use "Centrino" to distinguish it from the Pentium 4-M, which is far less efficient than the Pentium-M used for Centrino.
Yes that's a good point. From a marketing standpoint, the easily remembered Centrino name is far more preferable than, "Pentium em with eight fifty-something and wifi, with extra special sauce" ;)
I wonder if AMD will eventually follow this example. Even though they don't sell chipsets or wireless chips, they could certify hardware for use in Durino notebooks. Ok, ok, probably not.
Speaking of Durino, is the Duron line still there?
this is turning into a long poast!!!
I dont kow... bbut i think that AMD is the best... as their 64bit actually works :P
As does Intel's and IBM's (Apple G5), but both are much rarer han AMD64 for the big fat reason that both are very costly, while Athlon 64 and the lower Opterons aren't.
BTW, AMD did good 64bit 1st with the Opteron, not Apple.
yes
Igloo
I think some higher speed Durons have recently appeared. I've seen some 1800+ OEM Durons for sale.
Yes, there is now Duron at 1400, 1600, and 1800. (No "+" because Durons don't use performance ratings). These are Applebred core, which is essentially a Thoroughbred with only 64KB of L2 cache. So the L2 cache situation carries on the same as with previous Durons, but the bus speed is now increased to 133 MHz.
So far, these Durons are apparently made in small quantities, and/or are likely intended for the most price-sensitive markets. They are also available as OEM pre-soldered onto some ECS/PC Chips/Matsonic motherboards.
Huh. AMD seems to be doing a lot of that scheme lately. See the poast I'll initiate when I get around to it for more info...