# AMD or Intel better ?

1. Sep 9, 2004

### Saint

:rofl: Let's vote which CPU is better? AMD or intel? In terms of overall performance.
Why?

2. Sep 10, 2004

### graphic7

Both processors are terribly constructed. Both of them still use the same basic, unchanged instruction sets since the 8086.

3. Sep 10, 2004

### Locrian

I don't know the answer to the OP anymore, because the change to 64bit is making comparisons more complicated. For a long time Intel was a step ahead, but AMD gave more bang for the buck. That was still true a little over a year ago, but I have no idea what it is like now.

Maybe someone can tell us how the new 64bit processors are working out?

4. Sep 10, 2004

### Tom McCurdy

so whats the chip to use
or could u build a better one

5. Sep 10, 2004

### Saint

i would rather invest in AMD 64 bit CPU, so that i can install 64-bit Windows or linux.

6. Sep 11, 2004

### Goalie_Ca

Well, actually tons has changed but i agree its still a ****ty ISA (8086 was bad when it was new). The AMD64 is quite nicely cleaned up by adding a few more GPR's etc in 64-bit mode. They didn't go as far as i'd like but they took advantage of lack of backward compatibility.

7. Sep 11, 2004

Generally, AMD is better for Gaming and optimized for AMD code..and Intel is better for media, encoding, and optimized for Intel code..
I hope that helps to clarify.

8. Sep 11, 2004

### Tom McCurdy

I like AMD

but thats mainly for price
i haven't had much to compare it with
i have
one
AMD 2200
one
AMD 2600
one
intel p4 2.8
and
celeron 1.6

9. Sep 12, 2004

Like Tom said, AMD is a lot cheaper, but for the same or near the same performance, but Intel is more corporate style, if you know what I mean..
I have 2 3.06GHz P4s, one at 3.45GHz, and the other at 3.28GHz, a P4 2GHz, a AMD 2400XP, and my server is a VIA c3 650MHz(lol)
I still like the 2400XP, and compare the feel to a stock P4 3.06GHz, so that may tell you somthing.....but I wouldn't give up my P4 babies..

and..

Why would you say that, the newer P4s have insane amount of instructions over the 8086..

clock speeds have increased,
bus speeds have increased
instruction sets are more complex and there are more instructions on die
the nm process has decreased substantually.

10. Sep 12, 2004

### amwbonfire

Intel is endorsed by a lot of companies and even schools. For instance, any school in my state (Western Australia) have to use Intel processors. Every school is given a "guideline" (it's really a rulebook) for what components to buy for their computers. It's all VERY stupid.

Most governments SUCK when it comes to anything to do with the IT sector.

11. Sep 12, 2004

### amwbonfire

You'll be waiting a long time for the tecnology to actually be useful. 64-bit processors simply aren't needed at the moment, because practically no programs employ 64-bit data processing.

Also, Window XP-64 supposedly isn't coming out for a while...

12. Sep 12, 2004

Why do they suck?
Intel is the most, pardon the expression, stable of all the brands to get, as say, if it had to stay on for 10 days or so, there would be significant damage to AMD XPs, but the P4 would have no damage, the AMDs are more "build it yourself" CPUs, and Intel is like you say, the most corporate..

13. Sep 12, 2004

### Dagenais

No, you can get the http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx right now. The finished version is scheduled to come out late 2004 or early 2005. It's not that long of a wait.

SuSE has had their 64-bit version for quite a long time now.

Not true, they've been leading quite a few speed tests around the net and in periodicals. They are suppose to work great for digital media or gaming tasks.

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
14. Sep 12, 2004

### amwbonfire

I didn't know that. All i've heard is that it won't be released until midway through 2005. Thanks for the new information!

Mainstream use? I don't see many companies jumping on the 64-bit train. Sure, gaming and media could sure use the extra boost, but for the majority of computer users who only use data processing, etc, it isn't needed yet.

That's my opinion anyway.

I was referring to the dictatorship-like grasp the government has on tecnology in schools in WA. I wasn't specifically talking about Intel being chosen over AMD. I agree with that choice, but not the fact that they don't let schools choose the technology they'd like to buy. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for our "IT guy" to order a custom computer? Even just a decent graphics card for a media computer?

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2004
15. Sep 13, 2004

### Dagenais

Most of the large PC makers are using Intel chips for their consumer line. Dell, IBM and Gateway are examples of this.

However, the PC manufacturers who do use AMD have used 64-bit CPUs in their line of 'home computers' for awhile now including, EMachines, ABS, Polywell and HP.

16. Sep 13, 2004

### AxMi-24

Funny how my AMD Athlon 1700+ XP has run att maximum load (seti@home on 24/7) for over 1 year (with total down time meassured in days (very few of them at that)).

It's just crap that AMD procs are not as stable. Newest Intel procs have alot more problems with overheating than any AMD. So please think before you post next time.

17. Sep 13, 2004

lol, you need to get a grip, I never said all AMDs were unstable.^.^ I meant in general.
I have a 1700XP, woot!, I can say whether or not I like the stability.
WHen the fan goes out, you are el'screwed..
I own a 2400XP also, and it would fry without a good fan on it.
This was all I emant really, sorry for the lack of words in my previous post..
That is why huge businesses use Intel and VIa, cuz if somthing were to happen to the cooling, the PC would be semi-operational, so work could go on, but AMD would need immediate repair..
That is all I am saying there dude..

18. Sep 13, 2004

### Chronos

I will 2nd [or 3rd, 4th, etc] the motion that AMD is more bang for the buck, at least up to the past year or so. I jumped off the Intel bandwagon over four years ago and never looked back. It has been my experience a comparable AMD CPU will perform as well or better than the Intel equivalent at a fraction of the cost. It was the first legitimate competitor to the Intel corner on the market and put some sorely needed downward price pressure on Pentium processors. That's a good thing in and of itself.

19. Sep 14, 2004

### AxMi-24

P4 wannt work that well either without cooling (ok it would slow down to a crawl which is still unusable for any real work, try running XP on something that works att couple of MHz...). Besides AMD has implemented heat protection in all newer procs so that's old stuff you are talking about. Fan failure wouldn't do any damage. And besides things like fan failure and similar are so rare that it's no real concern anyway. Like I said mine has been upp and running for 1 year att ful load and not a single problem with cooling.

20. Sep 14, 2004

I will say AMD is great for the price, but only for the end-user, but people like me who run code, and encode stuff, well, need a CPU that is designed pretty much for that..

21. Sep 14, 2004

### Saint

AMD will roll out the dual-core processor for desktop ahead of intel in 2005.

22. Sep 14, 2004

### amwbonfire

And so the processor wars begin...

Why don't we just say one's better for word proccessing/office stuff, and the other's better for gaming and media?

Just get whichever processor is better for your computer's main function.

23. Sep 14, 2004

### Saint

The most powerful desktop in next year will be Dual core 64-bit CPU + 1GB DDR800MHz RAM + SATA HDD + 256MB PCI EXpress Graphic card + Creative Audigy 7.1 Channel Sound card

24. Sep 14, 2004

Nice idea for a PC, but you forgot one thing....CASH

25. Sep 14, 2004

P4 3.4GHz $299 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=698446 AMD 3400$299