- #1
Saint
- 437
- 0
:rofl: Let's vote which CPU is better? AMD or intel? In terms of overall performance.
Why?
Why?
so what's the chip to usegraphic7 said:Both processors are terribly constructed. Both of them still use the same basic, unchanged instruction sets since the 8086.
Both processors are terribly constructed. Both of them still use the same basic, unchanged instruction sets since the 8086.
Generally, AMD is better for Gaming and optimized for AMD code..and Intel is better for media, encoding, and optimized for Intel code..Saint said::rofl: Let's vote which CPU is better? AMD or intel? In terms of overall performance.
Why?
Both processors are terribly constructed. Both of them still use the same basic, unchanged instruction sets since the 8086.
Saint said:i would rather invest in AMD 64 bit CPU, so that i can install 64-bit Windows or linux.
Why do they suck?amwbonfire said: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.
Also, Window XP-64 supposedly isn't coming out for a while...
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.
No, you can get the trial version right now. The finished version is scheduled to come out late 2004 or early 2005. It's not that long of a wait.
Dagenais said: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.
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..
I don't see many companies jumping on the 64-bit train.
alexkerhead said: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..
lol, you need to get a grip, I never said all AMDs were unstable.^.^ I meant in general.AxMi-24 said: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 a lot more problems with overheating than any AMD. So please think before you post next time.
alexkerhead said: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, because 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..
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..Chronos said: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.
Nice idea for a PC, but you forgot one thing...CASHSaint said: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
Nice idea for a PC, but you forgot one thing...CASHSaint said: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
AMD long ago stopped trying to be cheaper than Intel at every performance level, but AMD and Intel still have different price/performance curves, so which is cheaper/faster depends on how much money you are looking to spend. From http://www.pricewatch.com/m/mn.aspx?i=3&f=1 [Broken] , while a P4 3.4 and A64 3400 will cost you about the same ~$285, an XP 300 costs about $100, while a P4 3.0 costs $180.alexkerhead said:AMD is no longer cheaper for the same performance..
AMD is no longer going on the "bang for buck" idea, they are now trying to directly compete with Intel.
Here is my main Computer running 3.4GHz with a P4 B, and as you can see, the old B's have a some kick in them..russ_watters said:AMD long ago stopped trying to be cheaper than Intel at every performance level, but AMD and Intel still have different price/performance curves, so which is cheaper/faster depends on how much money you are looking to spend. From http://www.pricewatch.com/m/mn.aspx?i=3&f=1 [Broken] , while a P4 3.4 and A64 3400 will cost you about the same ~$285, an XP 300 costs about $100, while a P4 3.0 costs $180.
And as you can see, AMD holds the performance lead in the mainstream desktop market right now, though both have faster limited production chips (P4 EE and A64 FX). Amd's fastest mainstream chip is the 3800, while Intel's is the 3.4.
Nice. I run an XP 2500+ overclocked generally to 3200+ speeds (downclocked it a little for the summer though).alexkerhead said:Here is my main Computer running 3.4GHz with a P4 B, and as you can see, the old B's have a some kick in them..
http://alexrushing.com/miscpictures/megaownage2.jpg [Broken]
I am glad you like to o/c, it is my hobby, also just received a sl6dv P4, so I will be overclocking some uberness soon..russ_watters said:Nice. I run an XP 2500+ overclocked generally to 3200+ speeds (downclocked it a little for the summer though).
Barton. Its a little more than a year old. I'm happy with the overclock I'm getting, but I sscrewed up with the motherboard choice: I have an Epox 8rda and its fsb is nowhere near as overclockable as the 8rda+. 190 is my max depending on timings.alexkerhead said:btw, is that 2500 a barton? or a mobile?
if it is, you could do 2.6GHz with it on air, and that would be uber fast..
still very nice CPU..russ_watters said:Barton. Its a little more than a year old. I'm happy with the overclock I'm getting, but I sscrewed up with the motherboard choice: I have an Epox 8rda and its fsb is nowhere near as overclockable as the 8rda+. 190 is my max depending on timings.
yuppers, got a VIA C3 650MHz in my server with a passive cooler, and runs 29c when transfering files for two days and folding..Saint said:anyone use VIA or Transmeta ?
not a problem, I am glad you are taking interest..BigStarFish said:Do you able to tell me what VIA is you are telling ?
Sorry Being interupting. I have really deep interste in computer chunks and links.