Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel or AMD

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Intel or AMD

    I've been actively looking into getting a new compute rin the next month or two and wanted a little advice from anyone. WHat do you think I should get, an AMD or an Intel 4? I was looking at an AMD 3000 but I hear that it only runs at a 2.0 Ghz clockspeed, when the Intel 4 3.0 Ghz runs at a 3.0 Ghz. Wouldn't I want to go with Intel? But thenI heard Intel runs slower. Is that true? Any advice for a new comp? Any good places to buy a comp out there for a good price?

    #2
    NOOOOOO! Not another one of those Intel vs AMD

    AMD's technology is different so 2GHz vs 3GHz is not a good comparison. the 3000 moniker means that AMD claims the XP3000+ performs roughly the same as a pentium 3.0, and as a general rule it's accurate.
    Same with FSB, Intel goes up to 800, AMD goes only to 400, but that doesn't mean anything either.
    Basically it doesn't matter, some apps will run a few percetn faster with one processor and other apps will be slower by a few percent.
    Choose by price or other featurs of the comp.

    RAM speed is more important, make sure that whatever you get supports PC3200 and run that.

    Comment


      #3
      amd handle more clocks per cycle (9) and intel only runs 6 clocks per cycle. so amd can run big programs faster, for instence games.

      but have a lower FSB

      intel run only 6 clocks per cycle, but have a high FSB, whitch means more multi tasking,


      so i see it this way, amd for handle big and intense gaming, and intels for office work, like multi tasking.

      and plus AMDs overclock wonderful!

      Comment


        #4
        don't being overclocking in the mix. If he's asking this question, he's not into hardware tweaking! (but I agree w/ you AMD overclock s great, although the new procs are locked, unless you get the mobile version )

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by metalhead74

          and plus AMDs overclock wonderful!

          .........when they don't melt as a result.......

          Comment


            #6
            Buy a CyrixII!:up:



            /me runs :bulb:

            Comment


              #7
              So, for gaming for instance, getting an AMD like say 3000 or 3200 would be great, just like a Intel 3.0 Ghz? Saying that if a game calls for specs in the next few years of like 2.5, the AMD will still easily run this?

              Comment


                #8
                Re: Intel or AMD

                Originally posted by SadExchange
                I've been actively looking into getting a new compute rin the next month or two and wanted a little advice from anyone. WHat do you think I should get, an AMD or an Intel 4? I was looking at an AMD 3000 but I hear that it only runs at a 2.0 Ghz clockspeed, when the Intel 4 3.0 Ghz runs at a 3.0 Ghz. Wouldn't I want to go with Intel? But thenI heard Intel runs slower. Is that true? Any advice for a new comp? Any good places to buy a comp out there for a good price?
                For most games, the Athlon FX 64 owns any other CPU except the quite expensive P4 extreme edition.

                Yes, it's true, AMDs are running at lower internal clockspeeds, but that doesn't mean they are slower. It's just because they have a completely different internal design, that's why they get a so called "Pentium rating" which indicates the clock frequency of an Intel CPU with about the same performance. So, a 3000+ AMD is about as fast as a 3 GHz P4, but internally, it doesn't need such a high clock speed.

                AMD has the faster integer core, whereas the Intel P4 has better floating point performance and a much faster memory interface.

                Many people argue that an AMD is the ideal CPU for a gaming box, because the only Intel which might come close or can even be faster in some benchmarks or real world scenarios is the quite expensive P4 extreme edition. In general, a AMD CPU does very well for a gaming box.

                Personally, I'am still an Intel fan. Not because I do not like AMD, but because Intel has always been working for me flawlessly, beginning with the 286 a long time ago

                AMD _is_ fine, but still doesn't have the reputation for stability like Intel has, mainly not AMD's fault, because most of the problems with AMD systems were caused by buggy chipsets or crappy mainboards - but today, that's not an issue anymore.

                Comment


                  #9

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Yeah, at least the newest Intel melt on their own, no overclocking needed

                    Right now both companies 'latest and greatest' are having issues.
                    I like AMD (the Athlon... line) myself.

                    Price out complete systems (AMD & Intel) with the goodies you want, poke around lots of good review sites, build what fits your budget and needs. Pay attanetion to EACH piece. I generally pick a top (ASUS) motherboard as that is gonna be with you the longest.

                    Cause in <18 months you are gonna be upgrading (something) again anyways. :up:

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Now, I've been seeing stuf like the regular AMD and the AMD 64 and the AMD XP. Now, sorry that I'm kind of new at this, when you were making your comments about the comparisons of the processors, were you reffering tot he regular AMD? Like the ocmparisons of the speeds between it and Intel? Or do I have to get a the 64 or XP to compare wiht what you're saying?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        *wishes he could play games on an UltraSPARC III*

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Not meaning to be nasty, but go browse the Hardware sites...
                          www.anandtech.com
                          www.hardocp.com
                          www.beyond3d.com
                          and a whole bunch of others.

                          Look at the reviews. UT2003 is a commonly used benchmark.
                          Compare cost vs benefit. Dont spend so much that you cant afford a good vid card. Come to your own conclusion.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            don't go for the high end, they're not worth the price.
                            Yes, an XP3200+ will run fine anything with a min requirement of 2.5. When they write the speed they're talking pentium, so 2.5 is equivalent to XP2500+.
                            Go for an AMD 3200+ if you can afford it. Works great. Get 1G PC3200 RAM, a decent graphic card and UT2004 will own

                            Comment


                              #15
                              DO NOT BUY AN ATHLON XP 3200+!

                              just get a 2500+ and overclock it to 3200+ speeds. easy and u save $100.

                              i'd go for the socket 939's though. wait for them to come out so u can dual channel.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X