Intel or AMD

StormLister · Post by **StormLister** » 05 Aug 2003, 15:26

Well what do you think??? Intel or Amd, which one is the performer ? And Why?

n00b · Post by **n00b** » 05 Aug 2003, 16:43

pricewise in the midrange amd while on the highend and only looking at performance it has to be intel and you can just look at the futuremark online result browser for proof of that. In 3dmark2001se which is very cpu dependent you will find that intel constitutes approximately 970 to 980 of the top 1000 fastest computers in the world in the unlimited clocks but default benchmark runs category.
 
 and even though 3dmark03 is more gpu/graphics dependent you will still find the same story. All of which is proof enough for me that intel is really faster but amd gives you a "bang for your buck" despite the fact that im personally running amd right now.

Post by **OnlyOneKenobi** » 05 Aug 2003, 16:48

Well the fact of the matter is that Intel processors are well over 3Ghz and up, while AMD hasn´t even come close to that clock speed yet. We´ll see how much faster a 3Ghz AMD is than a 3Ghz Intel once we reach that point. It really isn´t fair comparing PC´s which aren´t even running the same clock speed. My AMD 2000+ ( 1.666 Ghz ) is much, MUCH faster than an Intel 1.6 Ghz PC. Hence the 2000+ name.

NinjaTic · Post by **NinjaTic** » 05 Aug 2003, 16:53

I don´t know about much MUCH faster. Yes I agree that is is faster, but the 1.6 Ghz Intel (Northwood chipset) has some pretty awsome overclocking abiliy. Mine is overclocked at 2,2Ghz and idles at 31degrees, going up to 48 under load!
 
 But yes, I have to agree that AMD has a better speed/price ratio!

Post by **OnlyOneKenobi** » 05 Aug 2003, 16:57

Well I have an AMD @ 1.6 and my friend has an Intel @ 1.6 and mine flies circles around his... it´s really shocking! Maybe he just has a crappy PC, I dunno... *shrug*

n00b · Post by **n00b** » 05 Aug 2003, 16:59

only1 we all understand that but i dont really see amd ever coming to 3ghz ever at this point even when intel has reached 10ghz which is due in two to two and a half years from now while amd is still struggling to get athlon64 to 1.8 ghz so if you wait for amd at 3ghz you will be very old before you see that
 
 they have that rating system and i can have you a bet for around R1000 that id be able to get an intel 2.4 to kill an amd 2400+ and even a 3200+ when overclocked to both chips maximums so its about time that amd apologists actually get a clue as to whats really going on with the company
 
 Ibm seems to be knocking on the door to buy them out and they keep on making losses of over $200million in each quarter and there has to be a reason for that
 
 dont get me wrong in any way amd has there place in the market but in terms of which is better there is absolutely no way anyone can now say that amd has more performance considering that besides for the celerons that the 2.4c is the entry level intel chip while the 3.2c intel will slaughter every amd chip currently and in the near future and also considering that the 0.09 prescott is debuting at 3.6ghz and within 12 months is projected to be at 5ghz while the athlon64 at its highest will debut at 1.8ghz (and is still not ready yet) and is not even projected to reach 2.8 ghz after the same 12 months
 
 in terms of performance im very sorry to say that amd is going to be left far behind very soon and you shouldnt be comparing old outdated stuff but look at upcoming stuff to see the actual reality of the situation
 
 ps you cannot compare them clock to clock since you will need to compare to a 2ghz plus intel chip cos amd names yours 2000+ and then see what happens and in terms of clock to clock it will probably take amd 50 to 60 years to compare with the new stuff
 
 [ Edited by n00b On Date August 05, 2003 ]

NinjaTic · Post by **NinjaTic** » 05 Aug 2003, 17:01

Possibly, but I do know that the Intel CPU´s came in the Willemette chipset, and the newer Northwood chipset. Difference being the the Northwood had a smaller architecture, allowing it to run cooler, and thus being a good CPU for overclocking!

Post by **OnlyOneKenobi** » 05 Aug 2003, 17:04

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 they have that rating system and i can have you a bet for around R1000 that id be able to get an intel 2.4 to kill an amd 2400+ and even a 3200+ when overclocked to both chips maximums so its about time that amd apologists actually get a clue as to whats really going on with the company
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 You probably can get an Intel 2.4 to beat an AMD 2400+, that´s part of the reason why I don´t like AMD´s rating system - they claim to outperform Intels at much higher clock speeds and in my opinion it just really isn´t fair to compare a 2Ghz?? Machine to one that´s running at 400Mhz faster, plus then overclocking it as a final nail in the coffin as well. As for overclocking both PC´s, that´s not really fair either since AMD´s have always had their heat issues. Anyway, Noob I´m not saying either is better than the other. If some guy just won the lotto and money was no object and he wanted the best PC on the market today, I´d tell him to go get an Intel, because at the moment it is the fastest of the two. If he had a budget to stick to though, I´d probably advise him to get a high end AMD machine instead.

n00b · Post by **n00b** » 05 Aug 2003, 17:18

in terms of that have you seen the prices on amd highend recently.The 3000+ is the same price as the intel 3ghz while a 2.4c and great performing mobo would only be around R500 more than a 2400+ with a great performing amd mobo so in terms of price to me R500 is peanuts considering that the 2.4c would run rings around a 2400+ and tats in the midrange while for amd while it is intels entry level (granted intel doesnt have anything besides the celeron to compare to amds slowest chip in the market now which is a 2000+ but intels celeron at 2.2ghz will still kill that 2000+ at close to the same prices) so all the arguments about amd are outdated
 
 also maybe im biased since i am looking at dealer prices but retail pricing is normally a bit late in catching up to price drops and changes

Post by **OnlyOneKenobi** » 05 Aug 2003, 17:24

Well I just hope AMD sticks around a bit longer than Cyrix did... a few years back I got a Cyrix PC and it was the biggest piece of crap I´d ever bought... then the company went under and couldn´t support the frickin thing anymore... <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_frown.gif">

n00b · Post by **n00b** » 05 Aug 2003, 17:40

i dont think that amd will drop out altogether since there is still great demand for them in the midrange but fans are losing patience while waiting for the athlon64 so i dont think that theyll ever close down. Even if IBM does buy them out they will still remain as a processor division and still churn out outstanding products that will still sting intel to more action but im afraid that right now the past and the future belongs to intel
 
 ps just wondering why this is in software shouldnt it be under hardware <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_confused.gif"> [ Edited by n00b On Date August 05, 2003 ]

LordRage · Post by **LordRage** » 05 Aug 2003, 19:30

on the budget scale - AMD
 
 On the upper end -INTEL (For overclocking)
 
 If you dont believe me see Futuremark!!! and ask MR BEAN AND/OR NAUGHTY
 
 On futuremark everyone on the firstpage is INTEL!!!

n00b · Post by **n00b** » 07 Aug 2003, 02:05

okay after all of my gloom and doom predictions (lol they werent really) heres some good news for amd fans - the new athlon 64 will perform a bit better at launch than was expected and heres a link (babelfish translated very roughly from german). This news is not verified and should still be taken with a pinch of salt till some verifiable news can be found but since i did give amds bad news maybe i can also give some god news.Anyways heres the link <A HREF="http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfis ... _en&tt=url" TARGET="_blank">planet 3dnow</A>
 
 also here is a link to the thread at futuremark that may explain it all in better english for those that cannot make sense of babelfishs garbled version <A HREF="http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/sho ... =0&fpart=1" TARGET="_blank">futuremark thread</A>
 
 hope this can inform some amdroids out there about news on their favourite companies new products

NinjaTic · Post by **NinjaTic** » 07 Aug 2003, 07:35

On the topic of AMD "sticking" around, I think that everyone needs AMD directly or indirectly. Either to buy their product, or just to have the competition for Intel, in order to force Intel to keep their prices low. With no AMD to compete with Intel, there will be a Telkom situation!! <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_mad.gif">

ZenecadE · Post by **ZenecadE** » 12 Aug 2003, 22:27

If it´s high performance u want, get intel. If buying an AMD is gonna make u think u got good bang for buck, think again. I think that intel has even more potential there than AMD. Why do I say so? AMD fry and burn out and whatever whenever u overclock it. Intel machines will do so too but the fact of the matter is an intel processor can take MUCH more stress than an AMD. Overclocking an AMD using the best techniques known to man will still not give you much better results than what u started. Anyone ever wonder why AMD can´t make their processors reach 3GHz yet? They can´t with the current architecture. It´s impossible with current technology. They have to do a complete re-design to reach 3GHz. Why don´t they do it? Because they don´t have the technical know how. Look at the entire AMD range. All of their processors have intel design. Old sold intel design that is. AMD don´t know how to make the new stuff as good as intel so they buy. But anyway. The intel processor is bang for buck because it can be overclocked far beyond what any of you probably thought possible. It just depend´s on how you go about doing it. Anyways, here is a link u can check out. Tell me if u have ever hear of an AMD machine that has remotely come close to what ur about to see!
 
 <a href="http://www.vr-zone.com/guides/Intel/Northwood/" target="_blank">http://www.vr-zone.com/guides/Intel/Northwood/</a> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif">

Post by **Synkronos** » 13 Aug 2003, 10:21

Dude, what **** are you talking? AMD do not buy their designs from Intel! They have a completely different architecture. AMD for one have a far shorter pipeline than Intel. This is the reason Intel developed Hyperthreading - to partially nullify the penalty for incorrect path prediction, which is larger for a larger pipeline. AMD do not have Hyperthreading because they do not _need_ it - the penalties for incorrect path prediction are small.
 
 Go read some CPU architecture articles before you come spouting here.

GreyWolf · Post by **GreyWolf** » 20 Aug 2003, 10:15

ok wait a minute!
+2400 or +2000 does not mean it is better than a Intel 2400 or 2000, it means it is as good as, while running at a lower frequency.
Now, whoever says that a CELERON outperforms an XP is clearly out of touch with current reality. As far as I know the Celeron is THE worst chip on the market! Durons run rings around them!

What all you Intel lovers must also remember is that Intel is so good today ONLY because AMD came into the scene. Remember when the Thunderbirds came into play. They had the Intel P3 Chips running for the hills!
Intel saw this and then had to bring out their P4, and even then it took them a while to catch up!

I admit that Intel has since then come a long way, and AMD seem to be laging behind a bit, but I still have faith in them, because they are the inovators, while Intel would love to just sit back and sell us second rate crap untill someone shows up and forces them to give us real performance.

Besides, AMD has a much cooler logo...

skunkymunky · Post by **skunkymunky** » 20 Aug 2003, 10:48

like i said it before just another reason to make the big switch.
tell them brotha

Post by **Scarlet_Spider** » 20 Aug 2003, 13:26

I was waiting for someone to bring up the whole pipeline schpeel. Well done Synkronos - this is a brilliant point - and is the reason why the thunderbirds killed the P3's when they came out.

looks like I should leave the world of PC's an AMD vs Intel - and just get a Mac ?!? mmmm RISC based or maybe i should get a Cray processor - that is the future !!!!!!!

40 HERE I COME

Post by **Synkronos** » 20 Aug 2003, 13:29

Heh

If only AMD and Intel would implement RISC. Why did they choose CISC?

skunkymunky · Post by **skunkymunky** » 20 Aug 2003, 13:33

Scarlet_Spider wrote:
looks like I should leave the world of PC's an AMD vs Intel - and just get a Mac ?!?

40 HERE I COME

i hope you u were under the influence of a drug i'd like to BONDI-caine

when you said tht

Post by **Scarlet_Spider** » 20 Aug 2003, 14:52

'twas a joke, yes

madouc · Post by **madouc** » 20 Aug 2003, 16:11

Being in the computer hardware industry I must admit that I far prefer working with intel!

Intel boards seem to be far more stable, even in the past as Amd boards Via chipsets were generally problematic and even the early KT400 chipsets! Even now a good year down the road and you still need to in most cases with AMD manually adjust clock settings or use dip switches or shorts for the system to read the chip correctly! They also run damn hot! If you are not into cooling you generally get a rubbish fan with the AMD which sounds like a helicopter, Although AMD is now supplying boxed product with semi decent fans. Intel are far cooler, and quieter and if i can say without getting shot down have far more support and stable chipsets accompying the motherboard ranges.

However, healthy competition is healthy competition and AMD does have some great performers for decent pricing as well as some nice motherboard options like the nForceII chipsets with decent onboard sound ie) Kenai32. They are definately the reason why Intel have progessed so far and they will still be supported by the average enthusiast on a budget, lets not forget their involvement in the death of Rambus and life of DDR!!!!

GreyWolf · Post by **GreyWolf** » 25 Aug 2003, 11:34

madouc,
dude, every Intel machine I have seen has this MASSIVE fan on the chip.
No wonder they have no heat problems. I don't get it really, maybe you can explain it to me. I mean when you buy and Intel mobo, there is that huge bracket thingy around the chip socket, which tells me intel chips need those massive fans. Where as an AMD mobo got nothing like that. I recently baught a Gigabyte mobo and an Athlon xp +2000 and an AMD approved fan and heatsink whose surface area was tha same as the chip. So am I missing something here?
oh and my fan is nice and quiet too...

Post by **OnlyOneKenobi** » 25 Aug 2003, 11:57

My 2000+ also doesn't have any heat or noise problems.

PCFormat Forum Archive

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel or AMD

Intel vs Amd