Best CPU

[wahaha]

I just got a HP pavilion zv5410us notebook, with AMD 64 3000+ 15.4" WXGA. I ran a few benchmarks and this thing is close in performance with an Intel 3.0Ghz. That's pretty impressive when the AMD has only 1.8Ghz.

 

I had trouble deciding between a P4-2.8 notebook with a 17" WXGA and Nvidia 5700 64MB and this one. But I think the benefit of a 64 bit CPU for use in the future outweighed the bigger screen and faster GPU on the other HP. Not to mention the system bus is faster on the AMD and more cache.

[waelabdo]

AMD

[tomkat2004]

It depends what you want to do. If you want RAW CPU cycles then an Intel is better. This is for things like video encoding and large amounts of number crunching (SETI@Home is a good example).

 

If you want to play games and not too bothered about mathematical functions go with AMD. They are better for games as they have more built in functions for them.

 

Hope it helps.

[Engineer101]

Intel :P

[TheRenegade]

I have an Intel p4 3.06 ghz, and it depends on what I do. Games it rocks, seomtimes opening up 2 proggies at once it sucks.

 

Stupid computers, but I am going to go eat now.

[zgamesforu]

AMD has much better structure and much more sophisticated than Intel. Intel only has high end 64-bit processors while AMD has got cheap reliable stuff. Yea and a good encoding machine for video and numbers use clock cycles as a guage. Also if you invest in dual processors 2-way, 4-way or 8-way they can greatly improve you multi-tasking ability as the computer just designates one processor for the number crunching program and the other for the OS.

[xtremeskiing]

my theory is, lets pretend you get a 2.0GHZ cpu

 

Intel- you are garanteed the functionality they advertise, mayby a little more, but mostly you get what you pay for

 

AMD- potential to get a lot more then what you paid for, but the same potential to get a peice of garbage.

 

Im an intel fan, i like their stability and ability to number crunch. also, back when AMD was first new, they had many incompatibilities and flaws....I little prejudice has carried over from those days.

[lorddark]

I allways go whit a AMD... the price is low and preformanse is really good for the money.. and I am a gamer/downloader/Uploader

[Zerotop]

havent had the latest amd but i still feel intel is more stable in the long run

 

though it have never been really amd fault but the chipset like via:(

 

via just plain sux

[fds71]

I vote for AMD, but for what I'm doing with it makes not much difference...

[LoveTrek001]

AMD!! Intel used to be the best but AMD is the king of procs! Why you say? Because AMDs are so much more powerfull than the poor intel... And intels have such heat problems... Sad I used to swear by Intel...

[thanatos355]

amd owns intel, and everyone who knows anythng about modern cpus knows it. their procs run 1gig less then the intel chips but STILL outperform them by a LARGE margin. its rediculess to even compare the two anymore. the best bet is to get a bottom of the line 3000+ and oc it to 4000+ levels. have some ram that can run at the faster fsb and you see amazing results across the board.

 

[xtremeskiing]

that was my point, when i worked repair, do you know how many AMD's we replaced because someone overclocked it to make it match intel

 

 

however we missed one really good point. IBM wipes the floor with AMD and Intel, lets also not forget the Apple processors that IBM and Motorola make, G5 says good night PC's.

[thanatos355]

if someone was stupid enough to try oc'ing an amd to an intel clock rating, then they have NO business even owning a computer.

 

if you have the right mobo, the intel chips oc very nicely too.

 

you can oc a 2.8ghz 775 to over 3.7ghz, with the right mobo. and to over 3.5 with just about any mobo. it still doesnt match the amd's effieciency though.

 

 

 

and no, i cant spell worth a crap. :rolleyes:

[Zerotop]

i think you can compare a amd and a intel but they work diffrently imo..

 

now if xp 64bit comes out soon then im gonna think about amd if intel hasnt spitted out a 64bit model at that time..

 

 

the speed vs speed comparising between amd and intel has been dead for a long time amd is better there. overall.

 

And i also believe for some weird reason amd and intel works diffrently for diffrent people.

 

for me intel has always been best in stability not speed.

 

i mean i even have friends that swears by that winme is good hehe

 

for me winme is like pr for microsoft windows bluescreen.

 

but for others it works like a charm.

 

so saying amd or intel is best for everyone is a bit of lie if you go behind the paper of the brands

 

but for me im going amd when winxp 64 is going retail if intel hasnt as i said spitted out a working model at that time..

 

 

[zgamesforu]

The thing is that intel chips are excessivly fast. Tey don't need a high clock speed, they need more cache. As anyone tried Centrino laptops with Pentium M. Those are amazing and they're so low on the clock speed but have massive L2 cache. They can even out preform amd when the chip clock speeds are the same. The closest desktop equivalent is a P4EE with is way to expensive. They should have taken the low end p4s and upgraded their L2 and L3 caches to like 2MB and 4MB respectively. They would have trounced amd in the processors. but if anyone has noticed, the FX-55 line is way faster than intel's high end ones, which are P4EE. It's comes down to 64 bit addresses, twice the info in clock cycle.

[thanatos355]

not quite. the donothan is a damn fast proc. it is EXTREMELY efficient. it's also based on the p3, and not the p4 architecture. see, i like both, intel and amd, i can see the possitives in both, i have owned both. BUT the rig i am building next month, for our main comp, will be an amd 64. i may build a p4 for the mrs to go with it. maybe an early anniversary gift.

 

 

but back to the subject.

 

the thing that makes amd really outshine the p4 is the onboard memory controller. amd just needs to add a little more cache to their lower end procs and i'll be as happy as a kitten in the cream.

 

;)

[Guest Guest]

Z80

[wahaha]

I had been cautious with AMD since their beginning was a little buggy, but they've had time to get it right since then. Just one quirk I didn't like is that unless you set the power scheme to always on, it cuts in half the CPU speed for the laptops unless it is running a demanding app, then it adjusts to full power.

 

I got the 64 mainly because I knew any p4 will be outdated soon with the release of a 64 bit OS. And this CPU will still have enough power in the next 2-3 yrs to run it.

[LoveTrek001]

Yea AMD 64 is the way to go.. Intel is working on a duel chip design but I think AMD will keep their lead!