daffydk Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I give AMD the credit for making a wonderful product, however that doesnt mean AMD has the best Processors. It is all relative as to what you do. I love AMD for making good CPUs but I do alot of video encoding and AMD at 2.2Ghz just doesnt come close to a 3.2Ghz. For the Gamers, AMD is the machine becuase it outperforms Intel due to the integrated cache design. But whenever I can, I stil support AMD because if it was not for AMD we would stil be paying $1000 for a mediocr PC that would be running at 1.5Ghz. Intel would just increase the speed by 33mhz like they used to every 6 months. I remember the early and mid 90s when a decent computer cost 2500-3000 dollars and most of that was becuase Intel charged $1000 for a the CPU (eg 200mhz intel PII). AMD came along and started making higher and faster and cheaper CPU's. Intel was forced to make theirs cheaper and boast clock rate. So give AMD some credit and lets hope the competition continues through AMD continously putting the flame under Intel's buttt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engineer101 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 how about the Intel P4 Extreme Edition for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 From what I read, the AMD Fx-55 beats the P4EE. Also with those benchmarks, Intel might beat AMD for encoding, but just being 1 minute faster doesn't make you much of a winner. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1700352,00.asp http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1726110,00.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kettch Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I have a PIII with 1GHZ and for compiling programs its the best choice. I also have a Amd 2.2 GHZ AMD64 3200. They are both good machines. If I compare those two machines I prefer the PIII it always runs smoth and never disapoint me. I cannot say that the AMD disapoint me but I like the PIII more. I cannot help it. Eventhough it is not important what CPU as long as it works in the best way for its User. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 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. I have a Hp Laptop a ZD7000, which is a P4 3 mhz with a 17" screen which works pretty well. Worth looking into if you want a 17" wide screened laptop. Just be warned about the low battery life and the weight as its a bit of a beast for a laptop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Some people tend to forget about the motherboard which is just as important as the speed of the processor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thanatos355 Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Just one quirk I didn't like is that unless you set the power scheme to always on' date=' it cuts in half the CPU speed for the laptops unless it is running a demanding app, then it adjusts to full power.[/quote'] it's called 'cool and quiet' technology and all a64 procs have it. you can diable it in the sys bios, but that's it. it throttles down the clock speed of the proc to save power and keep the temps down. noone has been able to catch any lag in the throttle up and down process. it's very smooth and stable. Yea AMD 64 is the way to go.. Intel is working on a duel chip design but I think AMD will keep their lead! actually, both amd and intel are working on dual cores on a single chip designs. both are going to be released later in the year. I give AMD the credit for making a wonderful product, however that doesnt mean AMD has the best Processors. It is all relative as to what you do. I love AMD for making good CPUs but I do alot of video encoding and AMD at 2.2Ghz just doesnt come close to a 3.2Ghz. For the Gamers, AMD is the machine becuase it outperforms Intel due to the integrated cache design. But whenever I can, I stil support AMD because if it was not for AMD we would stil be paying $1000 for a mediocr PC that would be running at 1.5Ghz. Intel would just increase the speed by 33mhz like they used to every 6 months. I remember the early and mid 90s when a decent computer cost 2500-3000 dollars and most of that was becuase Intel charged $1000 for a the CPU (eg 200mhz intel PII). AMD came along and started making higher and faster and cheaper CPU's. Intel was forced to make theirs cheaper and boast clock rate. So give AMD some credit and lets hope the competition continues through AMD continously putting the flame under Intel's buttt. the a/v encoding completely depends on the program used. some programs favor the raw clock speed and hyperthreading that intel has, while other programs prefer the more efficient architecture and the on die memory controller that allows MUCH higher thouroput that the a64s offer. there is NO comparison between the two for gamers. the low end amd chips beat the high end intel chips and the high end amd chips beat the low end amd chips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 AMD is the better of the two. I have an FX-55 overclocked to 3.0ghz using water and its blazing fast. Intel couldnt touch the speed of this. Plus AMD is already planning the release of its dual-core processor running at 4.40ghz later this year. I personally have never had a stability issue with any of the recent AMD chips although the AMD K6-2 500mhz didnt perform as well as the P2-233mhz. a/v encoding completely depends on the program used. some programs favor the raw clock speed and hyperthreading that intel has, while other programs prefer the more efficient architecture and the on die memory controller that allows MUCH higher thouroput that the a64s offer. there is NO comparison between the two for gamers. the low end amd chips beat the high end intel chips and the high end amd chips beat the low end amd chips. This is very true as i ran Virtualdub using my brothers computer an AMD64 3000+ against my friends P4 3.0ghz using the same settings on both and the same video clip, my brothers computer still outperformed my friends computer by a rather large margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elladan Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Mine is an Intel® (Dingdongdingding) Pentium® 4 Processor 550 with HT technology (3.4GHz, 800MHz fsb, 1MB cache) Works nicely. With the greatest respect, Elladan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted January 20, 2005 Author Share Posted January 20, 2005 it's called 'cool and quiet' technology and all a64 procs have it. you can diable it in the sys bios' date=' but that's it.[/quote'] No, it's called PowerNow! http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/SellAMDProducts/0,,30_177_3472_1353%5E3841%5E9079%5E964,00.html and there is nothing in the BIOS which can disable it. It's damn annoying. I want full speed all the time. I don't want the proc deciding when it should run at full or half speed. As for this AMD notebook, it has 1MB cache as well, and 1066Mhz frontside bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thanatos355 Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 powernow is just another name for cool and quiet. look in your bios to see if there is a cool and quiet enable/disable option. your might not have it if it came from an oem source. almost all the desktop mobos have the option in the bios to disable cool and quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I agree completely that an Intel chip is the way to go. We have a Pentium II and it still runs great. It's reliable despite being antiquated compared with today's CPU speed standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 It should also be noted that when it comes to buying a computer you get what you pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moomin Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 AMD 64 a processor with more capabilities It's faster then intel, but it also has massive memory capabilities, handy for things like 3D design. The anti viral feature can stop worms. The cool&quiet can make the computer run longer, and doesn't make that much noise. so: It's just a faster processor with more.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vRees Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Intel is focussing on raw Ghz, something that AMD can't, they can't make a processor running on the speeds of Intel, but AMD's processors work more efficient and more effective per clock cycle, so the outcome is somewhat thesame, now if someone could combine the two, we'd have a definate winner... But for now, I'm voting Intel, I worked in a computershop two years ago, in the AMD XP time. AMD's temperatures were always up in the 40's (Celcius) while Intel ran at 28-30 degrees Celcius... And, I never had a single Intel chip returned, but I had a complete collection of DOA and OC victims, all AMD's, even after their improved core, temperatures and stability were not up to intels standards. For the record, I have two machines at home, my regular PC with an Intel 2.8 HT (running SETI@home) and one with an AMD Sempron 2500, I love the AMD machine for gaming, but all other things I do on the Intel... For now at least... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vRees Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 AMD 64 a processor with more capabilities It's faster then intel, but it also has massive memory capabilities, handy for things like 3D design. The anti viral feature can stop worms. The cool&quiet can make the computer run longer, and doesn't make that much noise. so: It's just a faster processor with more.... You can't compare AMD 64 processors with Intel P4, Intel is 32 bit and AMD 64 bit, that's like comparing apples and pears... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeraByte Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 AMD with an nForce3 chipset. Excellent combination, best bang for your buck. I gave Intel a chance, but they just plain suck. They overheat terribly without giving back enough capability to justify risking the meltdown of your motherboard, making them generally not worth it in the end. AMD makes really reliable processors, and it's been proven time and time again. For example, I used to visit a LAN gaming center whenever I was bored, and they used all AMD computers. I can't ever recall any of them ever failing at any time; they were definitely the most rugged, reliable machines I had ever worked with. Same thing applied in reverse for LAN gaming places which used Intel: constant machine failures, repair and replacement costs going through-the-roof, etc etc. Not an appealing image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloany Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I think they both have their strong points. I use amd for all my machines because it is gaming that they are used for but now I am starting to get into video editing so not sure what to build next do I use a intel processor or wait till nearer the end of the year and use a dual core amd processor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekfreak04 Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I had to go with AMD because of the reliability I've been seeing with my Opteron based server. The Athlon 64 also has a good track record. When you're buliding your own system, you can't beat the price of these jewels... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zgamesforu Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 But dual core cpus will be out in a few. Those ought to be good. And once again AMD is ahead of intel on this path also. Inel is just finishing up it's designs for its 64-bit processor!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now