AMD or Intel

depends what you want it to do:

just to give you another opinion or 2c's as they say in the states, as you can see from my sig, i have both.

amd is my main machine admitatly, even though sometimes not the faster. but then what is fast. i bet any money that 50% of the people out there dont actually use the full cpu capabilities of their cpu, me being one of them at times.

hence it really depends what you want it for. my intel machine is very responsive and quick hdd acess, even though its running the "slower" hdds out of my collection.

the amd machine i use for games.

both give me fairly nice temps, even though my intel chip does not have as much heat output.

both have given me trouble, but i worry less about the intel cpu, mainly cause its a type s p3 which are one of the best built chips i found....

anyway, this might seem really useless, but just rember it depends on what he/she/it wants to do with it...pretty silly poll though, as i cant vote for both!!

 

Good point, it would be foolish to waste time and employees trying to beat nForce 2.

VIA does make P4 chipsets, as does SiS. But the Intel chipsets are better than these.

Intel motherboards are more expensive (not just the brand intel, but their chipsets) if you look at a nice Springdale board (Abit IS7 for example) costs more than a nice nForce 2 board (Asus A7N8X for example)

 

everything amd pre-socket A was crappy and unrealiable. Now though, if u r on a tight budget go for amd, if you have a mid-high budet u get a much better machine with intel.

 

AMD = as fast as all but the top few Intel processors and heaps better value for money

INTEL = they do make faster processors, however anything lower than 2.4-2.8 can get itself equalled by an AMD system which would most likely be cheaper.

so if you want the best bang for your buck get AMD

if you are made of money and just want THE fastest PC around then get intel 3ghz

so i'd go for AMD

 

Ok, I think this comparison will just about sum it up.

Top end.

I think it's fair to say that the Barton 400MHz FSB 3200+ is probably a good match for the intel 3.0GHz 800MHz FSB, maybe ever so slightly faster in some applications, but then it doesn't overclock as well as the intel.

3200+ £369
3.0c £340,

and this diffeence in price goes a long way to making up the difference between the price in motherboards.

As you can see, Intel probably just wins out here, since the overclockability and performance of the latest 800MHz FSB chips is quite remarkable.

Mid range

I think a good comparison here would be the 2500+ Barton with the 2.4C P4.

2500+ £71.48
2.4C £149.23

I think these systems would probably offer similar performance, and as you can see, the intel is significantly more expensive. But then you also need to remember that most of these chips are ocing to over 3GHz, and I don't know if the amd would be able to match this.

But for a stock system at the mid range, the amd is probably the better bet.

Budget end.

What can I say, the 1700+ thoroughbred B. We've all heard how well these overclock. And you can get one for around £35-40.

Would do intel have to offer in comparison. Well, you'd be looking at a 1.8 with the 400MHz FSB, and that won't even work on the new springdale/canterwood boards. And even then, it's £107!!!!!

Without a doubt, AMD has this lower end, as well as the midrange, and this can't be bad for business, since there are still a huge number of pcs built from this range.

8-ball

 

well, thanks for all your opinions

I now have a good idea of what the major difference of AMD and intel chips, the price range of both, and what to tell my friends

 

Im must say that I am impressed in this thread that we are all very civil. This is a first for me because It seems that when I had this conversation at school everyone is always at each others neck. anyways. I agree Intel is a larger company and has more resources than AMD. But i think AMD are damn good. I mean like I said earlier My 2400 makes a bad ass server and it seems that It can still tear up any games that I throw at it. My Intel has actually had more problems but that all solved now, And it is currently a mad power house that why it won't get the highest on benchmarks its nothing to sneeze over. I Just hope that both companies last. So they can keep competing and keep giving use awesome stuff.


P.S. Where is MY InteMD !!!!!!!!!!!!! with my ATvidia lol..

 

Intel baby!

 

i have had mostly intel systems from the beginning of time
80286 8mhz
80486 25mhz
80486DX 33mhz
pentium 75 (still have lol)
pentium2 300
p3 600
p3 1000
laptop p3 600
athlon 1200 (didnt fancy it, ran excessively hot)
p4 wiliamette 1.4

then i got an xp2200, and i didnt like it much, it ran hot, it wasnt as stable as intels i have had, and it didnt feel much faster than my previous 1.4 p4 (it did bench faster but not much) although i put that down to the lack of RDram for bandwidth

now i have a P4 2.4C and a P-M 1.4 Laptop

maybe the only 2 AMDs i have ever had have been dodgy ones, but they were enough to put me off
and i shall buy intel forever more



but for building on a budget i suppose i have to agree with the fact that AMD has more appeal, as a 2500+ is soooooooooo much cheaper than an intel chip with comparable performance

but i think AMDs ratings a a little more than optimistic, i have yet to see a 3200+ perform on par with a 3.2C

for uber-performance i say intel every time

 

did i miss something?

edit: nope, just a figment of your imagination, now you see it now you don't...
/bigZ

edit: maybe i need to lay off the vicodin

 

AMD's run hot if you don't cool them, also the AMD's you had by the looks of things were a top end Tbird (ran very very hot) and also a top end Palomino (not quite as hot as a Tbird, but effin hot), as the 2200+ Tbreds run at fairly good temperatures.

I've got a quiet, but very effective cooling setup, I do like intel processors, but they're out of my price bracket, I can't afford whatever it costs to buy a P4 2.4C, when, for 70 notes, I've got a damn good overclock out of a 2500+

I'm happy with my p3 733 laptop, and was happy with my p3 600, if I was going to go for an SMP system, I'd look no further than the p3 tuatalins (sp?)... damn good performance per mhz, comparable with the Pentium-M (aka banias)

 

i went for the 2200+ as it was a tbred, and i thought it would be pretty cool because of the die shrink. but it still ran a little hot, like mid 50s (not nearly as hot as that damn tbird though) whereas my current rig runs mid 40s in its heavily overclocked state, on nice quiet air (mcx462 and a 19db papst)

next upgrade will be a BGA socket prescott unless amd gets it 100% spot on with the Athlon64, i hope they are a little more realistic with their performance ratings this time round

 

INTELLLLLLLLLLLLLL

 

Has to be Intel for Performace

AMD - Value for Money

One good thing about all this competition between the big 2 is that we all benefit!

 

shame, however, you do get the odd hot one now and again, my Tbird 1.4 was a hot un, whereas when I swopped it for a Tbird 1333, I could overclock it more and it'd still sit at a lower temperature

 

The other thing you have to remember is the overclockability of the two brands. I have no doubt that if Intel multiplier-unlocked their chips, they would be the undisputed daddies. The problem with buying Intel for the hardcore overclocker is that along with the price of the chip and motherboard, you have to take into consideration the price of the top-range RAM that you need to make the most of your chip. Look at mister_tad, sure he has a great overclock on his 2.4 but there's probably even more MHz in that processor of his, and he had to buy PC4000 RAM at an undoubtedly enormous cost to get even where he is (sorry to single you out mate ) What do you need to OC an Athlon? PC3200, 3500 at the absolute best. You're talking about somewhere near half the price for memory, and at the most hardest of core (oo-er ) the difference between overclocks is minimal (an XP1700+ to 3GHZ - 1.5GHz OC. a P4 3.0C to 4.4GHz - 1.4GHz OC) The raw speed is definitely in Intel's favour, but the sheer amount of money needed to tap into it definitely isn't.

 

have to agree with this totally, if I had the money, I'd buy an intel system, but I don't so I have to make do with AMD, and get some, well, pretty good results from overclocking, considering my RAM isn't liking low timings at 192+fsb

however this lasts not long, I ordered some a 512mb Dual channel kit of mushkin PC3500 level2

 

But even though P4s may need very fast RAM for high overclocks, it has a STOCK 200MHz FSB so you don't need to overclock it tog et there like you need to do with the 166MHz FSB bartons. But RAM prices are dropping as speeds increase, I remember about a year ago PC2100 was standard, most modders/overclockers had PC2700 or 2400, and PC3200 was only for people with way too much money. By now PC2700 is standard, most overclockers/modders have PC3200 and some of the new RAM is PC4200. RAM speed is advancing highly and with a P4 C you could probably get close to a 300MHz FSB (albeit with a lot of fancy cooling) using PC4800 which should show up by christmas. Buy a P4 C now, then ask Santa for a Vapochill and PC4800.

 

AMD.

IMHO