Discussion in 'Hardware' started by DRR104, 29 Apr 2002.
Who do u prefer, AMD or Intel?
I've always preferred AMD, but after reading the new P4 review....
p4s are crap amds rule. Simple.
depends on what its for... AMD for multi-proc systems just aren't good (lack of compatability for more than dual), Intel owns for the end user market there, AMD owns on the desktop scene, but as far as intellignece in design, i'll have to give that one to intel because its a hell of a lot hard to crush the core of an intel processor (any of them) than everything AMD makes
I prefer AMD. I'm not convinced Intel is any better at what they both produce. Unfortunately, I'm not in the market
for a 4+ pocessor system (yet). AMD will be producing 4+ systems soon anyway. For comparable products, I think
Intel is a bit pricey.
Additionally, I despise the Intel Marketing Machine. If they'd jump off the MHz bandwagon, I might consider buying
their product again. Therein is the reason I will likely never again buy their products. They are not "better", they are
Intel had the lead in the market for some considerable time. Then AMD held it (the first time that the x86 market has ever been won by anyone other than intel). Now, we may see intel recover some ground.
At the moment, it is getting ever harder to choose between the two. P4 may be starting to pull a little ground out over the Athlon (finally), but the Athlon is a somewhat older design. What will be much more interesting will be to see how the new Athlon (formerly Clawhammer) and Opteron (formerly Sledgehammer) tackle the P4. If Athlon can provide greater 32-bit performance than P4, with the 64bit capability on hand also, intel might be in some serious trouble.
Wait and see time.
always cheaper, most of the time better performance.
It's not really a case of "prefer", AMD are far better value for money, but Intel run cooler and so can be made to run quieter more easily.
If I won the lottery I'd have a P4, as it is Duron roolz...
Right now I must say that I do like the new P4 Northwood processors since they run so cool and are so overclockable. The 1.8A isn't too bad a value because of that. However, that may very well change with the coming of the new thoroughbred processors from AMD which will also be built on the .13 micron process. Hopefully those will provide the same amount of overclockability as the Northwood P4's. However, where I think AMD is going to really pull away from Intel on all fronts is with the introduction of their new Clawhammer processor which will be a dual 32/64 bit processor with an integrated Northbridge, a heatspreader (like the P4), and will be built on the .13 micron process. Those are the processors that I'm waiting for.
I still haven't seen much on this topic. Last I read of Intel's FUD, Intel compared completely different statistics.
Intel's operating temp, vs. AMD's MAX temp. I suspect the difference is not as great as is claimed.
Intel do NOT run cooler.
Can we please kill this myth?!!
Stock speed maximum heat dissipations, the highest ever released in a desktop chip was the INTEL P4 Willamette 2.0GHz, at a staggering 100W. The highest AMD have released is the Tbird 1400 or XP2100+, both of which come in at 72W. The 2.4GHz Northwood can put out about 75W at full load.
Cooler? I don't think so.
The difference comes in from a design feature of the P4. When it starts to dissipate a lot of power, it is automatically throttled, so that it runs slower, and produces less heat.
This means that you have 2.4GHz to check your email, but when you really NEED 2.4GHz (for quake, or whatever), and the cpu starts to get a little warm, DOWN goes the cpu speed.
The other side is that with the heatspreader, and a well-defined mounting system, P4 coolers are working more efficiently than AMD ones, because the area of contact on the CPU is much greater, and the heatspreader allows plenty of pressure to be used.
AMD are far more fun methinks....much nicer to overclock and much nicer to benchmark...when ur athlonx Xp1800+ at 1535mhz kicks a p4 1800mhz lame a$$.....:dude:
OK, I've checked and you're right. But I'll point out that
(a) my Duron 850 is 37.5W,
(b) the fastest P3 (s-1.4) is cooler at 31.2W,
(c) the slowest P4 (1.3) is a staggering quantum leap to 65W.
So I'll spend my winnings on a Palamino or two :dude:
Can I point out...
Your Duron is a 0.18micron CPU with a non-pure silicon substrate. The P3S is a 0.13 micron CPU with a pure silicon substrate. For an illustration of the difference pure silicon makes as compared to non-pure, that accounts for the entire difference in heat dissipation between AMD's Thunderbird and Palomino cores, since both are 0.18micron.
Add to that the shorter pipeline and consequently less complex controller paths in the P3S, and it's not that surprising really.
I am in fact looking at buying a P3 Tualatin for its low heat dissipation at reasonable speed....watch this space (or www.blagged-hardware.net which is where the write-up will be).
bleh, I used to run a p3 700 @ 933mhz, loved the thing on my CUSL2...best PC i ever had. The one I have now is nice, Athlon XP is good, but just doesnt have the Intel feel to it
lost in wattages and power and temps and whatever.....
AMD all the way... nothin better than the 1800+
the xp 2100+...if u can afford it...wish i could
Definitely AMD all the way. Whilst I see the merits of the P4, IMO AMDs are still cheaper, faster and overclock better!
I don't know. I have AMD's & Intel rigg's, as most people say they both have thier pro's and con's. So thats life.
Too true, it really is down to personal preference and exactly what you want to use the machine for!
Both high end xps or p4 seem bout the same.
Lower end amd tends to have the edge and speed.
Separate names with a comma.