AMD or INTEL?

[Jammin]

AMD chips are made in sweatshops by child labourers in places like North Korea. Buy AMD and you are buying COMMUNISM.

Ah well, never mind.

 

[My Higher Self]

AMD chips are made in sweatshops by child labourers in places like North Korea. Buy AMD and you are buying COMMUNISM.

Actually we'd be buying capatilism wouldn't we? I mean, offering a comparable product at a lower price...that fits the whole ideal right?

Supply and demand, and all that good stuff.

 

[SirKenin]

lol. I've seen these discussions on other boards deteriorate much quicker than this one has even hinted at. Good deal.

 

[Stryper]

if the cpu lasts 3-5 years i am happy cause it is way way way outdated by then. so i of course would go with amd if i had a choice but laptops dont give u much when u buy them in stores.

 

[Apologist]

I prefer AMD as they give more bang for the buck.
I just built a new system in July and I am using the AMD Athlon 2500+ Barton processor. It costs about half of an equivelent Intel processor.

 

[Apologist]

HEAT: You are ignorant. Get up to date with the current facts.

XP+: People who base everything off clock speed are totally clueless and deserve to get ripped off by Intel. Enjoy parting with your money.

Oh, as for stability. Hey, when was the last time you heard of a major intel bug? Remember when AMD had one? Wait. what? You don't? Hmm...

I like this guy. LOL

Actually Intel uses misleading numbers also. Their 800 MHz FSB is NOT 800 MHz.

 

[SirKenin]

I like this guy. LOL

Actually Intel uses misleading numbers also. Their 800 MHz FSB is NOT 800 MHz.

And AMD's 200MHz, 266MHz, 333 and 400 MHz aren't their respective speeds, either.

 

[Apologist]

And AMD's 200MHz, 266MHz, 333 and 400 MHz aren't their respective speeds, either.

This is true.

 

[YaeSu]

AMD just released the first 64bit chip. Athlon 64.

 

[SirKenin]

AMD just released the first 64bit chip. Athlon 64.

Itanium is the first 64 bit chip. It's been out for a year at least. The Apple G5 is also out. It's 64 bit as well.

Athlon 64 isn't a true 64bit anyways. It's a 32 bit processor with 64 bit instructions.

 

[[UCLA]lee0539]

Athlon 64 CPUs are expensive.. starting around 400-800 dollars US

i would say that as of this moment: intel is the best bang for the bang if you know how to overclock... my main computer is an intel 2.4c running at 3.36ghz and the FSB is around 1100mhz since i have increased the memory bandwidth.

At these new high speed cpus... bandwidth makes way more difference then a few mhz of cpu speed... i would say that 2.6ghz 400mhz is slower then a 2.4ghz 800mhz... the fact that intel has dual channel rams... the FSB is running even double what is rated... you will see by testing with sandra that memory bandwidth is way higher on intel compared to amd.. usually double the amount. The Cpu speeds can oc very well... a 2.4 hitting 3.36 means its almost 1ghz more (and this is with stock voltage and stock HSF)... i understand that AMD bartons can do almost hte same.. but usually require very good cooling and also very good ram... even with taht.. the bandwidth is still lower then the intel... therefore if you are getting a computer that is above intel 2.4c ghz computer then go with intel... the bandwidth will make the big difference... dual channel ram is a big plus and hyperthreading greatly improves multi-tasking...

i would only recommend AMD if you are short on cash and need one of those under 500 dollar computers...

 

[doofus125]

I have seen so many computers come in here because they burned out from being over clocked, I don't recommend anyone trying to overclock a system even for a few mhz.......

 

[Apologist]

i would only recommend AMD if you are short on cash and need one of those under 500 dollar computers...

So you are saying that Intel systems are overpriced aren't you?

I strongly disagree with your comments on AMD processors and know many others who will as well.

 

[gusto5]

as i have BOTH a p4 2.6GHZ and an AMD Athlon XP 2.6 GHZ my AMD runs much better. P4 tends to lag up once in a while
IF you want to go for professionality, Intel All the way
BTW the new centrino is impressing me.

 

[Apologist]

I say just buy what you like and be happy with it.

These newer processors are so fast that without benchmark programs to compare them you really won't see much difference in real world applications.

I had a Celeron before and the one I just built in July is my first AMD system and I love it.

My new system I just built is this:

MSI K7N2 Delta-ILSR
AMD Athlon 2500+ Barton
Mushkin 512MB (2x256)PC2700 222 BLACK LEVEL II
MSI Ti4200-VTD8X 128MB DDR
WD 80GB 7200 rpm Special Edition Ultra ATA 100 8MB cache
TDK VeloCD 40x12x48 CDRW
LiteOn XJ-HD166S 16X DVD ROM / 48X CD-ROM
ChiefTec aluminum workstation tower
450W Foxconn (Austin) PS
ViewSonic PF790 19" monitor
Logitec Cordless MX Duo keyboard and mouse
Windows XP SP1 Home Edition

 

[[UCLA]lee0539]

So you are saying that Intel systems are overpriced aren't you?

I strongly disagree with your comments on AMD processors and know many others who will as well.

no.. i said intel is overpriced in the low end of the market.. in high end systems they end up being equal... but intel still has a benefit with hyperthreading and dual channel ram... they support much faster FSB

i didnt say anythign bad about AMD processors, im just making the point that they arent faster (they used to be during the 1ghz-1.4ghz competition).. in fact my previous system was an AMD processor... so dont say im promoting intel simply because i have an intel system at the moment... (im curious if you have even tried an intel p4 canterwood system) i am fan of both cpus.. but by simply understanding benchmarks with sandra, 3dmark03, and many others.. the end results show that intel is faster in the higher end of the market for a very similar price...

i dont know what ur talking about when u say disagree with my comment on AMD cpus... cuz i didnt say anythign about them except that they have lower bandwidth... and if ur gonna argue that they have same or higher bandwidth then intel... you need to show me some links or information as to how AMD is better, if your gonna make comments like that.. cuz from what i know there is no way AMD can beat intel's higher FSB and dual channel ram in the bandwidth arena.... i also said tehy run hotter... and that is also true because they dont have a large surface area like intel so HSF contact is lower... therefore more heat...

even with such things... another big benefit is hyperthreading.. which allows you to multitask and increase performance on programs that are multithreaded... this is something i found myself loving cuz of the huge difference i see when opening multiple programs all at once...

 

[Apologist]

another big benefit is hyperthreading.. which allows you to multitask and increase performance on programs that are multithreaded... this is something i found myself loving cuz of the huge difference i see when opening multiple programs all at once...

According to tests done by AMD the Intel processors ran faster with hyperthreading off!

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9475

I find that rather strange unless hyperthreading is just a sales pitch at the moment. By the way, hyperthreading is more geared for games than general applications.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20021228/

 

[[UCLA]lee0539]

well when i run my tv tuner usually it uses all 100% but when i look it takes up only 50% by splitting the application.. then i'm allowed to use the other half for something else... similar to having a dual system...

i also wouldn't use the inquirer to make any statement.. especially something done by AMD (which will be even more biased)...

here is one from tomshardware.com (can't post link: howto/20030527/ip4_adapter-14.html is the extension)


"With regard to performance, only Hyper-Threading can be recommended; the benchmarks are proof positive of the obvious advantages of this technology. It is not by accident that Intel will soon introduce other Pentium 4 CPUs, which offer HT at even lower clock rates.

Arguments in favor of the PowerLeap adapter solution are the simple installation and the presumably low price: if you take into account the cost for a Pentium 4 with Hyper-Threading, an estimated $20 is suddenly not such a high price to pay. In any case, you should choose an accommodating dealer, who will accept a return of the adapter if the upgrade does not work out. "
​

 

[SirKenin]

I find that rather strange unless hyperthreading is just a sales pitch at the moment. By the way, hyperthreading is more geared for games than general applications.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20021228/

OH NO!!!! Someone who quotes Tom's Hardware!! Run for the hill's. AAAAAAGH!!

lol

 

[Apologist]

i also wouldn't use the inquirer to make any statement.. especially something done by AMD (which will be even more biased)...

AMD was HELPING not being biased. If they wanted to be biased they would have left the hyperthreading on but they said it was slower. Also, that article was at more sites than just that inquirer site, I just posted it because it was a little longer. Do a search with Google and you will see.

I didn't say hyperthreading was not a good technology, it is just not being implemented yet as software needs to be written to take advantage of it.
Technology moves so fast anyhow that it will be obsolete by next year.

By the way, I live in the Silicon Valley so most of these companies are within 20 miles of me.