View Full Version : AMD or Intel?
PvtCaboose
04-12-2007, 16:42
Consider that price range isn't a problem... Which would you choose? AMD or Intel for a brand new computer... It would mostly be used for gaming...
Intel all the way. Pound for pound they are faster and run at lower temperatures than the equivalent AMD.
TakeMyCrabs
04-12-2007, 16:56
Intel all the way. Pound for pound they are faster and run at lower temperatures than the equivalent AMD.
I gotta start buying microprocessors by the pound. Do you get a discount for a ton?
I thought AMDs ran at slower clock speeds but were equivalent to higher rated Intels? EG AMD 3200 running at 2.2Ghz equivalent to P4 3.2Ghz?
I hate this stuff.
EDIT: @Kow - told you I hate this stuff. I was looking to upgrade to a new machine and frankly the whole graphics card thing made me want to kill someone let alone the CPUs.
If price is no issue, Intel (as far as I know) is the company that has the fastest processors.
I gotta start buying microprocessors by the pound. Do you get a discount for a ton?
I've been paying by the pound for years, but though I've got discounts by the monkey I've had none by the tonne yet.
{KOW}Spazed
04-12-2007, 17:22
I thought AMDs ran at slower clock speeds but were equivalent to higher rated Intels? EG AMD 3200 running at 2.2Ghz equivalent to P4 3.2Ghz?
I hate this stuff.
That is old stuff, Intel has been winning for a while now.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQyMiwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0
Intel is winning right now, AMD is also having problems with production which means they will be putting out chips that can't be overclocked well and are more likely to fail.
Thier performance is about the same but Intel is more compatible with other hardware on the market.
just as i thought. it's all opinion :D
That is old stuff, Intel has been winning for a while now.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?...hlbnRodXNpYXN0
Intel is winning right now, AMD is also having problems with production which means they will be putting out chips that can't be overclocked well and are more likely to fail.
i don't think it really matters who is winning :hide: (unless your a hardcore PC tech nut who wants every little bit of overclock power.). as long as you get a good fast cool processor, your set.
If money is no object: Intel Core 2 Quad (Extreme).
AMD has historically been better for gaming. Mainly because they use shorter pipelines on their chip.
Here is an analogy I tell people to compare Intel to AMD.
Imagine the pipeline is a bus. Let's say that comparable AMD and Intel chips can both move 80 people per hour from point A to point B. But Intel's bus holds 40 people, and must make two trips; while AMD's bus holds 20 people and makes 4 trips, faster though. In the end, both have moved the same 80 people per hour.
Why this makes AMD better for gaming, is because gaming generally doesn't load up the whole "bus" at once, and the faster trips that AMD processors can make beat the Intel processors when the load is less than 100%.
Hopefully that made sense.
Dirty_Zulu
04-12-2007, 20:52
So AMD is the short bus?
Yes-- AMD rides.. err.. I mean is the short bus. Ever watch the Rainman? Typically they excel in a few specific things but overall falls short.
PvtCaboose
04-12-2007, 21:11
I was leaning towards the AMD quad
garublador
04-12-2007, 21:35
Be careful when evaluating the speed of multi-core processors. Unless the specific program is written to take advantage of the multiple cores, they won't give any speed bonus. I honesly have no idea which, if any games are able to take advantage of multiple cores. However, since, as far as I know, the latest operating systems handle multi-core processors well, running multiple processor intenisve programs will run better on a multi-core system than they would on a single core, assuming you have "enough" the RAM.
In other words, if you jump from a single to multi core system (assuming each core has the same processing power as the single system), your game may not run any faster. However, running your game and a game server at the same time might run a lot better.
To add a bit to what toader said. Hs point, as far as I can tell, is that the first 20 people of the AMD "bus" system will get to the destination before the first 40 people of the Intel "bus" system even though the last 20 will get there at the same time as the last 40. There are advantages to both systems, it just depends on what your goal is. Video games tend to prefer the "short bus" system.
Dirty_Zulu
04-12-2007, 23:13
I got a 2.5ghz Pentium something that's like 2-3 year old.
How's that compared to a dual core or core 2 due or dual whatever that's like same speed?
Also how fast is a 2 ghz desktop vs a 2ghz laptop? I might opt for a laptop instead of buying a PS3.
How's that compared to a dual core or core 2 due or dual whatever that's like same speed?Dual core will run faster.
Also how fast is a 2 ghz desktop vs a 2ghz laptop? I might opt for a laptop instead of buying a PS3.They will process the same speed, but most of what you "feel" on a computer in terms of performance has to do with the graphics card. So, whichever one has the more powerful gfx card will feel faster. Desktops, of course, have access to much more powerful gfx cards.
Right now I'd say go for the Intel Core 2's. They seems pretty nice from what I've heard. They're pretty cheap and pretty powerful. Also, games might not take advantage of having 2 CPU's, but your system most likely will. It will allow processes to run in parallel therefore giving more CPU time to the game.
{KOW}Spazed
05-12-2007, 01:10
Ouch for AMD (http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/04/237248)
Random number generation just became a reality. . .
SaroDarksbane
05-12-2007, 02:17
I hope it swings back at some point (because having a serious competitor has kept Intel on the ball), but at the current time, Intel is kicking the crap out of AMD.
I wouldn't even consider an AMD at the present time.
DurfBarian
05-12-2007, 02:32
What Saro said. Also, dual Xeons for the win.
TakeMyCrabs
05-12-2007, 02:47
Random number generation just became a reality. . .
Clarify plz.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-12-2007, 03:12
What Saro said. Also, dual Xeons for the win.
If cost is no issue than THIS.
{KOW}Spazed
05-12-2007, 03:58
Clarify plz.
Errata make random numbers which causes lots of problems in a lot of different ways.
Intel had a similar problem with the Pentium Pro, it couldn't convert from Decimal to Integer without ending up like 4.99990641
KOW, you should start by explaining that there is no such thing as a random number generator. (Well, not on purpose)
Most people outside of the world of tech do not realize this.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-12-2007, 04:55
The NSA is supposed to have them for their super encryption toys
{KOW}Spazed
05-12-2007, 05:57
The NSA is supposed to have them for their super encryption toys
Unless they are using a physical device to generate a starting number, it isn't random.
The neatest way I know of to get a random number is the static in light waves. (http://random.irb.hr/) There are some USB/PCI cards you can get that do the same thing.
I figured TMC would know that random numbers can't be made on a traditional computer.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-12-2007, 06:06
Beats me how they start, it's classified. That there is a rumor of it is as good as we'll ever get for 50 or so years
{KOW}Spazed
05-12-2007, 06:15
Beats me how they start, it's classified. That there is a rumor of it is as good as we'll ever get for 50 or so years
Pffft, it is just math. We can always stack encryption methods, hell some of them you can even run multiple times without making it easier to break.
I couldn't care less. I'd never buy a brand-new, top of the line computer (just like I'd never buy a new car), and they're similar enough that a few percentage points or whatever the difference is in performance, especially in the mid to mid-high level I'd buy in, isn't even worth the time to even read up on.
I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of random number generators. Possibly none made by humans yet, but I think the quantum level is still fairly random as far as we know. Although maybe some day we'll figure that all out and it won't be random, either.
.. It's all marketing, gimmicks.. get you to upgrade every component in your system (for that light speed boost!!) hrm, browsing the internet.. is sure cpu intensive.. whether intel or amd made the cpu.. bleh.. doesnt matter..
Everything I've heard says bet on Intel, but really I doubt the difference is all that much. *Waits for excoriation from speed nuts*
No such thing as random number generators? No such thing as random numbers...
So AMD is the short bus?
Heheh.
{KOW}Spazed
05-12-2007, 15:44
.. It's all marketing, gimmicks.. get you to upgrade every component in your system (for that light speed boost!!) hrm, browsing the internet.. is sure cpu intensive.. whether intel or amd made the cpu.. bleh.. doesnt matter..
Because all ANYONE ever does is browse the web and word processing.
None of us to video editing, large graphic editing, gaming, coding large programs.
We should all downgrade to 500mhz Linux boxes with 128mb of RAM and integrated graphics because it isn't that big of speed increase. I mean it is just some extra wait time right?
With AMD having lower scores on pretty much everything except integrated graphics. . .why wouldn't you go with Intel if they are a similar price and Intel isn't having serious issues with design like AMD?
My flatmate just updated his gaming pc, hes a full-on nut with Lian-Li liquid cooled case dual 8800 ultras etc, and he just went for a QX6600, didn't really follow his explanation, but apparently its the best for over-clocknig due to synchronising clock cycles between the cpu and memory. His setup has cost him a total of about £3000.
I have an AMD dual core with an 8800GT nvidia graphics card pc setup that cost me a total of about £400 (for everything excluding monitor) and it runs the latest stuff like UT3, Bioshock, Crysis etc with all the DX10 bells and whistles and high detail with zero appreciable slow-down in fps...
I still get my *** handed to me online on UT3 though.
Basically, if money's no object go for the intel quad core, if you just want something that will stand up to the latest software and last at least 18 months, go for a cheap AMD setup.
{KOW}Spazed
05-12-2007, 16:31
His machine will outlast yours by a very long time. He'll also play games like Supreme Commander a lot smoother too.
One of my first computers was a 133 mhz pc with 16 megs of ram. That's what Patrus needs.
TakeMyCrabs
05-12-2007, 19:20
I figured TMC would know that random numbers can't be made on a traditional computer.
Which is exactly why I asked for more details regarding errata.
Veilside
05-12-2007, 19:24
Be careful when evaluating the speed of multi-core processors. Unless the specific program is written to take advantage of the multiple cores, they won't give any speed bonus. I honesly have no idea which, if any games are able to take advantage of multiple cores. However, since, as far as I know, the latest operating systems handle multi-core processors well, running multiple processor intenisve programs will run better on a multi-core system than they would on a single core, assuming you have "enough" the RAM.
Hellgate London has been run succesfully on an 8 core processor with activity seen on all cores, so I presume that game takes advantage of atleast dual cores.
I wouldn't even consider an AMD at the present time.
I just purchased a laptop with an AMD x 2 processor at 1.8 GhZ, 2 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD, DL DVD-burner for $580.00 with an all-in-one printer. For the money and what I use it for (office work), you can't beat it.
It really depends on what your needs and price range are.
For next-gen gaming, I agree with you, though.
Whatever you do, don't base your decision on one experience with one processor that is two years old...
SaroDarksbane
05-12-2007, 22:11
One of my first computers was a 133 mhz pc with 16 megs of ram. That's what Patrus needs.
Pffft, the first computer I had (bought by my father) was a 25 Mhz with a "Turbo" option that bumped it to 45 Mhz. 4MB of ram.
Warcraft II was out of its league (PC speaker sucked anyway), but it certainly played a mean A-10: Tank Killer.
Pffft, the first computer I had (bought by my father) was a 25 Mhz with a "Turbo" option that bumped it to 45 Mhz.Dang, I wish today's "turbo" option nearly doubled the speed!!
garublador
05-12-2007, 22:32
Dang, I wish today's "turbo" option nearly doubled the speed!!Turbo buttons were awesome. You gotta love when the hardware has to be change to fix software problems.
Nazdakka
05-12-2007, 23:12
The first computer I used (http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=535) - I was very small when I first used it. It cost £2000 at the time, and had an 8 MHz chip, 128kb memory, and a green screen. Also, a 5 1/4 inch floppy drive - those were the floppy disks that were actually floppy...
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-12-2007, 23:42
My first computer was a Vic-20 (http://retrothing.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/vic20andtv.jpg)
Then we upgraded to a Kaypro-II (http://www.tprthai.net/comps/kaypro2.jpg). I used that for all my word processing until I graduated HS in 1994.
Killing Frenzy
06-12-2007, 00:24
The first computer I used (http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=535) - I was very small when I first used it. It cost £2000 at the time, and had an 8 MHz chip, 128kb memory, and a green screen. Also, a 5 1/4 inch floppy drive - those were the floppy disks that were actually floppy...
I always thought the floppy referred to the inside. Ah, the good old days of tearing apart 3 1/2 floppy's. :grin:
ModeratelyConfused
06-12-2007, 02:11
Whatever you do, don't base your decision on one experience with one processor that is two years old...
Especially when the problem isn't AMD or Intel.
--
I just rebuilt my computer, and ended up with this:
AMD 64 X2 5200
2 Gigs of RAM
2x 7950 GT OC in SLI
Dual boot XP/Ubuntu
The thing flies, and it's all 'last generation' parts.
buttershug
06-12-2007, 02:22
My first computer was a Vic-20 (http://retrothing.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/vic20andtv.jpg)
Then we upgraded to a Kaypro-II (http://www.tprthai.net/comps/kaypro2.jpg). I used that for all my word processing until I graduated HS in 1994.
I had a Sinclair-ZX81
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_ZX81
I also had the 16K RAM pack. whoo hoo.
One of my first computers was a 133 mhz pc with 16 megs of ram. That's what Patrus needs.
I'll take it over an intel quad core anyday.
My flatmate just updated his gaming pc, hes a full-on nut with Lian-Li liquid cooled case dual 8800 ultras etc, and he just went for a QX6600, didn't really follow his explanation, but apparently its the best for over-clocknig due to synchronising clock cycles between the cpu and memory. His setup has cost him a total of about £3000.
I have an AMD dual core with an 8800GT nvidia graphics card pc setup that cost me a total of about £400 (for everything excluding monitor) and it runs the latest stuff like UT3, Bioshock, Crysis etc with all the DX10 bells and whistles and high detail with zero appreciable slow-down in fps...
I still get my *** handed to me online on UT3 though.
Basically, if money's no object go for the intel quad core, if you just want something that will stand up to the latest software and last at least 18 months, go for a cheap AMD setup.
Overclocking something that cost £3000, that's just retarded.
His machine will outlast yours by a very long time. He'll also play games like Supreme Commander a lot smoother too.
Bleeding edge stuff actually doesn't last that much longer, certainly not 9 times longer or whatever it is, plus nuts like that can't resist the urge to upgrade as soon as something 0.01% faster comes on the market anyway.
Once upon a time getting a cheap machine had a serious impact on how long it would last, but with hardware the way it is that really isn't true these days.
One of my first computers was a 133 mhz pc with 16 megs of ram. That's what Patrus needs.
My first was an XT. That's 4.77Mhz, I think.
Actually, I think we had something else even before that.
Pffft, the first computer I had (bought by my father) was a 25 Mhz with a "Turbo" option that bumped it to 45 Mhz. 4MB of ram.
Warcraft II was out of its league (PC speaker sucked anyway), but it certainly played a mean A-10: Tank Killer.
Man, I remember the Turbo button.
Good old A-10. Ever play Red Baron?
garublador
06-12-2007, 15:06
I had a Sinclair-ZX81
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_ZX81
I also had the 16K RAM pack. whoo hoo.Nice! Ours was the good ol' Apple II+. Yep, the processor couldn't handle more than 64k of memory so I coudln't even play Kung Fu on it (it required 128k).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II%2B
{KOW}Spazed
06-12-2007, 15:16
Can we ban Donny from replying to tech threads? Maybe we can get some kind of court ordered education thing going on for reading the first post and then getting him a basic understanding of current technology.
Can we ban Donny from replying to tech threads? Maybe we can get some kind of court ordered education thing going on for reading the first post and then getting him a basic understanding of current technology.
Thank you for saying it...I wasn't quite sure how to word it.
You should never take computer purchasing advice from someone whose collection of PC World magazines have half the pages stuck together.
TakeMyCrabs
06-12-2007, 15:53
You should never take computer purchasing advice from someone whose collection of PC World magazines have half the pages stuck together.
This just might be worth getting a sig. On the flip side, I think you're absolutely wrong about that statement. I would definitely take PC advice from someone whose collection of PC World magazines have half the pages stuck together.
garublador
06-12-2007, 16:12
You should never take computer purchasing advice from someone whose collection of PC World magazines have half the pages stuck together.I'm with you on that one. I'll add that you should avoid computer purchasing advice from someone who has a picture of Steve Jobs in his wallet.
{KOW}Spazed
06-12-2007, 16:15
Donny, it would be MacWorld, not PC World(neither of which I have a subscription to). Either way the only time I spend learning about this stuff is when it comes up on Slashdot or Ars Technica. I understand the basic concepts because of my chosen schooling so when new technology comes out it isn't hard for me to see why it is better.
TakeMyCrabs
06-12-2007, 17:57
I once owned an abacus.
I once owned 10 fingers on my hands.
Donny, it would be MacWorld, not PC World
Enough said.
I once owned an abacus.
One of these days I have to get me an abacus. And a slide rule.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.