AMD or Intel?

[catalyst1]

Lots and lots of graphs:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_10.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_11.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_12.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_13.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_14.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_15.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_16.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_17.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_18.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_19.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_20.html

Their conclusion:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_21.html
"As for the general situation between AMD and Intel in the today's processor market, we can now state that in terms of supported features Prescott 2M based CPUs have finally leveled out with the Athlon 64 processor family. Instead of 64-bit AMD64 extensions of Athlon 64 processors, Pentium 4 6XX support EM64T extensions. An analogue to AMD's Cool'n'Quiet technology is the EIST from Intel. Moreover, Intel processors acquired NX-bit support (XD-bit, as Intel calls it).

The performance of the top Intel CPUs is still somewhat lower than that of the top Athlon 64 solutions. Although Pentium 4 processors retain leadership in their traditionally strong fields such as video data encoding or final rendering, they still yield to AMD CPUs in most applications including contemporary games."

Keep in mind that this is one series of tests by one group of people. My research continues!

 

[Kage]

Yeah kewl, it seems Intel would be for me then next time Plus maybe AMD doesn't house as much improvement now over games then... hmm, worth knowing.

Plus it is true that there is a Pentium system now that has 64bit archietecture ready for the future which is good news for Intel, though they need to be capable of getting to faster speeds (though I think they have maxed out with there latest core now).

Thanks again, Spank_fusion

 

[jac006]

Another one of this disucussion... it's been done many times before but here we got again. First off, amd = cooler. Amd runs at 39 degress C, while intel runs at 50 degress C. Big difference huh? The hotter the cpu gets, the slower it goes, so becuse amd is so cool, is acutally runs faster. Then, there's the higher fsb (front side bus). amd = 2000 mhz and then for intel 800mhz. Need I say more? Clock doesn't matter. Check out amd's site for more... http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^9500,00.html
Amd is good for games because of it's architecture and its cpu abilites and intel is just good for all mulititaskking everyday stuff. Look at the difference for gaming...http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^9500^9585,00.html
yeah...

 

[catalyst1]

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/amd-2400/testresults.html
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmemory/0,39024015,39164010,00.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249&p=1

There's tons of info. Just Google it. Try not to take too much info from forums you find though as I've found the posters tend to be biased. Not always, but it's more reliable to get information from articles and actual benchmark test data. And yes, I know, this is a forum.

If you still can't decide, you can always get this:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121106,tk,dn060205X,00.asp

 

[Kage]

Wow that gaming system benchmark really does show the difference...

I don't believe the hotter it gets, the slower it goes though, but there is a limit where this will start happening, but it won't at 50 degrees
(you should get a new cooler anyway to drop it about 10 degrees)

I do like Intel though, I have to admit. Especially for someone like me that plays hardly no games, and when I do, its only for a few hours or if I buy a game I really like.

 

[catalyst1]

Another one of this disucussion... it's been done many times before but here we got again. First off, amd = cooler. Amd runs at 39 degress C, while intel runs at 50 degress C. Big difference huh? The hotter the cpu gets, the slower it goes, so becuse amd is so cool, is acutally runs faster. Then, there's the higher fsb (front side bus). amd = 2000 mhz and then for intel 800mhz. Need I say more? Clock doesn't matter. Check out amd's site for more... http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^9500,00.html
Amd is good for games because of it's architecture and its cpu abilites and intel is just good for all mulititaskking everyday stuff. Look at the difference for gaming...http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^9500^9585,00.html
yeah...

CPU performance has little to do with temperature unless the temperature approaches an unacceptable level. As long as Intel makes sure their chips can operate at the higher temps, it won't make a difference.

The FSB depends on which processor you get. Intel and AMD both have different specs and speeds. Saying that AMD has a faster FSB than Intel is like saying that Creative makes louder speakers than Altec Lansing.

As for the graphs, they're nice, but nothing can be compared overall with one graph. You have to compare many, many things.

 

[Kage]

Yeah I agree, and did definitley with the CPU performance bit Check above ^

 

[jac006]

CPU performance has little to do with temperature unless the temperature approaches an unacceptable level. As long as Intel makes sure their chips can operate at the higher temps, it won't make a difference.

The FSB depends on which processor you get. Intel and AMD both have different specs and speeds. Saying that AMD has a faster FSB than Intel is like saying that Creative makes louder speakers than Altec Lansing.

As for the graphs, they're nice, but nothing can be compared overall with one graph. You have to compare many, many things.

Yeah, but for the temp part, the higher the temp is, the slower the cpu gets. The cooler it is, the faster it will run. Well, not necessariliy faster, but better and more produtively. It will make a difference, becuase the computer will get slower, because the cpu has to cool down. It doesn't work that way, that it doens't make a difference. Well, it's true that amd has a fater fsb. 2200 mhz (amd) to intel's 800 mhz. A difference. Amd has a fater fsb and that's true. Altec lansing and creative both are the same. Nice analogy with the speakers, but I don't think it works here. If you check their site, http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487,00.html
and look at all the graphs, they compare a lot of stuff, not small things.

Btw.... if you want to debate, then let's go ahead. But don't flame. I've seen to many things get out of hand.

 

[chris882e]

thanx man you have helped alot keeep in touch about mother boards...I am Asus all the way nothing will change that...

 

[catalyst1]

Yeah, but for the temp part, the higher the temp is, the slower the cpu gets. The cooler it is, the faster it will run. Well, not necessariliy faster, but better and more produtively. It will make a difference, becuase the computer will get slower, because the cpu has to cool down. It doesn't work that way, that it doens't make a difference. Well, it's true that amd has a fater fsb. 2200 mhz (amd) to intel's 800 mhz. A difference. Amd has a fater fsb and that's true. Altec lansing and creative both are the same. Nice analogy with the speakers, but I don't think it works here. If you check their site, http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487,00.html
and look at all the graphs, they compare a lot of stuff, not small things.

Btw.... if you want to debate, then let's go ahead. But don't flame. I've seen to many things get out of hand.

I wasn't flaming. I was just arguing your points. You might be right about the graphs though the site doesn't say HOW they put together all the other graphs. As for the other points, they don't quite hold up. No chip has a FSB of 2200MHz. As for AMD always having a greater FSB than Intel, here are a few examples:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819104160
The first AMD listing on Newegg - a Duron with 266MHz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819104222
A Sempron with 400MHz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103388
An Opteron with 400MHz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103533
An Athlon 64 with 1.0GHz.

Now Intel:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819112141
The first listing again - a Celeron with 66MHz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116132
A Pentium 4 with 400MHz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116170
Another Pentium 4 with 800MHz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116189
A bit pricey, but a P4 Extreme Edition with 1.0GHz.

I think these examples support my point and my analogy very well. My point is that different models of processors have different FSBs. The two companies don't have set FSBs. That would make little sense. It just depends on how much money you want to spend. For the price, yes, AMD seems to be better in terms of FSB according to these examples, but FSB is not the only comparison to be had. As for my analogy, it works perfectly. Saying that Creative makes louder speakers than Altec Lansing is utterly rediculous. Both companies make different models of speakers with different maximum volume levels. The more money you spend, the more likely your set of speakers will be a bit louder, but it has nothing to do with the company itself.

About the temperature - like I said, it barely affects performance until it reaches an unacceptable level. A processor running at 30C will run no differently than a processor at 35C. Now if the processor gets hot enough to exceed normal operating limits, then it becomes a problem and runs inefficiently.