AMD or Intel
- Thread starter mudda_fudda
- Start date
When prescott started, after Northwood, they had problems. There was a excessivly high amount of volt leak, making the CPU really hot. (Bare in mind, mine idles at 36C, but it's kind of normal. Then, INtel wanted to replace those with the Tejas and Jayhawk cores. Tejas was supposed to be "Pentium 5", having a 1066MHZ fsb, 5-7GHZ of speed, and 2MB of L2 Cache. The Jayhawk was preety much the same, but was more server oriented.
Both died due to architecture improvements, high wattage (150W to power a Tejas only) anpreety much to stay in competition. That was when Presler was introduced. Smithfields for EE series. But, Tejas and Jayhawk didn't leave alone. They soon found out that Prescott went with them, due to high OV (560-580 cores). P4s stayed with Cedar Mill, along with Cellys. They died together after PDs and the start of C2D.
C2D, with Conroe architecture was there where Intel really struck AMD. To this date, I have yet to wait for a Phenom benchmark. Pentium Ds died silently. These CPUs were the first Dual core with 800MHZ FSB. But, the A64s whipped their butts...in almost everhything.
Intel's going far and on the right way, for now.
AMDs...socket is what they like.
They startd with their old K5 for Socket 7. IMO, their best socket they had was Socket 7. 462(A) was the next. They used the S7 architecture was able to reach up to 600MHz and surpass Celeron 500 at that time. The AMD Athlon/Athlon XPs could outperform many INtel CPUs after. XPs took care of Prescotts. They rules until C2Ds, and they still continued with their SOI processing, while Intel has improved. They have the Phenom ready...but they should have removed the 64 sign. No need for that, as all CPUs being released are 64-bit.
VIA CPUs are a joke. 1GHZ C3 was comparable to a 500MHZ. They never could manage to have a good clock per cycle process. The good side is that those can be powered with a 50W PSU if you wanted. C7s are better to their old C3s. They continue independently.
My choice: VIA
Both died due to architecture improvements, high wattage (150W to power a Tejas only) anpreety much to stay in competition. That was when Presler was introduced. Smithfields for EE series. But, Tejas and Jayhawk didn't leave alone. They soon found out that Prescott went with them, due to high OV (560-580 cores). P4s stayed with Cedar Mill, along with Cellys. They died together after PDs and the start of C2D.
C2D, with Conroe architecture was there where Intel really struck AMD. To this date, I have yet to wait for a Phenom benchmark. Pentium Ds died silently. These CPUs were the first Dual core with 800MHZ FSB. But, the A64s whipped their butts...in almost everhything.
Intel's going far and on the right way, for now.
AMDs...socket is what they like.
They startd with their old K5 for Socket 7. IMO, their best socket they had was Socket 7. 462(A) was the next. They used the S7 architecture was able to reach up to 600MHz and surpass Celeron 500 at that time. The AMD Athlon/Athlon XPs could outperform many INtel CPUs after. XPs took care of Prescotts. They rules until C2Ds, and they still continued with their SOI processing, while Intel has improved. They have the Phenom ready...but they should have removed the 64 sign. No need for that, as all CPUs being released are 64-bit.
VIA CPUs are a joke. 1GHZ C3 was comparable to a 500MHZ. They never could manage to have a good clock per cycle process. The good side is that those can be powered with a 50W PSU if you wanted. C7s are better to their old C3s. They continue independently.
My choice: VIA
compguy91
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,415
Also computers that use VIA processors are a lot cheaper than others. One time I was in Fry's Electronics and they had one brand new for 250 bucks. It wasn't by any means a gaming laptop but it would've been good for school or other very basic tasks.
Rudster8161
BSOD
- Messages
- 6,556
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=921&model2=873&chart=419
thats a 6000+ and a E6750, the 6000+ is only 100 marks behind it the C2D, but its much cheaper, so if you not going to OC, then you should really buy an AMD, your going to save 40-60$
thats a 6000+ and a E6750, the 6000+ is only 100 marks behind it the C2D, but its much cheaper, so if you not going to OC, then you should really buy an AMD, your going to save 40-60$
MooseMan1
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,627
- Location
- United States
the 6000+ is only about $40 cheaper than then E6750 and the E6750 comes with a free game on newegg that would easially justify the extra money. Plus the E6750 is a little better
Until recently i used have always had one of each platform.
Intel has always been my main machine (for last 5 years anyway). They have always been a little more reliable and multi tasked MUCH better.
While earlier AMD gave good value they dont really have that market anymore thanks to the easily overclocked and now aggresivily priced Intels.
Intel has always been my main machine (for last 5 years anyway). They have always been a little more reliable and multi tasked MUCH better.
While earlier AMD gave good value they dont really have that market anymore thanks to the easily overclocked and now aggresivily priced Intels.
