AMD or Intel?

[winterfreshpwnz]

It depends on what you're doing. If you multi-task a lot, you're probably better off with Intel even though AMD has cut this lead down A LOT with the recent CPU's and the lead for Intel is very small, but still there. Intel is also good for video/photo editing, rendering, encoding, media type stuff I suppose. While AMD is pretty much everything else not listed, home use, office use, games, single app., etc. Depends on what you do most on your computer.

 

[lurkswithin]

On 9/25/00, Tom's Hardware (well respected tech site) put amd duron against intell PIII. This test was for the encoding of mpeg4 video and was one of the toughest tests on proccessors at that time.
Duron beat Itel in all but 1 of the benchmarking tests
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20000925/mpeg4-07.html

All through the years of 2000 and 2001 Epinions surveyed the question and Amd again came out on top. Read all reviews:
http://www.epinions.com/cmhd_Peripherals-Processors-Topics-2/sec_~opinion_list/pp_~1/pa_~1

Computerworld analysis of amd and intel with the whole story of how amd started and then excelled past the intel market over a 20 year period
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;117019487;fp;16;fpid;0

Jan, 2003 Tom's Hardware again put the test to amd vs intel
[font=Arial,Helvetica]Table of Contents[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]

• Intel Celeron 1300: Tualatin Core And 0.13 Micron
• Detailed Comparison: Celeron 1300 Vs. Duron 1200
• Testing Procedure And Peculiarities
• Benchmark Results: Windows XP
• OpenGL Benchmarks
• Direct3D Benchmarks
• Audio/Video Benchmarks
• Synthetic Benchmarks
• Applications Benchmarks
• Conclusion: Duron 1200 Stomps Celeron 1300

[/font]
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020103/celeron1300-07.html

The newer comparisons between the two has Intel back in the lead for speed and multitasking programs mostly based on the higher FSB that Intel uses and in which AMD seems to be locked out of at this time.
In the 64 bit portions of testing. both AMD and Intell are again identical with the overall portion of stabability going to AMD and Intel walking away with the speed portions
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=noconaopteron&page=14

All in all, amd or intel which ever one the user picks the public will be the one that comes out ahead as because of this battle the prices have been lowered and the product has been forced to improve upon itself like nothing else in the world. Let us all hope that in truth NO ONE WINS THE BATTLE.

 

[Dishdog]

Yeah i've heard from a lot of people "AMD is better for gaming" .. why? i've never gotten that asnwer. people reccomend a AMD 64 3400 with only 2.4 ghz rather than a pentium 4 with 3 ghz. why is this 3 ghz not faster?

and so is it true that AMD is better for gaming or is that just something people started saying?

A AMD 64 2GHz is not equal to intel p4 2GHz. i don't know the actual ratio but i think a AMD 64 2.4GHz is equal to a intel P4 3.2 GHz

 

[chris882e]

AMD Or Intel

I am still having tourble deciding.

Alot of my firends say intel and alot say AMD.
When I play games I like to play music, but I do play alot of games. SO do you see where I am going with this is that I like doing both. Gmaing and Multi taksing. That is why I came to this site so that I could talk about this.

My friedns aren't real big on computers like I am I love cmputer so much. IF Anyone who could help me out or even just wants to debate about the whole subkect. Then please tell me or put up a reply.

Intel is what I think I am going to get but not sure.

 

[catalyst1]

I'm building a computer myself, and I've been set on AMD the whole time. I'm beginning to think Intel though, because I don't really play games that often, and I love to do tons of stuff at once. I'm interested in others' opinions on this, though.

My opinion at the moment is if you plan on doing any multitasking along with gaming, go with Intel. They might not be quite as fast as AMD's in gaming, but the slight loss of performance there is worth the great gain with multitasking. Intels can still play games. In terms of gaming, I think AMD makes a big impact on hardcore gamers only. At least for the most part. But if you have a good video card, it shouldn't make that big of a difference, and if you can shave seconds off of load times with an Intel, it's worth it.

Now I have to go choose a new motherboard and processor. [Sigh.]

 

[Dishdog]

i have a intel P4 3.0Ghz, and i play games like Half life 2 and CS:S and they play perfect. i haven't got around to playing doom 3 yet but i'm sure it will play fine too.

 

[catalyst1]

Sweet. Basically, just because AMD is better at games doesn't mean Intel is bad at it. Go Intel, Chris.

 

[Kage]

Yeah, I agree that Intel is more well rounded, allowing for playing games okay and doing multitasking and video editting better than AMD's, and i'd prefer it that way (even though I have an AMD system) than it just being great at games (though its not bad at desktop and video editing processor by all means. It has some advantages)

I'd go with Intel too in that case (you know that can't be biased. Check my sig)

 

[catalyst1]

I think the real question is, exactly how much faster can it really multitask? How much better is AMD at running games? Are there numbers out on this? I'll do some reasearch. Hopefully I find something.

 

[Kage]

Yeah, thats worth checking.

Multitasking would be better for example if you had the HT technology which used a virtual CPU (i think, though some programs don't even use it), and I'm not sure about how better it is at running games. Might be worth noting, so if you find anything, please post them

i know on the next system I make (for myself), I think i'm going to choose Intel, since I don't play many games, and use it more for 3D programs, and editing, and so need that extra boost.
I know I'd probably also choose a Nvidia card. I've learnt things since I built this system, and think differently.