intel vs AMD
- Thread starter tja365
- Start date
MarxSoccer
BSOD
- Messages
- 2,999
There are alotttt of threads like this, just search around for a second..
TRDCorolla1
Golden Master
- Messages
- 12,592
- Location
- California
It depend on how much you want to spend. I don't know what Intel has that's good, since I hear so many negative reviews about them. For AMD, get the Athlon 64 X2 series CPU to go with a Socket 939 compatible AMD motherboard. Abit, Asus, DFI, MSI, Gigabyte are some of the reputable motherboards around.
UK31337
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,776
Moved to Processors section.
I'll just throw in what I always say: I've happily used Intel for years with no problems, but if I build a new rig any time soon I'd probably use AMD, just to see what the fuss was about.
My friends' dual core AMD64 4400+ does seem to offer faster load times in games, but in terms of actual performance I didn't notice any difference from my 3.2Ghz P4 or my 2Ghz Pentium M.
I'll just throw in what I always say: I've happily used Intel for years with no problems, but if I build a new rig any time soon I'd probably use AMD, just to see what the fuss was about.
My friends' dual core AMD64 4400+ does seem to offer faster load times in games, but in terms of actual performance I didn't notice any difference from my 3.2Ghz P4 or my 2Ghz Pentium M.
connchri
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,025
- Location
- Scotland, UK
Well, depends on your budget. If its about £100 - £150 GB (as usuall in my case) I'd go for the Intel P4 630 or 640 rather the the AMD Athlon64 3000+ or 3200+. If I had a bigger wad of cash, say roughly £300 - £400, then I'd go AMD dual core.
Reason is, that on the low end of the scale, there is little difference performance wise between the two CPU's in the same price category. Tomshardware.com has a good CPU comparison chart. Put the Athlon64 3200+ against the 3GHz P4 630, and you'll find that the performance difference is negliable. But look at the features of the CPU, and it becomes obvious that the P4 is far more future proof. Four times the L2 cache, and as tests show currently there is no performance differences (or very little) between 1MB and 2MB L2 cache P4's. This will change when multithreaded and 64bit applications are mainstream though. Added to the P4's Hyperthreading and more instruction set support, you can see that using software 18 months down the line that will make use of hyperthreading, SSE3, 64bit and the extra 1.5MB L2 cache, will run far quicker on the P4 630 than on the Athlon64 3200+.
This is a different story on the dualcore AMD Athlon 64s because they also have the added benifits of true multicore CPU's and the 2MB cache (on certain cores) as well as the latest SSE3 instruction sets.
CPU's have almost reach their clock speed limit on using current technology, so now features like hyperthreaded applications are a real performance boaster. Other things like the Hypertransport BUS and the integrated memory controller also have huge performance benifits, but DDR2 and the recent higher FSB's of the P4's along with the Core clock speed of the P4's being substantially higher have tightend the performance gab.
Low budget go P4 6xx series. Big budget, go Dualcore Athlon.
Any fan-boys who blindly critisize this post need to wake up to the fact that a product is exactly that - a product. Companies constantly turn the tide on whose got the "best" CPU. If you do fault what I say, please explain, I don't mind. It's the "Intel Sux Ass!" or the "Athlon is a crash-a-holic" immature crap that I can't stand.
Reason is, that on the low end of the scale, there is little difference performance wise between the two CPU's in the same price category. Tomshardware.com has a good CPU comparison chart. Put the Athlon64 3200+ against the 3GHz P4 630, and you'll find that the performance difference is negliable. But look at the features of the CPU, and it becomes obvious that the P4 is far more future proof. Four times the L2 cache, and as tests show currently there is no performance differences (or very little) between 1MB and 2MB L2 cache P4's. This will change when multithreaded and 64bit applications are mainstream though. Added to the P4's Hyperthreading and more instruction set support, you can see that using software 18 months down the line that will make use of hyperthreading, SSE3, 64bit and the extra 1.5MB L2 cache, will run far quicker on the P4 630 than on the Athlon64 3200+.
This is a different story on the dualcore AMD Athlon 64s because they also have the added benifits of true multicore CPU's and the 2MB cache (on certain cores) as well as the latest SSE3 instruction sets.
CPU's have almost reach their clock speed limit on using current technology, so now features like hyperthreaded applications are a real performance boaster. Other things like the Hypertransport BUS and the integrated memory controller also have huge performance benifits, but DDR2 and the recent higher FSB's of the P4's along with the Core clock speed of the P4's being substantially higher have tightend the performance gab.
Low budget go P4 6xx series. Big budget, go Dualcore Athlon.
Any fan-boys who blindly critisize this post need to wake up to the fact that a product is exactly that - a product. Companies constantly turn the tide on whose got the "best" CPU. If you do fault what I say, please explain, I don't mind. It's the "Intel Sux Ass!" or the "Athlon is a crash-a-holic" immature crap that I can't stand.
Similar threads
