CPU's AMD&Intel

[btpenterprises]

hi,

im new to this forum and havent really been up to date with computer hardware and the like for a while, i kinda lost a little interest. But recently ive been getting back into the computer scene and i have been learning a little about the different harwares available.

My question is... are AMD cpu's mainly better for gaming and number crunching, and Intel cpu's mainly better for application and audio/video? This is what ive read and seen some test information, is this fairly accurate?

I will be buying a new PC very soon and because i want to use applications, audio, video and also be able to play games i feel i should be looking at an Intel.

Ive been looking at a P4 3.2Ghz or maybe an AMD equivalent if you guys recommend them. Also i was wondering what the diff was between prescott and northwood boards. Is my information correct in that they are two different socket chips..... or something like that, what are the pro's and con's of both.

Thanks.

 

[RearAdmiral]

Well AMD's Flagship processor's have been faster in EVERYTHING lately, instead of wins on both sides. As opposed to Intel winning in encoding. However, people say that multitasking is better on Intel, I use both and find no difference and would go AMD for anything. I think you will be much happier with an AMD system.

Prescott and Northwood are just different processor cores for Intel. Prescott is slowly taking over as it seems to perform faster vs the northwood as the frequencies get higher. Prescott is the only core used for the new socket I believe though, socket 775.

All in all, I think AMD is much better for basically everything now, UNLESS you NEED pci express stuff, which intel also uses now, not AMD.

You will get better performance however, save some on electricity, have a cooler case, and save some money.

Go A64 3000+ then at least. You won't be unhappy with a setup based around taht.

 

[Brian23]

AMD all teh way

 

[btpenterprises]

yeah i was gona say alot of people on this forum seem to be running AMD's. Ive read that the AMD's have been better in performance and especially in gaming. I read also Intel is better for multitasking and running application music, video etc. Ive never owned or used an AMD, so i dont know much about them. Ive only ever owned Intel.

 

[prd00]

RearAdmiral: AMD already got PCI Express currently. Are you forgetting nForce4? A8N SLI all the way..

btenterprises: Intel is only better at encoding only. When you consider editing, they are out of picture. Multitasking, that priviledge will also gone when AMD get their dual-core running. And if what they said are true, that dual-core is using the very same hardware as single-core version. socket 939 and socket 940. On simple multitasking, AMD is better, but for heavy multitasking, AMD is done for. And, reality speaking, will you edit your picture on PhotoShop and write your document at word at once? Unless you got 2 keyboard, 4 hand, and 2 separately moving mouse cursor, you won't edit your photoshop while typing on MSWord.

 

[btpenterprises]

so in other words i should be considering AMD Athlon64 skt 939 3200+ maybe 3500+ in place of the Intel P4 3.2 ghz. I do notice many people favouring the AMD. Do you know anyone who has switched from Intel to AMD of late?

 

[SrGuapo]

I will be as soon as I scrape together enough cash (probably by late January). The AMD 64s are great CPUs and great overclockers. They are a bit cheaper than comprable P4s, they run cooler, and use less power. You won't see much difference in video encoding as all of the higher end CPUs will own video editing anyway.

 

[phantom404]

I use a p4 2.4 HT processor at work and i have an AMD64 3000+(2.0 gig oc to 2.439). And the Amd blows the performace of the p4 out of the water...even at the stocked 2.0 gig. For the best cpu for the price get the 3000+ but make sure its socket 939 and not 754 like i got. From the looks of it 734 is on its way out.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Come on everybody! Shake those AMD pom poms!!!1!! :roll:

 

[sdack]

The AMD versus Intel flame wars always left out one argument: The price. Who can afford an Intel based computer will always do so since it is so much easier to argue that a more expensive system must also run better. The argument can never be beaten since in general it is true.

If more games would make use of Intel's HT, Intel would be better than AMD. However since that is a technology unique to Intel, not everybody likes to implement code for it - rely on its existence - for providing a good game. Therefore systems without HT set the standard for many developers and therefore AMD beats Intel. AMD will keep beating Intel as soon as they go multi-core. Then Intel will still be sitting on HT and developers can start requiring high-end machines to have more than one CPU and still keep their independence.

Why does Intel beat AMD in some cases? Some pieces of software are so expensive that it leaves the developers enough freedom to support HT and enough arrogance to ignore AMD.

Sven ;-)