Intel or AMD? (LOL)

[DodgerLD]

Hello all,

I'm having a tough time deciding whether to go for an Intel or an AMD CPU. I use my system for programming, image editing, office applications, and the internet -- NO GAMING.

Looking at: AMD Athlon64 3000+ and 3200+, and Intel P4 505/6 (2.66/7 GHz) and 630 (3.0 GHz)

Any thoughts/recommendations?

TIA.

D.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Definately Intel if you want a CPU you wont be chaning every six weeks because its not the "latest thing". Its durable and will be worth the investment.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Definately Intel if you want a CPU you wont be chaning every six weeks because its not the "latest thing". Its durable and will be worth the investment.

That's laughable.

 

[HardWarrior]

There's nothing wrong with the current build quality of AMD CPU's, and unless there's something wrong with you there's no reason to "change it every six weeks." If, however, you aren't doing any gaming, and can find a decent speed Intel in your price range I'd suggest going Intel due to their better performance in non-gaming environments.

 

[pkrush]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Definately Intel if you want a CPU you wont be chaning every six weeks because its not the "latest thing". Its durable and will be worth the investment.

First of all, wtf are you talking about, felixdecat? I seriously doubt this guy's going to replace his processor every six weeks because something better comes along and AMD's CPU's stomp Intel's right now as pretty much everyone else agrees. I'd definitely go AMD because their current processors offer better performance per watt AND better bang for the buck than Intel's lineup.

 

[RussianSensation]

Honestly with the tasks at hand:

1) programming - you'll be mostly limited by your ability not the PCs; complining code will be faster on A64 though
2) image editing - should be faster on Intel
3) Office apps - 99% limited by the user, but A64 is "faster" in benches for office apps. Again, speed of office apps is more dependent on hard drive access time and you would want more ram for smoothness here (1 gig)
4) Internet - amd is faster, but in real world you are dependent on internet service provider. Ie. P2 600mhz with fast net will be faster than 4800+ with slower internet.

I would go with $150 single core A64 myself since it runs cooler, and can overclock if you ever venture into that; plus many users report snappiness due to internal memory controller.

Although certainly an argument can be made for 630 (because of hyper-threading if you are into multi-tasking). If you can stretch a bit, the 820 dual core 2.8ghz for $240 or so will suit your needs very well and cost $100 less than dual core A64 3800+ (although this one is faster but not sure if it's $100 worth it over 820 for you if you dont game).

 

[DrMrLordX]

You'll be fine with either one, though if you plan on doing all of the above at once, you might want to look at an Intel CPU or just go dual-core with an X2.

I'd personally lean more towards AMD products just on account of heat output.

 

[theMan]

just because of heat and power, amd wins for what you are doing.

and, at least when amd makes a slight change to their chips it doesnt require a new chipset like intel. you can run any 939 chip on any 939 board, on intel, they require all sorts of chipsets for each 775 chip.

 

[nerp]

For your needs, I'd seriously consider a dual core AMD chip.

 

[Mrvile]

Yeah...I don't think a 3000+ or a 3200+ is going to cut it.

 

[DodgerLD]

I don't upgrade my hardware very often at all, so I'd like this to last a while.

I'm not sure I'll be able to afford the AMD X2, it's more than double the price of the 3200+. The Intel PD 820 is also quite a stretch.

I often have about 20 Firefox tabs open, a few office docs, a programming IDE or two, and maybe Adobe Photoshop. Would that be considered multi-tasking, or would the threads have to be actively processing data?

I only have about 384MB of RAM, so upgrading that to 1GB I'm sure will help a lot.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I would go with intel dual core 820 (pentium D). Cheap, and would satisfy your needs.
(Since your not gaming as well)

Review on 2.8ghz pentium D


Edit- they sell for around 210~?

 

[stevty2889]

For what you are doing, in the price range you are looking in, hyperthreading will actualy be a good benifit, so I"d go with the P4 630 of those choices. A pentium-D 820, or X2 3800+ would be even better for multitasking and image editing(if you have enough RAM), and the X2 is far better of those too, pentium-D's run extremely hot, and the 3800+, AMD's lowest speed dual core, still beats Intels' new flagship 955 extreme edition in some things and the 820D in everything.

 

[Jaihahih]

I would go with Intel. But I would try to get a old northwood CPU, 3.0GHZ if possible.

 

[DodgerLD]

Keep it coming, I'm still undecided.

 

[Hard Ball]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Definately Intel if you want a CPU you wont be chaning every six weeks because its not the "latest thing". Its durable and will be worth the investment.

Wow, I have never seen a more blatant case of fan-boyism on this board before.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: DodgerLD
I don't upgrade my hardware very often at all, so I'd like this to last a while.

I'm not sure I'll be able to afford the AMD X2, it's more than double the price of the 3200+. The Intel PD 820 is also quite a stretch.

I often have about 20 Firefox tabs open, a few office docs, a programming IDE or two, and maybe Adobe Photoshop. Would that be considered multi-tasking, or would the threads have to be actively processing data?

I only have about 384MB of RAM, so upgrading that to 1GB I'm sure will help a lot.

Thanks for the help.

As long as gaming isn't on the menu, frequent upgrading simply isn't an issue. Based on your described usage patterns lots of RAM (2gig of value stuff?) and a low end dual-core/HT CPU will last you a good while, and offer great performance.

 

[Jaihahih]

Originally posted by: Hard Ball

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Definately Intel if you want a CPU you wont be chaning every six weeks because its not the "latest thing". Its durable and will be worth the investment.

Wow, I have never seen a more blatant case of fan-boyism on this board before.

I think he means that new intel chips require new chipsets, so if you don't change cpus much, Intel would be a good choice because it accomplishes his goals pretty well, a little better than AMD. However, if you upgrade often, then AMD should be the choice because their 939 chipsets are almost all compatible.

 

[DodgerLD]

May want to consider the fact that I'm moving up from a P2/3 449Mhz CPU.

I'm hoping 1GB of RAM will be sufficient, at least to start with.

I think dual-core will have to be removed from my list of options, due to the price ... unfortunately.

 

[Markfw]

The 820 is a hot power-sucking pig, don't even think of that one. What is the budget ? You will be best off with the 165 Opteron or the X2 3800, but, as you said money may be a problem.

 

[Jaihahih]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
The 820 is a hot power-sucking pig, don't even think of that one. What is the budget ? You will be best off with the 165 Opteron or the X2 3800, but, as you said money may be a problem.

Yes, he made it clear that he couldn't afford an AMD dual core, so the P4 is the way to go.

 

[DodgerLD]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
What is the budget ?

About $225 (max).

My prices probably won't be as good as those in the US -- I'm from South Africa.

I can get the Athlon64 3200+ for $190.30, and the Intel 630 for $222.77.

What about going AMD for now, with the possibility of upgrading to dual-core at a later date? Or are the 3000/3200+'s nowhere near suitable? (I assume the X2's will run on some/all of the AMD mobo's?)

Just a thought.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: DodgerLD

Originally posted by: Markfw900
What is the budget ?

About $225 (max).

My prices probably won't be as good as those in the US -- I'm from South Africa.

I can get the Athlon64 3200+ for $190.30, and the Intel 630 for $222.77.

What about going AMD for now, with the possibility of upgrading to dual-core at a later date? Or are the 3000/3200+'s nowhere near suitable? (I assume the X2's will run on some/all of the AMD mobo's?)

Just a thought.

I'd look for the cheapest 165 you can find. dunno what they're going for right now, but it should be like, $289 I think or something like that. A Little cheaper than the 3800+, which is around $300ish. P-D 820's are going for like 240 retail, but they really aren't worth it.

IMHO, between the two choices you have outlined, the 3200+ is better. I had no problem running medium multitasking with my 3000+ back in the day. A faster Hard drive subsystem will be far more benefical to multitasking than HT.

 

[josh609]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
The 820 is a hot power-sucking pig, don't even think of that one. What is the budget ? You will be best off with the 165 Opteron or the X2 3800, but, as you said money may be a problem.

He's right. Look at it this way too, 939 boards will still be around for another year or 2 (as you know socket 754 is still around, and socket A just died a few months back). So you can always upgrade to an X2 whenever the prices go down. With Intel, you can't do that, because they change sockets or chipsets as fast as i go through sheets of toilet paper. (Thats pretty fast too)

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Jaihahih

Originally posted by: Hard Ball

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Definately Intel if you want a CPU you wont be chaning every six weeks because its not the "latest thing". Its durable and will be worth the investment.

Wow, I have never seen a more blatant case of fan-boyism on this board before.

I think he means that new intel chips require new chipsets, so if you don't change cpus much, Intel would be a good choice because it accomplishes his goals pretty well, a little better than AMD. However, if you upgrade often, then AMD should be the choice because their 939 chipsets are almost all compatible.

You're reading your own opinion into what is obviously a blatant case of fanboism. There's nothing that says anyone HAS to upgrade regardless of the computing platform that they chose.