Intel or AMD? (LOL)

[xgunnas32]

get a opteron 144 or 146

 

[xgunnas32]

for u intel fanatics
"the fastest Athlon 64 consumed less power under full load than the slowest Prescott at idle." -AT

 

[professor1942]

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.

hahahaha

plus it'll heat your whole house so you don't need a furnace

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't really see why any of them should be better than the other. Doesn't look like any activity would be bottlenecked.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Given that you probably can't afford a dual-core, get an older Pentium 4 3.0C or 3.2C if you can find one. Or get a 2.8C and overclock it.

Do not get a Prescott!

An A64 3000+ or 3200+ would also work very well, but you may be displeased with some of the multitasking results. Though, your amount of RAM and your harddrive will also play a significant role here.

 

[Mik3y]

Dont listen to FelixDePussy. He's the worst troll in this forum. If you really want to know what's better for you, google up some benchmarks and read some reviews. Otherwise, have a poll set up for us to vote in and see what the majority of us "computer geeks" honestly prefer. Felix never backs up his statements/arguments/bullsh!t, or w/e. But, between the intel and amd, the AMD will be the overall superior cpu for you, though either ones will suffice.

 

[DodgerLD]

Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice) vs Pentium 4 630 (Tom's Hardware)

3D Studio Max 7: AMD (02:51 vs 03:04)
3DMark05 - Graphics: Intel (5132 vs 4948)
Clone DVD: AMD (11:48 vs 13:16)
DivX 6: Intel (07:28 vs 08:13)
Doom III 1024: AMD (99.00 vs 92.10)
Doom III 1280: AMD (81.50 vs 79.80)
Farcry: AMD (176.5 vs 142.5)
Lame MP3 encoder: AMD (04:24 vs 04:46)
MainConcept Encoder: Intel (03:02 vs 03:07)
Media Encoder Streaming: Intel (02:47 vs 03:13)
Multitasking I: Intel (02:47 vs 03:28)
Multitasking II: AMD (11:17 vs 11:31)
Ogg 1.1.0: AMD (03:59 vs 04:21)
PCMark 2005 - CPU: Intel (3798 vs 2878)
PCMark 2005 - Memory: Intel (3141 vs 3113)
Pinnacle Studio 9 Plus: Intel (01:55 vs 02:20)
Quake III Team Arena: AMD (227.8 vs 216.0)
Sandra - CPU Dhrystone: Intel (8821 vs 8794)
Sandra - CPU Whetstone: Intel (6278 vs 4141)
Sandra - Memoy Float: Intel (5404 vs 5393)
Sandra - Memoy Int: AMD (5455 vs 5408)
Sandra - MM Float. Point: Intel (28632 vs 20656)
Sandra - MM Integer: Intel (21608 vs 19197)
Unreal Tournament 2004: AMD (142.8 vs 114.4)
WinRAR: Equal (01:51)
Wolfenstein: AMD (170.9 vs 151.7)
XviD 1.1.0 B2: Intel (05:59 vs 06:38)

AMD: 12
Intel: 14
Equal: 1

No guessing which CPU is better for gaming, unfortunately that's not what I'll be using my PC for. Interesting to see that AMD comes first in the 'Multitasking II' benchmark.

Anyone know of other good benchmarks/reviews of these two processors?

Thanks.

D.

 

[Avalon]

You don't sound like you're going to be doing anything that CPU intensive at all. In that case, I'd just get the cheapest of your choices, which should be the AMD 64 3000+ for you. It will be more than fast enough.

 

[xgunnas32]

i think the 3000+ is stopped, Get opty 144, u wont regret it, i wasted some extra money on a SD, u shouldnt

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: xgunnas32
i think the 3000+ is stopped, Get opty 144, u wont regret it, i wasted some extra money on a SD, u shouldnt

He's in South Africa, where is he going to find an Opteron 144 if we can hardly get them here?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

With how old you present system is, you are basically forced to upgrade eveything beyond monitor, mouse, kybd, maybe OS if NTFS? if you choose to keep those. I'd be looking for hot deals on OEM systems you can get in your part of the world. Anything but a Celeron desktop system should make you a happy camper, and for that uasge, here in the U.S. anyways, it is very hard to DIY a budget system with OS for what the OEMs can offer them for. Overclocking changes things radically for DIY v. OEM IMO, but that doesn't sound like an issue here.

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: DodgerLD

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?

Depends on whether or not these apps are actually doing something while being open. 20 browser tabs and a few word docs sitting in the background arent multitasking. If multiple apps are processing data, aka doing something, then you would see alot of gain from a dual core CPU. But not in the scenario you described there. More RAM is what you want and need. Will do much more for general responsiveness of your system than two cores twiddling thumbs.

But that profile could change some day, as well as your financial situation and/or price of currently available processors. In that case, with a (limited, yet practicable) upgrade path in mind, I would go for an AMD socket 939 system. You'll be able to slap in a dual core s939 CPU as they are available right now and will continue to be available long after AMD made the move from s939 to socket M2/AM2. Granted, once the new socket is out, there wont be any new s939 CPU's coming out, but the currently available chips will still be produced for a good while.

Why not Intel then? Good question, a single core HT P4 will do what you need it to do just as good as an AMD system. Because Intel changes their sockets/chipsets like normal people their underwear. The compatibility between Intels CPU <-> Sockets <-> Chipsets iterations is really nothing to call home about - thats a hassle you wont have to deal with on a s939 board on top of the fact that AMD's s939 dual core chips are simply better than Intels netburst architecture. Conroe, the next big thing from Intel, will not work in any of the boards you can buy now.

If you actually work with your computer, any decent upgrade from what you using now (like the ones mentioned here, 3200+ or P4 630) will last you for a long time. And when you finally need a little more horsepower, dual core will give that to you. At least you will be guaranteed to be able to use a s939 dual core CPU from AMD without thinking twice. If you go for Intel, you'll have to do some research beforehand to find out which board/chipset will let you eventually run one of their dual cores, which translates to the upper end of the mainstream/performance chipsets.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Well it appears a strong case has been made for both sides. If it were me, Id definately go Pentium D for quality, performance and reliability.

Not only is Intel the market leader (for good reason), their reputation is unsurpassed for building exactly what you want and /or need to suit you to a tee.

Sure you could buy some previously mentioned AMD examples as mentioned above, and yes, you were simply taking suggestions. But trust me on this, nothing provides more long term satisfication than Intel.

 

[Gamer X]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Well it appears a strong case has been made for both sides. If it were me, Id definately go Pentium D for quality, performance and reliability.

Not only is Intel the market leader (for good reason), their reputation is unsurpassed for building exactly what you want and /or need to suit you to a tee.

Sure you could buy some previously mentioned AMD examples as mentioned above, and yes, you were simply taking suggestions. But trust me on this, nothing provides more long term satisfication than Intel.

Do you,by any chance, know someone named Intelia?

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: Gamer X

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Well it appears a strong case has been made for both sides. If it were me, Id definately go Pentium D for quality, performance and reliability.

Not only is Intel the market leader (for good reason), their reputation is unsurpassed for building exactly what you want and /or need to suit you to a tee.

Sure you could buy some previously mentioned AMD examples as mentioned above, and yes, you were simply taking suggestions. But trust me on this, nothing provides more long term satisfication than Intel.

Do you,by any chance, know someone named Intelia?

Did you disagree with my statement?

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Well it appears a strong case has been made for both sides. If it were me, Id definately go Pentium D for quality, performance and reliability.

Not only is Intel the market leader (for good reason), their reputation is unsurpassed for building exactly what you want and /or need to suit you to a tee.

Sure you could buy some previously mentioned AMD examples as mentioned above, and yes, you were simply taking suggestions. But trust me on this, nothing provides more long term satisfication than Intel.

I thought you were done with this a long time ago?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
But trust me on this, nothing provides more long term satisfication than Intel.

My wifey would disagree with you, I am superior in that department she'd protest :lips:

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
But trust me on this, nothing provides more long term satisfication than Intel.

My wifey would disagree with you, I am superior in that department she'd protest :lips:

:laugh:

Well, Im glad to hear youre enjoing the good life! :wine:

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Well it appears a strong case has been made for both sides. If it were me, Id definately go Pentium D for quality, performance and reliability.

Not only is Intel the market leader (for good reason), their reputation is unsurpassed for building exactly what you want and /or need to suit you to a tee.

Sure you could buy some previously mentioned AMD examples as mentioned above, and yes, you were simply taking suggestions. But trust me on this, nothing provides more long term satisfication than Intel.

Ignore felix, he is just a troll.

As to Intel being great, right now, that is totally incorrect, they are hot and slow compared to the current AMD lineup. They also take a lot more power to run, and cost more. As to dual-core or not, if you can afford it, it definitely is the way to go.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
But trust me on this, nothing provides more long term satisfication than Intel.

My wifey would disagree with you, I am superior in that department she'd protest :lips:

:laugh:

Well, Im glad to hear youre enjoing the good life! :wine:

Thanks! Good to see you posting again, the AMD r0X0rZ Intel SuX0r0z can use a little yin to counter the yang here

 

[DodgerLD]

This is really good information guys!

I must say, I'm definately leaning towards AMD at this point. It seems the P4 (630) has issues with heat and a poor heat sink/fan.

What exactly are Opterons? How do they differ from Athlon 64's? etc.

Any socket 939 motherboard recommendations? Price ... about $160 - $190

Required/Desired: PCI-e, onboard VGA, 2 x ATA (and SATA), support for dual-core CPUs (if I had to upgrade)

Thanks so much for the help so far.

D.

 

[CheesePoofs]

Opterons are the workstation counterpart to the Athlon 64. The socket 939 opterons (which you would need to get) are exactly the same as a socket 939 Athlon 64, only they go through a much more stringent quality control test.

If I were you, I'd spend <100 on the motherboard and use the extra money to get a dual core CPU. All you really need is a motherboard using the nvidia 6100 chipset or the ATI xpress 200. All socket 939 motherboards can work with dual-core CPUs, although they may require a BIOS update to properly recognize the CPU.

 

[Markbnj]

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.

Haha. Pretty silly statement, but what the heck, it's New Year's Day.

"It's durable..."

Do you mean to suggest AMD's aren't? I mean, naturally, using less power and generating like 1/3 the heat will make them wear out faster. Does it make sense to buy the cheapest, best performing, lowest power consumption processor line only if you are going to change every six weeks?

Really, one more time... hahaha. I think there were good price-based arguments elsewhere in this thread for Intel's hyperthreading being a benefit. But your post is really a classic.

Sure you could buy some previously mentioned AMD examples as mentioned above, and yes, you were simply taking suggestions. But trust me on this, nothing provides more long term satisfication than Intel.

HAHAHAHA. Oh, I am glad I kept reading. Wouldn't have wanted to miss that. JFC man, I am not an AMD fanboy by any means, but who the hell's payroll are you on? Because they should fire you. The lowest level, least effective marketing hack in our company is more creative than you. "More long term satisfaction"? You should be selling furniture.

 

[DodgerLD]

Are Opterons not used for servers more than workstations?

 

[DodgerLD]

Originally posted by: Griswold
Depends on whether or not these apps are actually doing something while being open. 20 browser tabs and a few word docs sitting in the background arent multitasking. If multiple apps are processing data, aka doing something, then you would see alot of gain from a dual core CPU. But not in the scenario you described there. More RAM is what you want and need. Will do much more for general responsiveness of your system than two cores twiddling thumbs.

That's what I thought, but then who needs true multi-tasking? Does a workstation user really need dual-core? And if so, what for? I can't see myself compiling a file, extracting an archive, encoding an audio file, and copying a DVD, all at the same time, for example.