which would you buy? AMD or Intel??

[lepper boy]

I'ts time for me to upgrade my system, trouble is I haven't been keeping up with the newest stuff. best bang for the buck ect.........

So, if you were buying a new cpu and mobo, which cpu would you get? and why?



d

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: lepper boy
I'ts time for me to upgrade my system, trouble is I haven't been keeping up with the newest stuff. best bang for the buck ect.........

So, if you were buying a new cpu and mobo, which cpu would you get? and why?

CPU: Any AMD Athlon 64 socket 939 processor (depending on what your budget is). Venice 3200+ is good, and can OC to 2.5GHz pretty easily.

Mobo: Any nForce4 Ultra/SLI s939 Motherboard should do well. I personally like the nf4 Ultra ABIT.

AMD is the best bang for the buck right now.

 

[imported_Kensai]

If I were in your shoes,

A64 3200+ Venice
DFI Ultra-DR
Thermalright XP-90 w/ Medium Panaflo

Brutal overclocking combo

 

[Bona Fide]

You came to the wrong place if you want an unbiased opinion.

Single-core Solution : AMD hands-down. No bias or anything, they are the best bang for the buck. Make sure you get a Socket 939 mobo and a Venice Core CPU.

Dual-core Solution : Depends on your price range. Intel is at the lower end of the price market, making them appealing to people who want dual-core but don't want to spend crazy amounts of money. AMD is at the other end, and their dual-cores are quite powerful, and equally expensive.

 

[ProviaFan]

I did the upgrade thing recently and came away with an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+, ASUS A8N-E, and 2GB of PC3200 DDR (2x1GB modules). That's obviously about at the top of the performance scale short of stepping into Opteron (dual dual core) territory, but not in everyone's price range... Given that I'm not a gamer at all, and my needs involve multitasking and photo editing (hardcore Photoshop), I would have probably gone with a single-core P4 with HT if I were on a tighter budget. However, I have no regrets with the X2, and lower priced X2's are coming out in the very near future, if you are so inclined...

 

[JE78]

I'm on some what of a buget and I just picked up a X800 XL PCI-E, that will go along with my ABIT AN8-ULTRA and AMD 64 3200+ Venice Core.

 

[BillyBobJoel71]

well AMD and nvidia are your best choices now. nforce4 and a socket 939 dual core is the best.

 

[Amplifier]

Intel is a pretty decent entry level chip. They just charge high end prices.

 

[Unkno]

Amd for sure. amd=good performance, low cost
A cheap amd64 owns even the extreme versions of intel at gaming.
Intel is only good if you want pure encoding speed.

 

[lepper boy]

sounds like not much has changed in the year or so since I built my last puter.. AMD still the best bang....


how are they for speed compared to intel?? like that 3200 venice, I notice is only 2.5 ghz.. that the same speed as the intel 2.5 chip?

I like the looks of that 4400 and am going to start looking at that one!!


d

 

[lepper boy]

Can someone possibly explain to me the speed amd vs. intel.. for example one chip I was looking at, Think it was like the 3000 or 3200 venice is 2.0 ghz.. while my current p4 in this system is 2.4 ghz.. I know there is suppose to be a difference here. but would I see a speed increase bewteen the two chips??


I am mainly interested in good price and lots a speed and able to handle anything I through at it.. (any game that may come out tha tI have to have in the near future.)

d

 

[CheesePoofs]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
You came to the wrong place if you want an unbiased opinion.

Single-core Solution : AMD hands-down. No bias or anything, they are the best bang for the buck. Make sure you get a Socket 939 mobo and a Venice Core CPU.

Dual-core Solution : Depends on your price range. Intel is at the lower end of the price market, making them appealing to people who want dual-core but don't want to spend crazy amounts of money. AMD is at the other end, and their dual-cores are quite powerful, and equally expensive.

Why? AMD does have the best bang for the buck right now. Nothing beats a Venice 3000, a DFI nF4 Lanparty UT Ultra-d and an XP-90. And you dont' even need the XP-90 to max out the chip most of the time, its just a nice little extra.

 

[jkresh]

you can kind of look at model numbers to compare between amd and intel though its far from perfect, depending on teh benchmarks that 3000 will compete with a 3ghz p4, p4 will win in multimedia/video encoding, amd will win in gaming, look at reivews here and elsewhere for benchmarks

 

[Unkno]

speed doesn't matter.

An AMD64 3000+ is 1.8ghz, but it's capable of beating an Intel Prescott 3.4ghz (in most applications, excluding encoding)

 

[CheesePoofs]

Originally posted by: Unkno
speed doesn't matter.

An AMD64 3000+ is 1.8ghz, but it's capable of beating an Intel Prescott 3.4ghz (in most applications, excluding encoding)

I think you mean GHz doesn't matter. Speed matters a lot

The reason an Athlon 64 @ 2ghz is faster than a P4 @ 3ghz is because the A64 is a more efficient CPU. It has a higher IPC (instructions per clock) than the P4, so it accomplishes more work each clock cycle.

 

[BillyBobJoel71]

Originally posted by: CheesePoofs

Originally posted by: Unkno
speed doesn't matter.

An AMD64 3000+ is 1.8ghz, but it's capable of beating an Intel Prescott 3.4ghz (in most applications, excluding encoding)

I think you mean GHz doesn't matter. Speed matters a lot

The reason an Athlon 64 @ 2ghz is faster than a P4 @ 3ghz is because the A64 is a more efficient CPU. It has a higher IPC (instructions per clock) than the P4, so it accomplishes more work each clock cycle.

i don't think a 1,8 ghz a64 would be a 3.4 in that many things, besides games.

 

[willstay]

I agree with Bona Fide.

Single Core : AMD.

Dual Core : Intel because it is overwhelmingly cheap. Second criteria - you are not a gamer.

Interactive CPU comparision chart (only single cores are listed)
http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html

 

[Icopoli]

Originally posted by: lepper boy
I'ts time for me to upgrade my system, trouble is I haven't been keeping up with the newest stuff. best bang for the buck ect.........

So, if you were buying a new cpu and mobo, which cpu would you get? and why?



d

You've been here for 5.5 years and you haven't realized that AT is rather AMD biased? And you're asking us if you should get an Intel or AMD?

 

[lepper boy]

I've been here long enough to know that the people here aren't biased towards amd.. they are biased towards the best buy and most power/speed....


back in the day that was the good ol' cely.. (an intel chip) and for how many years now it's been amd? if intel ever comes out with another good chip.. the boards will swing the other way..


but.. that's not the issue.. i'm looking for best bang ect..


I've also noticed that there are different sockets for the amd chip?? although it is the same chip? so which socket chip does a guy want? also looking for the possibilities of upgrading in the future..

oh and if I didn't say this.. I want pretty much game performance /speed.. with a litle bit of word processing...... and surfin..

d

 

[GuitarDaddy]

socket 754 is the older AMD platform and is quickly loosing support of the newest hardware, I would only recommend it for extremely budget oriented systems.

socket 939 is the new AMD platform that supports the latest technologies, dual core, PCI-E, SataII, ect... 939 is definately the way to go for upgradeability.

And as others have said AMD A64's are more efficient and perform more work per clock cycle so comparing MHZ between AMD and Intel is not representative. AMD's ratings system attempts to approximate Intel mhz, so and A64 3500+ should perform like an Intel running 3.5ghz, even though it only runs at 2.2ghz. AMD chips also use less energy and run cooler and overclock better.

 

[imported_Woody]

Originally posted by: IcopoliYou've been here for 5.5 years and you haven't realized that AT is rather AMD biased? And you're asking us if you should get an Intel or AMD?

Seriously, how many performance enthusiasts will not be AMD biased these days?

Intel may still surprise us one of these days and I'm not so closed minded that I wouldn't buy one. The Intel 6xx series P4 chips aren't bad and if you are in the need of raw encoding speed they are the chips to use. The Pentium M is an excellent low power chip for gaming and office applications and is great for mobile applications or ultra quiet desktops that are easy on your power bill.

Currently in performance mobile applications Intel has the lead due to the lack of PCIe support and dual channel on the AMD side. I sincerely hope that changes before I purchase my next laptop.

If you are on a budget and into ultra high end performance desktop rigs and overclocking there is really no choice outside of the Athlon64 socket 939 platform right now.

 

[R3MF]

Abit AN8 Ultra v2.0 and Venice 3200+

 

[proxopspete]

If you are a gamer, I'd recommend AMD A64 series... but if you are more of straight programmer/media producer type, I'd stick with Intel.

 

[n7]

VIA C3? processor

 

[lepper boy]

I think i'm leaning more and more to the 3200+ venice chip..

But I am currenly sitting here looking at the venice and the winchester chips..

Which really don't seem to be much if any difference between the two. I did see that the winchester ( Ithink it's the 3500+) comes with a 1 mb of L2 cache.. and is rated at a 2.2 ghz, Would the speed increase over the 3200+ warrent the extra cost??

thanks.
dave