• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD 64? or Intel 32?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Valkerie, if you're still reading this thread, I think the signal to noise ratio might improve if you told us exactly what you're going to do with your new computer.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
What do you add other than sideswipes of the people posting?

LOL, calling "AMD rulez" me-too messages "posts" would be an insult to real posters.

every once in a while when i see something on cpu uarch/circuits or CS worth posting on, i'll add my 2 cents. but since 99% of posts here are fanboi circle-jerkers getting it on, the only thing i can do is troll. HAHAHA.
 
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: sandorski
What do you add other than sideswipes of the people posting?

LOL, calling "AMD rulez" me-too messages "posts" would be an insult to real posters.

every once in a while when i see something on cpu uarch/circuits or CS worth posting on, i'll add my 2 cents. but since 99% of posts here are fanboi circle-jerkers getting it on, the only thing i can do is troll. HAHAHA.

sadly i have been leaning tword not helping people in the amd circle jerks as well, you cant argue the chipset problems without the "My AMD-64 runs fine you cant build PC LOLOLOLOL!!!!!" posts coming at you full force.

I prefer intel for my personal systems still, but i do build a LOT of Nforce4/AMD-64 systems for gamers.
 
This thread is going nowhere fast. How many variants of AMD v. Intc thread flame wars can there be???? The world may never know! 😉
 
well if AMD is 64 then it must be better then intel at 32, thats like 2x 32 which = 64 ..WHOOHAA .. i just had a brain wave im gonna get me one of these 64 chips, they sound well good whos with me 😀😀😀
 
Originally posted by: RichUK
well if AMD is 64 then it must be better then intel at 32, thats like 2x 32 which = 64 ..WHOOHAA .. i just had a brain wave im gonna get me one of these 64 chips, they sound well good whos with me 😀😀😀
If laughter is the best medicine, then that was a placebo Rich 😛

 
Originally posted by: SententialThere are many benefits to one chip vs the other. The true strenght in Intel lies in their chipset. S939 chipsets as a whole are utter garbage.

What you buy is entirely up to you but I like my pentium 4 much better over my A64. Sure, technically speaking the A64 is faster in games....that of course if it can run them without problems.

While a great number of people have had little issues with A64, I have personally had a great deal. I personally would go with Intel this round until AMD gets their act together.

Sentential's (and others) troublefree experience with intel chipset boards
 
64bits doesnt mean jack crap in 32bit environments. But ATHLON means Much faster then P4. It would take lots of big words and hand gestures to explain this to you, but let's just say that the Athlon 64 will kick the living crap out of the p4, 1/2ghz less or not.
 
If you look around, you'll find a thread explaining how it takes a 5.2ghz P4 to match a 2.6ghz AMD FX-55.(above the Athlon 4000+ if u didn't know)
 
Your decision should have nothing to do with 64-bit vs. 32-bit. It should have to do with Athlon 64 vs. Pentium 4. There IS a difference in those two decisions.

First... the Pentium 4 6x0 chips are 64-bit just like the Athlon 64.
Second... 64-bit vs. 32-bit has nothing to do with speed. The two main things that are related to having 64 bits vs. 32 bits are dynamic range and a larger memory address space. Neither of which you should be concerned about in the least at this point.
Third... The Athlon 64 is not faster than the Pentium 4 because it's 64 bit. It's faster because the external bus (Hyper Transport) is lower latency than Intel's 800 MHz FSB... because it has an on die memory controller which makes memory latency very low compared to Pentium 4's... and because its shorter, wider pipeline is better suited to the majority of tasks than the Pentium 4's longer, narrower pipeline.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Your decision should have nothing to do with 64-bit vs. 32-bit. It should have to do with Athlon 64 vs. Pentium 4. There IS a difference in those two decisions.

First... the Pentium 4 6x0 chips are 64-bit just like the Athlon 64.
Second... 64-bit vs. 32-bit has nothing to do with speed. The two main things that are related to having 64 bits vs. 32 bits are dynamic range and a larger memory address space. Neither of which you should be concerned about in the least at this point.
Third... The Athlon 64 is not faster than the Pentium 4 because it's 64 bit. It's faster because the external bus (Hyper Transport) is lower latency than Intel's 800 MHz FSB... because it has an on die memory controller which makes memory latency very low compared to Pentium 4's... and because it's shorter, wider pipeline is better suited to the majority of tasks than the Pentium 4's longer, narrower pipeline.


*Starts making hand gestures to demonstrate what Jeff is saying.*
 
Originally posted by: PetNorth
Originally posted by: SententialThere are many benefits to one chip vs the other. The true strenght in Intel lies in their chipset. S939 chipsets as a whole are utter garbage.

What you buy is entirely up to you but I like my pentium 4 much better over my A64. Sure, technically speaking the A64 is faster in games....that of course if it can run them without problems.

While a great number of people have had little issues with A64, I have personally had a great deal. I personally would go with Intel this round until AMD gets their act together.

Sentential's (and others) troublefree experience with intel chipset boards


LMAO!!!

Great reply. Intel chipsets aren't that fancy anymore. nForce 4 for AMD more than makes up for any missing chipset support from AMD.

I myself have had trouble with Intel mobo/chipsets... they are everything but flawless.
 
Originally posted by: PetNorth
Originally posted by: SententialThere are many benefits to one chip vs the other. The true strenght in Intel lies in their chipset. S939 chipsets as a whole are utter garbage.

What you buy is entirely up to you but I like my pentium 4 much better over my A64. Sure, technically speaking the A64 is faster in games....that of course if it can run them without problems.

While a great number of people have had little issues with A64, I have personally had a great deal. I personally would go with Intel this round until AMD gets their act together.

Sentential's (and others) troublefree experience with intel chipset boards

<shug> Every now and then you get a bad apple. I still dont know what was up with that board. Oh well. This P5WD2 is much better

 
Originally posted by: Aenslead
Originally posted by: PetNorth
Originally posted by: SententialThere are many benefits to one chip vs the other. The true strenght in Intel lies in their chipset. S939 chipsets as a whole are utter garbage.

What you buy is entirely up to you but I like my pentium 4 much better over my A64. Sure, technically speaking the A64 is faster in games....that of course if it can run them without problems.

While a great number of people have had little issues with A64, I have personally had a great deal. I personally would go with Intel this round until AMD gets their act together.

Sentential's (and others) troublefree experience with intel chipset boards


LMAO!!!

Great reply. Intel chipsets aren't that fancy anymore. nForce 4 for AMD more than makes up for any missing chipset support from AMD.

I myself have had trouble with Intel mobo/chipsets... they are everything but flawless.

I also have had lots of problems with intel system, oh god I really hate them, but those are more CPU HEAT problems with the crappy pressHOT. In the other hand the A64 system I have built have been perfectly stable almost all the time, and worked with no problems with the components out of the box.
 
Originally posted by: Lithan
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Your decision should have nothing to do with 64-bit vs. 32-bit. It should have to do with Athlon 64 vs. Pentium 4. There IS a difference in those two decisions.

First... the Pentium 4 6x0 chips are 64-bit just like the Athlon 64.
Second... 64-bit vs. 32-bit has nothing to do with speed. The two main things that are related to having 64 bits vs. 32 bits are dynamic range and a larger memory address space. Neither of which you should be concerned about in the least at this point.
Third... The Athlon 64 is not faster than the Pentium 4 because it's 64 bit. It's faster because the external bus (Hyper Transport) is lower latency than Intel's 800 MHz FSB... because it has an on die memory controller which makes memory latency very low compared to Pentium 4's... and because it's shorter, wider pipeline is better suited to the majority of tasks than the Pentium 4's longer, narrower pipeline.


*Starts making hand gestures to demonstrate what Jeff is saying.*

:camera:'s?
 
Originally posted by: carlosd
Originally posted by: Aenslead
Originally posted by: PetNorth
Originally posted by: SententialThere are many benefits to one chip vs the other. The true strenght in Intel lies in their chipset. S939 chipsets as a whole are utter garbage.

What you buy is entirely up to you but I like my pentium 4 much better over my A64. Sure, technically speaking the A64 is faster in games....that of course if it can run them without problems.

While a great number of people have had little issues with A64, I have personally had a great deal. I personally would go with Intel this round until AMD gets their act together.

Sentential's (and others) troublefree experience with intel chipset boards


LMAO!!!

Great reply. Intel chipsets aren't that fancy anymore. nForce 4 for AMD more than makes up for any missing chipset support from AMD.

I myself have had trouble with Intel mobo/chipsets... they are everything but flawless.

I also have had lots of problems with intel system, oh god I really hate them, but those are more CPU HEAT problems with the crappy pressHOT. In the other hand the A64 system I have built have been perfectly stable almost all the time, and worked with no problems with the components out of the box.

That comes down to knowing what youre doing...

One should do a lot of research before building a system, Knowing that you are buying one of the hottest CPUs on the retail market, you should be perpared with proper case cooling and proper cpu cooling. (unfortunately, Intels retail heatsink is NOT proper cpu cooling).
 
It's Valkerie. Thanks guys.

Thank you for those of you who actually contributed as far as giving positive feedback and opinions.

Someone asked what I was doing with the comp, I just want quick office aps running at high priority for the low-cost bucks, and nothing less than on-demand office aps. Maybe some games, but nothing intense like blistering UT2004 framerates.

What is this, a gang of "Intel lovers" VS "AMD lovers" - thank you defenders, but for the offenders, take a chill pill, it's not the end of the world.

You know, for those who posted, "sick and tired of explaining" - no one asked you to even post your trash in the first place. And because this topic of 32-bit vs 64-bit CPU's is brought up so much, it's good to be at the top of the list since 32-bit architecture is moving to 64-bit computing.

Again, thank you for those of you who helped contribute to educating. Just because you have credentials, it doens't make you a decent person, everyone is trying to learn (but it doesn't give the learned any right to scorn on anyone). *too bad your parents failed you?
 
Outside of Dothan, shouldn't 32-bit vs 64-bit arguments be long gone since both are supported by both companies now?
 
S939 chipsets as a whole are utter garbage.

Go away..


In addition with Intel you get reasonably priced dual-cores, plus the future proof DDR2 and PCI-E.

DDR-2 why?Its not needed yet. PCI-E isnt that big of a deal yet.. AGP cards will already be made yet again in next generation cards..


At least with AMD i can pop in a X2 that will wipe the floor with Intel's 8xx series.. Without spending money on DDR-2 and being forced into an expensive MOBO. Obviously AMD's prices are higher, and rightfully so. They will eventually fall, and hopefully AMD creates a dual 1.8 or /2.0 solution so we don't have to hear this bitching about pricing..




And you obviously don't know WHAT you are talking about when basing performance off of 3dmark.

:Q

HA!


A couple quick looks at the benchmarks prove you wrong..

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=3

or http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1587471&enterthread=y


 
Originally posted by: Sentential
Originally posted by: dmens
LOL seriously... all the kidz on this forum just regurgitate self-evident statements and pretend they are good with the tech and stuff, and act all stuck up on people who know slightly less than they do.

what a riot.

^^ Agreed.

There are many benefits to one chip vs the other. The true strenght in Intel lies in their chipset. S939 chipsets as a whole are utter garbage.

In addition with Intel you get reasonably priced dual-cores, plus the future proof DDR2 and PCI-E. Granted Intel is slower in raw games, it has other features including HT that make up for it in general every-day use.

Would you care to expand on the comment 'S939 chipsets as a whole are utter garbage' ? Can you clearly demonstrate that this is the case?



 
Back
Top