-
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 or Intel?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Suspicious-Teach8788
Lifer
Ok, so like I said MANY TIMES, money is always a factor. While you say you can dish out $600 or $1000 or just $200 for a CPU, it doesn't matter. You say money isn't a factor, but it still is a factor. The Pentagon doesn't like getting ripped off for toilet seats.
So PR #s are just BS as with MHz. It's all about price. You take a $200 CPU for example, and that buys you a 3.2 P4? I thinkn they're like 220 or so. 3.0s are slightly cheaper. Then you look at a Winchester 3200+. Which wins? The 3200+ right? Ok, you can use Tom's CPU charts or something or spend hours on Anand finding the right articles like I do. Then take a $300 cpu and compare them. 3700+ vs 3.6? 3700+ wins.
Why do this? Back when I bought my CPU it was $270 for an Athlon 1100 vs $270 for a P3 866. You can't do Athlon 850 vs P3 866 because price is what you're looking at. You're not limited by clock speed.
So I say AMD.
Ok, and the other thing is look at where your money gets you. $200 gets you a P4 that can hit 3.6 if you're freaking lucky. $200 gets you a Venice that hits 2.75 on air which is like 4200+ speeds (blows any P4 EE away). So this weighs in heavily. While Intel vs AMD stock can still be open to question in CERTAIN CASES (Very few), the OC factor makes AMD the easy choice.
600 PSU is too much. I bet you a 430 will suit you just fine. Go with a Forton 500 or Antec TP2.0 480.
WTF, so you're getting a 3.2? Grrrr
So PR #s are just BS as with MHz. It's all about price. You take a $200 CPU for example, and that buys you a 3.2 P4? I thinkn they're like 220 or so. 3.0s are slightly cheaper. Then you look at a Winchester 3200+. Which wins? The 3200+ right? Ok, you can use Tom's CPU charts or something or spend hours on Anand finding the right articles like I do. Then take a $300 cpu and compare them. 3700+ vs 3.6? 3700+ wins.
Why do this? Back when I bought my CPU it was $270 for an Athlon 1100 vs $270 for a P3 866. You can't do Athlon 850 vs P3 866 because price is what you're looking at. You're not limited by clock speed.
So I say AMD.
Ok, and the other thing is look at where your money gets you. $200 gets you a P4 that can hit 3.6 if you're freaking lucky. $200 gets you a Venice that hits 2.75 on air which is like 4200+ speeds (blows any P4 EE away). So this weighs in heavily. While Intel vs AMD stock can still be open to question in CERTAIN CASES (Very few), the OC factor makes AMD the easy choice.
600 PSU is too much. I bet you a 430 will suit you just fine. Go with a Forton 500 or Antec TP2.0 480.
WTF, so you're getting a 3.2? Grrrr
Concillian
Diamond Member
If that's all you're doing with the PC, you can probably use whichever is cheapest.
HT or dual core are the only tangible benefits you'll see. Differences in clock speed are pretty negligible so go for a good bang for buck price point like 3200+ or 3.2GHz and go for it. I think in your case you will recognize the benefits of HT in a P4 more than the A64 advantages, which are primarily in games.
The P4 has the obvious power consumption downside. The A64 will be cheaper in the short AND long term, but you give up the slight multitasking advantage of HT.
With your usage profile I wouldn't worry too much about the decision. If you're more comfortable with Intel, then do that. Don't let people talk you into a processor you don't really want. Realistically, they aren't that different. If you're overclocking the A64 is probably a better platform for that, but personally I don't really 'feel' a 600 MHz improvement when I overclock my A64. I suppose it makes single apps faster, and the task switching is as slow as ever. Of course certain games show improvement, but my games are, for the most part, not CPU bound at the resolutions I play at.
My opinion is you should be deciding whether or not you need HT, as that's the only reason to go Intel at this point... it's the only thing in my experience that actually gives a 'feeling' that the machine is faster. Increasing clock speed is good, but honestly, I really don't notice it that much doing just regular stuff.
HT or dual core are the only tangible benefits you'll see. Differences in clock speed are pretty negligible so go for a good bang for buck price point like 3200+ or 3.2GHz and go for it. I think in your case you will recognize the benefits of HT in a P4 more than the A64 advantages, which are primarily in games.
The P4 has the obvious power consumption downside. The A64 will be cheaper in the short AND long term, but you give up the slight multitasking advantage of HT.
With your usage profile I wouldn't worry too much about the decision. If you're more comfortable with Intel, then do that. Don't let people talk you into a processor you don't really want. Realistically, they aren't that different. If you're overclocking the A64 is probably a better platform for that, but personally I don't really 'feel' a 600 MHz improvement when I overclock my A64. I suppose it makes single apps faster, and the task switching is as slow as ever. Of course certain games show improvement, but my games are, for the most part, not CPU bound at the resolutions I play at.
My opinion is you should be deciding whether or not you need HT, as that's the only reason to go Intel at this point... it's the only thing in my experience that actually gives a 'feeling' that the machine is faster. Increasing clock speed is good, but honestly, I really don't notice it that much doing just regular stuff.
I didn't say overclock, I said overkill.
As in, for what you claim to do with your computer, a $500 eMachine would serve you fine. So why in the blue hell do you have so much machine and so little with it?
That's why I made the comparison to you buying an F-16 to cross the street. It could be done, but it's such a waste.
I use the comp for many other things I don't mention. I am a programmer so I have many many things open all at once. I notice that my P4 hangs sometimes and just like one of the article I read by Anand Lal Shimpi that the program won't completely open etc.
Although I agree with DleRium, he has given some very helpful suggestions. DLeRium I didn't say I already bought a Intel, I have one already. But going to build a new system and pass this one to my brother.
I guess AMD would be safe to dive into.
Thank you all
hippotautamus
Senior member
If you actually do multitask, wait for dual cores. If not, quit complaining and buy AMD, because they are quite simply better, unless you like your computer to function as an Easy Bake oven as well as a computing platform...if you want this feature, buy a Prescott core Intel..
yes I do, but it doesn't mean that I agree with a lot of folks that AMD is the winner. I've had 2 AMD computers (and 1 I am using now). The diference in tests comparing AMD and Intel chips is so freaking small that a human being doesn't have a measure to feel it, you find it out doing tests. Intel runs hotter, so what? it does it job.
Regs
Lifer
I would have to agree here that you will see no big difference. Your current system looks amazing. I think you would be pissing money away if you went from your current rig to a suitable AMD rig.
The only problem I see is your upgrade path and to that regard both the Intel Presscott and Pentium D suck. So don't even think about going down that road.
The only problem I see is your upgrade path and to that regard both the Intel Presscott and Pentium D suck. So don't even think about going down that road.
borneohelltribe
Junior Member
i want to ask u....im using amd k6 500mhz...can my mobo support my new processor?i want to change my processor to amd athlon 2800+64bit
imported_michaelpatrick33
Platinum Member
😕
Please dear Silicon God who arte in the Sands of Heaven please let this post be a satire on this rather ... peculiar thread.
Edit: If this is a serious post then the answer is an emphatic no. That is like asking if you can install a 2005 Corvette engine into a 1995 Chevette.
If this post is a satire then it made my eye lids pop open from their half-closed pre-sleep ritual of drooping.
imported_michaelpatrick33
Platinum Member
I am so tired that I hear Captain Kirk in the recesses of my mind talking to Scotty. She gonna blow Captain. She canna take any more. She ... ... ... must hold together .... ... ... we are fighting for the .... ... .... survival .... ...... .... . of stupid posts .. ...... . ... so that they can boldly take us ... . . . . . . .. ... .. where no idiots have gone ...... . . . . .. . . . . before.
bahhhh waahhhh chicka bahhhhh wahhhh
Must go to sleep.
bahhhh waahhhh chicka bahhhhh wahhhh
Must go to sleep.
hurtstotalktoyou
Platinum Member
You need a socket-939-to-socket-7 adapter.
borneohelltribe
Junior Member
wad bout socket a then?and wad bout the heatsink?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
