AMD to Intel Converts: Are you glad you made the switch?

[MrAce72]

I'm curious to get some true objective and practical feedback from those folks who made the switch from AMD to Intel. Reading benchmarks is one thing, but practical experience is another.

What was the biggest improvement, if any, you saw? Was most of the impact on gaming or basis OS functionality? Did you switch from a high end Athlon to a high end P4, or a low end Athlon to a higher end P4?

Apples to Apples (e.g., XP 2800+ - XP 3200+ versus a P4 2.4 - 3.0), what were the major noticable performance differences?

Was it worth the switch?

In the converse, have any of you switch from Intel to AMD and are you satisfied?

The reason I ask is that I am on the bubble with respect to considering switching to Intel on my next major upgrade or second system build and I consider myself a high-end Athlon user (XP 3000+ OC'd).

Thanks for any feedback!

 

[4x4expy]

I have just switched from Intel to AMD.

I was running a BH7 and 2.4b (SL6EF) at 2.93ghz (162fsb with mem at 404ddr) this is the best I could get completely stable.

I now have in it's place an Abit NF7-S v2.0 and Athlon 1700+ (0319 dlt3c) at 2.4ghz 12x200 rock stable at 1.775v (1.72 actual). I have tried to tinker with 11.5x 208-210mhz without alot of luck. And I don't want to keep climbing on the voltage. (Both of these systems with the same 512mb TwinMOS pc3200)

Honestly they feel like a draw against one another though one is rated (Stock)at 2.4ghz and sells for ~$170 and the other is rated 1.47ghz and cost me $59. Go figure.

I notice that apps seemed a little more snappy opening on the P4(this is a miniscule difference, though noticable). To go along with this, I notice (and no I didn't use a stopwatch) that in prime95 the tests snap from line to line quicker on the p4. Yet, on the Athlon, I get a few more fps in games and benchmarks(again this is a matter of ~96fps vs. ~92- 93fps in Medal of Honor spearhead, and similar results) What is important to you?

If money were no object I would probably have p4 3.0c and 875pe mobo rig, but
I personally am going to stay with the AMD for now for several reasons.

- I am getting such an incredible oc out of a $59 CPU that I feel like I am getting away with something.
- I really was sick of looking at the ridiculous temps that the BH7 would report( I can live with 44c under load with a
CPU that is overclocked ~65%!)
- The features on the NF7-s are really appealing( better voltage options , onboard SATA RAID, Dual Channel DDR, etc) So this system is a little more futre proof especially with the Bartons that I will eventually move on to, but I'm having fun with this new toy now.

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: 4x4expy
I have just switched from Intel to AMD.

I was running a BH7 and 2.4b (SL6EF) at 2.93ghz (162fsb with mem at 404ddr) this is the best I could get completely stable.

I now have in it's place an Abit NF7-S v2.0 and Athlon 1700+ (0319 dlt3c) at 2.4ghz 12x200 rock stable at 1.775v (1.72 actual). I have tried to tinker with 11.5x 208-210mhz without alot of luck. And I don't want to keep climbing on the voltage. (Both of these systems with the same 512mb TwinMOS pc3200)

Honestly they feel like a draw against one another though one is rated (Stock)at 2.4ghz and sells for ~$170 and the other is rated 1.47ghz and cost me $59. Go figure.

I notice that apps seemed a little more snappy opening on the P4(this is a miniscule difference, though noticable). To go along with this, I notice (and no I didn't use a stopwatch) that in prime95 the tests snap from line to line quicker on the p4. Yet, on the Athlon, I get a few more fps in games and benchmarks(again this is a matter of ~96fps vs. ~92- 93fps in Medal of Honor spearhead, and similar results) What is important to you?

If money were no object I would probably have p4 3.0c and 875pe mobo rig, but
I personally am going to stay with the AMD for now for several reasons.

- I am getting such an incredible oc out of a $59 CPU that I feel like I am getting away with something.
- I really was sick of looking at the ridiculous temps that the BH7 would report( I can live with 44c under load with a
CPU that is overclocked ~65%!)
- The features on the NF7-s are really appealing( better voltage options , onboard SATA RAID, Dual Channel DDR, etc) So this system is a little more futre proof especially with the Bartons that I will eventually move on to, but I'm having fun with this new toy now.

some reason p4's are favored over athlons in prime... i remember running benchies and comparing them against the p4 peeps... and the p4 peeps were consistently getting A LOT faster times than all the amd peeps...

anyway...

i'm thinking of going the amd to intel route as well... but i'm gonna wait a month or two... wait for the new rev boards and get a 865 chipset...

 

[Doh!]

I think prime uses the sse2 instructions set which AMD doesn't have yet.

 

[pspada]

AMD to Intel? I think not. :frown:

 

[mechBgon]

When I saw that Gigabyte 8KNXP Ultra with six DIMM slots, CSA gigabit Ethernet, and on-board Ultra320 SCSI, I'll admit the thought crossed my mind

MrAce72, if you're primarily looking to work with streaming media (video encoding, for example), or work with a program that's got heavy SSE2 optomization (Lightwave 7.5, for example), then a high-end P4 platform is going to be holding all the aces. Is your OC'ed 3000+ not getting the job done well at something?

My #1 performance-booster has been a 15000rpm SCSI drive. Sub-4-millisecond average seek, 0.2ms track-to-track seek... very snappy indeed, and mine's not even one of the latest & greatest 15k drives either. 5-year 24/7 warranty is nice too, and 18Gb isn't huge but it's still about 8Gb more than I actually use. So think about that too. I'll probably pick up one of those new $196 Fujitsu MAS-series units to see what it's like (this would be the current overall fastest hard drive in the world, judging by StorageReview.com's benchmarks).

 

[orion7144]

I used to have all AMD (5) systems all of them were XP1700 and above. I have been using AMD since the Athlon 750. Since I was able to come accross a P4 2.26 last year my whole attitude has changed. I now only have one system left to switch over to the P4. The overall feel of the system is much smoother. No more Via chipset headaches. No more RMA'ing a CPU (In the 5 years that I had AMD I RMA'd 4 chips). No more lock ups. Apps like WinRar, Smartpar, DVD encoding and decoding all are way faster on the P4 systems. Bechmarks do not tell the whole story. Who cares what your 3Dmark is if both systems are getting similar FPS. I switched from Intel to AMD based on bechmarks and I will not rely on those again. It's all in how the computer feels and does everyday stuff and with the HT enable cpu's all of the stuff I am running is even faster than on my non HT P4's.

 

[Corporate Thug]

i went the other way around: Intel to AMD and never looked back

 

[RanDum72]

This is just another Intel vs. AMD thread in disguise so hopefully everyone remains civilized........

 

[chr6]

i have long been an amd fan, and i still am. just recently, out of curiosity, built my first p4 system, (see systemrig), and i must say i am very happy with it also. the thing i like most is boot up time. my amd system took quite a while to get everything loaded at boot. other than that, the most noticeable differences are in encoding times and took me a while to get used to the fact that i could no longer change the multiplier. amd vs intel? just depends on the mood i guess.

 

[Dustswirl]

Have two systems running one on amd the other on intel and for the normal users (like my sisters) it's intel since it's stable and all but $ for me i like fiddling around so i use amd and mostly for the pricetag coz when i fry a tbred i won't cry over it but if i ever fry the new intel i'll be "murdered/slashed/bashed/cooked and eaten" same thing goes for their boards that are kinda pricey (for intel) and more affordable (for amd)
As for pure performance well incoding and graphic creation and all is intel's realm but calculations (statistical and all that) + gaming is kinda amd's strong point...but...really now who's going to die for a few fbs up or down?

The real thing is price... have $? go for intel and spend on the top ofthe line but if you're tight on a budget in a way amd is the way to go

(sorry if anyone said the ideas too but i just wrote how i felt when i HAD to choose )

:beer::beer:

 

[pspada]

Originally posted by: shady06
i went the other way around: Intel to AMD and never looked back

Exactly! but I did it starting with AMDs 486 chips.

 

[Booster]

AMD to Intel Converts: Are you glad you made the switch?

Actually, yes. I switched from Athlon XP 1800+ to the Celeron 1.7 GHz with Intel fan, took out the extra case fan, it became quiet, cool (with an Athlon the case was almost hot to the touch) and faster in multimedia. But hey, I'm not all that much concerned with performance.

 

[amcdonald]

I use Intel for almost all the computers at work. My PC and those I build for friends are all AMD.
I've never used a high-end p4 system, but who wants to spend that much money on a personal computer... for business its understandable.
Make an extra house payment and buy AMD

 

[beatle]

My past 2 systems have been AMD. My thunderbird was an obvious choice, but this time around, I really could have benefitted from a P4 since I do a fair amount of encoding. I just couldn't justify the cost this time around. Maybe next time.

 

[thebestMAX]

Sorry, Intel to AMD here also.

Buying Intel is like dealing with the people I used to in sales. They thought no one could fault them if they bought IBM even if a lot more expensive so they did.

If prices were exactly even for performance I would buy either. Nothing against Intels quality, just price. Dont see any benifit.

Remember, you sell the sizzle not the steak.

 

[pspada]

Originally posted by: thebestMAX
Sorry, Intel to AMD here also.

Buying Intel is like dealing with the people I used to in sales. They thought no one could fault them if they bought IBM even if a lot more expensive so they did.

If prices were exactly even for performance I would buy either. Nothing against Intels quality, just price. Dont see any benifit.

Remember, you sell the sizzle not the steak.

Too bad for them, 'cause I buy the in-greedy-ents and cook my own. Costs less, more filling. :wine:

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: thebestMAX
Sorry, Intel to AMD here also.

Buying Intel is like dealing with the people I used to in sales. They thought no one could fault them if they bought IBM even if a lot more expensive so they did.

If prices were exactly even for performance I would buy either. Nothing against Intels quality, just price. Dont see any benifit.

Remember, you sell the sizzle not the steak.

You would if you tried it.

 

[Vonkhan]

I been with Intel & ATi pretty much all way ...

but thinking about buying a cheap but OC-able AMD system just to fiddle around with it and see what all the fuss is about

 

[clicknext]

I switched from Intel to AMD purely because of price, about 2 years ago. I'm perfectly satisfied with AMD, but who knows whether or not I would be just as or more satisfied with Intel... I think it probably doesn't matter that much, the market is pretty competitive right now, and it looks like both companies are spitting out quality hardware. I just go with whichever is most cost effective, right now still AMD in my opinion. (2500 Barton)

 

[infinite012]

Originally posted by: Vonkhan
I been with Intel & ATi pretty much all way ...

but thinking about buying a cheap but OC-able AMD system just to fiddle around with it and see what all the fuss is about

I've been AMD and ATI almost my entire lifetime (not too long, btw) with computers. I've been looking for the time to build a new PC and the cash money-blang blang because I want to see why the P4C is getting so much hype. My cousin bought a 1.5GHz P4 a long time ago and it had the Willamette core. That thing sucked like no other. My celery 300A could outperform it. Now he has a 3.06GHz P4 with HT and I'm actually quite amazed at it's efficiency. I guess my next purchase will be an Intel CPU alongside an Abit motherboard. Asus can suck its overvolting...

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: thebestMAX
Sorry, Intel to AMD here also.

Buying Intel is like dealing with the people I used to in sales. They thought no one could fault them if they bought IBM even if a lot more expensive so they did.

If prices were exactly even for performance I would buy either. Nothing against Intels quality, just price. Dont see any benifit.

Remember, you sell the sizzle not the steak.

You would if you tried it.

Heh heh... that's what I tell people about SCSI sometimes. They all run the other way yelling no no no, not (gasp) SCSI! I'll never come to the Dark Side!

[Barbie] SCSI is hard! :Q [/Barbie]

Out of curiosity orion7144, what's the last AMD system you tried in day-to-day usage? I have no complaints about my fleet of nForce and nForce2 systems at work, they're fast and stable. Just wondering if your experience ended with the VIA chipsets or something...

 

[orion7144]

After all my headaches with the VIA chipset boards I did try the first round of Nforce with a XP2200 in one of my kids PC's and to tell you the truth My 2.26 (OC'd to 3gig) just felt better. Alot of the stuff I do was metioned before and the P4 would finish minutes ahead of the AMD. Not to mention now with the HT enable P4 I can be doing something else at the same time and still finish before the AMD box. Another bonus for the HT P4's is if you are doing and distributed folding or seti stuff. You can run two instances of it on one machine.

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: thebestMAX
Sorry, Intel to AMD here also.

Buying Intel is like dealing with the people I used to in sales. They thought no one could fault them if they bought IBM even if a lot more expensive so they did.

If prices were exactly even for performance I would buy either. Nothing against Intels quality, just price. Dont see any benifit.

Remember, you sell the sizzle not the steak.

You would if you tried it.

Heh heh... that's what I tell people about SCSI sometimes. They all run the other way yelling no no no, not (gasp) SCSI! I'll never come to the Dark Side!

[Barbie] SCSI is hard! :Q [/Barbie]

Out of curiosity orion7144, what's the last AMD system you tried in day-to-day usage? I have no complaints about my fleet of nForce and nForce2 systems at work, they're fast and stable. Just wondering if your experience ended with the VIA chipsets or something...

 

[Peter D]

ive been AMD for a while now and its great my first comp was an Intel though, heh. Of course AMD's have their high points, and lower points, but overall, i would say the price is what draws people in. And these new generations of overclocking chips also do the trick it seems. Right now though, im debating on whether to try and get a P4 rig, to see what all the fuss is about. I guess you could say im almost like Vonkhans opposite in this respect

 

[chsh1ca]

Well, here at the office, we've been buying dell for some time now, but we also found a cheaper route (with warranties) buying AMD machines. I'm now using an XP1700+ on my dev. workstation, which beats the pants of the P41.8GHz I was using before. With all things, YMMV. I personally have found that for my needs, the AMD processors are far better. As a percentage of my time spent on a computer, less than 10% of it is things at which the P4 performs significantly better than a much lower clocked Athlon. I'm better off building two XP1700+ systems for the price of building a P4 3.06GHz system.

Originally posted by: orion7144
After all my headaches with the VIA chipset boards I did try the first round of Nforce with a XP2200 in one of my kids PC's and to tell you the truth My 2.26 (OC'd to 3gig) just felt better.

Of course it did, you're comparing a 3GHz processor to a 2.2GHz performing processor and saying it 'felt better'? I don't think anyone here would doubt that's true. You could try an Apples -> Apples comparison.

Alot of the stuff I do was metioned before and the P4 would finish minutes ahead of the AMD. Not to mention now with the HT enable P4 I can be doing something else at the same time and still finish before the AMD box. Another bonus for the HT P4's is if you are doing and distributed folding or seti stuff. You can run two instances of it on one machine.

HT doesn't let you run two processes side by side any more than having one processor does. I run two instances of Seti on my home box as is, because it was only taking up ~50% of the processor before.