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

[lookin4dlz]

I started with AMD because of the price, but the chip died (non-overclocked!) so I switched to Intel & I'm loving the overclockability!

My old Celeron 400 @ 500 ran for years w/o a problem. That computer was sold to a friend to be a computer for his kids & it's still running fine (switching to Win XP seemed to make it run faster, btw).

My current P4 system has been great - you can thank Intel for being able to put out some QUALITY DVD rips.

I plan to upgrade to a HT P4 chip this summer. Now if they'll just re-program Civ3 for HT, I'll be set

 

[Boogak]

I switched from AMD (1.4ghz Tbird) to Intel (during the 1.6A craze) and now back to AMD (current 1700+ craze). I can't tell a difference in regular desktop performance and barely any in gaming (limited to video card anyway at the resolutions I play in). But the biggest difference is the cost of upgrades and that's been the difference maker for me.

With AMD, all their CPUs drop below the $100 price point sooner or later (heck with the 1700+, it dropped below the $50 price point!). With Intel CPUs, their processors never go below $100. Checking Pricewatch, a socket 478 1.6 P4 is still going for $114!! With my nForce2 boards, I can buy a Barton 2500+ and get a possible o'c to 3000+ performance all for $93!! Can't beat that with a stick!!

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yes it does.... Maybe you missunderstood. If you are running a program that takes up 100% cpu on your system your stuck. On the HT it will run through the other pipe. I use folding so it uses 100% cpu on a standard computer. With the HT I can run 2 instances one for each pipe. You should read up more on HT technology You can read about it here

 

[Sideswipe001]

His point was, HT doesn't add a 2nd processor. It just acts like it, and it helps in some things. If your processor is at 100% already, HT doesn't make it so the processor can run at over 100% capacity. It just helps it run more efficently.

I switched from Intel to AMD in the P3 days. I had a P3 600, and built my bro a Duron 600. When I saw his Duron almost matching my P3 in almost everything, for 1/3 of the cost, I was sold.

I didn't try early P4s because of RAMBUS. I hate them still.

I haven't switched over now, because of price. The day that AMDs and Intels cost the same, is the day I will try Intel again. As long as I can get an AMD processor AND a motherboard for the same price as an Intel processor by itself, I'll go for it, no matter how "snappy" people say a P4 feels. (consequently, this is the same for SCSI. I'd love to get it, but when I can get 240 GB of space for less than the cost of 1 SCSI drive with 36 GB....)

 

[TerryMathews]

I'll never switch back to Intel till they pull their heads out of their asses and offer an inexpensive DP solution again.

Most of the things I do system-time wise are SMP enabled and are about 80% efficient regarding SMP. Which means I nearly double my performance with SMP.

I got a pair of Athlon XP 2100+s and an A7M266-D cheaper than you can buy an Intel DP board for.

Maybe Opteron will cause Intel to drop the price of their Xeons... Then I could get one of those DPI533s that supports FSB overclocking. Yum.

Too bad I'm poor, I'd love to play with 8GHz of power.

 

[lookouthere]

I have AMD Athlon 1ghz (did not overclocked because of ECS motherboard). It frozes every few mins. I am thinking about switching to Intel this summer. Hopefully I can get a good overclock chip.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: lookouthere
I have AMD Athlon 1ghz (did not overclocked because of ECS motherboard). It frozes every few mins. I am thinking about switching to Intel this summer. Hopefully I can get a good overclock chip.

If you don't have a high-quality power supply, try that first. A lot of people cheap out on the PSU and suffer the consequences. You can get an Antec TruePower 380 or 430 and that should be the last power supply you need to buy for several years

 

[lookouthere]

thanks

 

[wicktron]

I like both sides. I went from having a 1.6a @ 2.4 to a 1700+ at 2.3GHz to having a 2.4c at 3.3GHz. I could care less. I like to have fun with my systems.

 

[orion7144]

I like that statement. No bashing...

Originally posted by: wixt0r
I like both sides. I went from having a 1.6a @ 2.4 to a 1700+ at 2.3GHz to having a 2.4c at 3.3GHz. I could care less. I like to have fun with my systems.

 

[onza]

both serve its purposes..

Currently use INTEL, becaues my First pc was a sony vaio Pentium 2, never had a problem so i never went AMD.

I buy the part for 80.00 i can sell for like 75.00 thats for INTEL at least..

Anyways, both sides win in the long run. Both are great brands.

 

[Allio]

After using a P2-233 for a few years, I switched to a Duron 900 without even thinking. Why? I guess it was price, but I never even considered Intel as an option. Currently using an XP 1700+, and apart from the buggy motherboard revision I have, I love it

I can't say I wouldn't like a 3.06 P4, but with prices over $1000 NZ - the same price as a complete 2500+ system - I guess it'll have to wait till I score that job as CEO of BMW or something.

 

[Egrimm]

I don't religoiusly follow any of the two, I have used Intel for my main rigs lately but that was not because of the cpu but due to some bad experiences with a MSI Via-based mobo. Back then (a year ago) the 1.6A craze was on and I figured I might as well get 2.1Ghz (which seemed pretty certain) and more stability, hit 2.6 and was still much more stable than the Via-board and silent too as that chipset was a case heater (cpu hs didn't feel much hotter than the P4 but the chipset...)
Since then I've had several P4s but that was because I had a good mobo (P4B533-E), went through 4 P4s in a year but the year before I had 3 Athlons.

 

[holdencommodore]

Originally posted by: 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.

Same here... been using AMD since 486 DX2 66.......


Cheers

 

[anomaly]

Went from AMD 850 Tbird @ 950mhz - 2.4C @ 3.06ghz (250fsb is my max right now because of the ram I have using CH-5 chips on the abit ic7 don't work well)

 

[SinfulWeeper]

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.

Mhz for MHz they do cost the same with Intel getting the price break on their top end chips.

Now here comes the amount of work done per cycle

 

[wicktron]

I've never had stability problems with either platform. I'm in for the thrill of the overclock. After I'm done OC'ing, tweaking, and I close up my case, the system looks and feels the same for me.

 

[MemberSince97]

BuY a ChEeTaH 15k ThAtS WhErE YoU'lL sEe A pErFoRmAnCe BeNiFiT..............

 

[wicktron]

Originally posted by: MemberSince97
BuY a ChEeTaH 15k ThAtS WhErE YoU'lL sEe A pErFoRmAnCe BeNiFiT..............

Stop posting.

 

[onza]

Originally posted by: wixt0r

Originally posted by: MemberSince97
BuY a ChEeTaH 15k ThAtS WhErE YoU'lL sEe A pErFoRmAnCe BeNiFiT..............

Stop posting.

/me nods

 

[pillage2001]

Originally posted by: MemberSince97
BuY a ChEeTaH 15k ThAtS WhErE YoU'lL sEe A pErFoRmAnCe BeNiFiT..............

You can't type???


I just buy whichever is cheapest. AMD served me well for so long because of keeping the Socket A.

 

[AnImuS]

I got caught in the 800mhz hype and decided to try a P4. I went from an AMD Dual XP Cpu to a P4 2.4c 800mhz.
Im currently at 3.3 275FSB on stock voltage using an AX7 and Smartfan... Im currently running prime though no probs so far (2hrs)...

 

[Schadenfroh]

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

 

[Vonkhan]

the thrill of the overclock

seriously now ... com own down to WV and i'll take j00 whitewater rafter & parajumping!

 

[pelikan]

I expected to see a thread full of happy Intel converts here. I am under the impression that Intel currently holds the performance crown. I must admit I've been a little jealous of some of the overclocked rigs the Intel guys are running these days.