AMD vs. INTEL

[edux]

I was thinking about building a new pc. I was searching to see if it was worth investing in an AMD processor, since i have never had one before, and was trying to find comparisions (preferably graphs) between amd and intel processors with 64-bit and maybe dual procesor (not sure if i´m ready to invest that kinda of cash, no more than $250 in a procesor). Through my searches i also saw that amd mother boards don't use ddr2 ram, so i was also wondering when the were going to introduce a motherboard with that capcity. If posible plz post any suggestions or comments, motherboards and processors that you consider optimal for a gaming pc.

Thx.

 

[0roo0roo]

? intel used to be on top long ago, but they've never had bang for buck. for a while they atleast had the best performance at the high end, but now they've lost even that. theres no good reason to buy intel right now. go to firingsquad anandtech tomshardware sharkyextreme arstechnica hardocp or wherever you want for benchmarks. the athlon 64's and such just beat intel. they will switch to ddr2 soon enough, but it doesn't matter as ddr2 has no benifit right now, its no faster because it has higher latency,, thats why amd can still beat intels chips using just ddr. it will be quite a while before the clock speeds ramp up enough for ddr2 to make a difference. so don't worry about it.

 

[biostud]

click links in sig

 

[DaveSimmons]

Click the CPU tab on the main AnandTech website. Read the benchmarks for the things you want to do.

For office applications, benchmarks mean nothing since anything you'd buy is 2-4 times as fast as you need for good performance.

For games, AMD is unquestionably the better value and is much faster than intel.

 

[mwmorph]

AMD beats intl in basically 85% of the benchmarks. Intel works better if you run pi calcualtions/pcmark/some specific encoding/deconding apps all day but for most everything else, AMD si king, even with the "Slow" DDR1 ram. AMD has a on board memory controller so ram speed/latency dosrent really affect it. DDR2 is not needed and the performance of the upcoming AMD M2 socket(qwhich is a 939 socket with 1 more pin and DDR2 support) realyl wont increase performance much due to tme memory bandwith being increased.

Intel is not worth your money.

For ~$300 get a opteron 165 for overclocking or a X2 3800 for non overclocking.
for ~250, get a 3700+ San diego
for ~200, get a 3500+ venince
for ~150, get a 3200+ venice

as for motherboards, asus are very well rounded performance, overclock and stability wise.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131524

for ram, get value ram, and at least 1gb (512mb x 2 for dual channel) but preferably 2gb(1gb x 2). Value rma is fine, dont get "overclocking" pc4200 ram or low latency ram since it will not increase performance that much for the higher price. The difference between ultra low latency cas 2 and cas 3 is ~0-.5% in 90% of applications that are synthetic benchamrks.

 

[pkme2]

I've used AMD ever since Day 1. Back in the days of Cyrix CPUs, remember?
It was a welcome reprieve from Intel's high prices. Intel was almost twice as much.
For starters, anyone could afford a computer system.
AMD made it possible to have one and still have money left over for software.
Even today, AMD has always come up with better CPUs at reasonable prices.
My main rig has always been AMD. I just built a Linux Athlon x64 because it was affordable.
My next upgrade will be my graphic machine.
AMD surely beats Intel.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: edux
I was thinking about building a new pc. I was searching to see if it was worth investing in an AMD processor, since i have never had one before, and was trying to find comparisions (preferably graphs) between amd and intel processors with 64-bit and maybe dual procesor (not sure if i´m ready to invest that kinda of cash, no more than $250 in a procesor). Through my searches i also saw that amd mother boards don't use ddr2 ram, so i was also wondering when the were going to introduce a motherboard with that capcity. If posible plz post any suggestions or comments, motherboards and processors that you consider optimal for a gaming pc.

Thx.

If you don't want to spend more than $250 on a CPU, dual-core isn't an option (you can get an Intel D 820 for that price, but it's a poor performer and makes an absurd amount of heat).

Your DDR concerns are unfounded. It has been discussed many, many times before, but the short version is that DDR2 has a little more bandwidth but also has a little more latancy. Get 1GB for an modern Intel machine and you're paying about $180 for 2x512MB DDR2800 with a latency of 4 or 5. Get 1GB for a modern AMD machine and you're paying about $80 for 2x512MB DDR400 with a latency of 2.5.

If AMD systems are faster anyway, shouldn't you just be happy that the memory costs less?

AMD will stop using DDR when they stop using Socket 939, but this really shouldn't be a factor in your buying decision. There are much more important things to consider.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: pkme2
I've used AMD ever since Day 1. Back in the days of Cyrus CPUs, remember?
It was a welcome reprieve from Intel's high prices. Intel was almost twice as much.
For starters, anyone could afford a computer system.
AMD made it possible to have one and still have money left over for software.
Even today, AMD has always come up with better CPUs at reasonable prices.
My main rig has always been AMD. I just built a Linux Athlon x64 because it was affordable.
My next upgrade will be my graphic machine.
AMD surely beats Intel.

No, but I remember Cyrix CPUs. I also remember AMD processors that you could fry an egg on and needed a peltier cooler to overclock by 10%. Those old K5's ran hot, performed poorly, and essentially shipped overclocked. The K6 was good and the K7 was great, but there's no need to go on some old-school AMD and Linux rant. Why even mention Linux? That's just swinging around your elitest uber-geekness. AMD had a rough start, and saying that you always preferred them to Intel destroys your credability.

 

[alimoalem]

don't get an intel. if you want dual core, it can be had for around $300 (x2 3800 or opteron 165) or get the amd 3700+ single core. you can also consider the opteron 146

 

[pkme2]

If you could afford Intel, good for you. Never had any problems with AMD and it performed without any problems like overheating. Used every model of AMD and they were reliable. Could upgrade processors because they were affordable. Intel has the overheating problem now, so AMD is the better choice?!!

 

[ForumMaster]

Intel sucks. just go see benchmarks. here is a link to overclocking X2 systems. look here about Opteron 165.
anyway, look at the benchmarks in any hardware review site, and u'll c that AMD wins.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Tostada

Originally posted by: pkme2
I've used AMD ever since Day 1. Back in the days of Cyrus CPUs, remember?
It was a welcome reprieve from Intel's high prices. Intel was almost twice as much.
For starters, anyone could afford a computer system.
AMD made it possible to have one and still have money left over for software.
Even today, AMD has always come up with better CPUs at reasonable prices.
My main rig has always been AMD. I just built a Linux Athlon x64 because it was affordable.
My next upgrade will be my graphic machine.
AMD surely beats Intel.

No, but I remember Cyrix CPUs. I also remember AMD processors that you could fry an egg on and needed a peltier cooler to overclock by 10%. Those old K5's ran hot, performed poorly, and essentially shipped overclocked. The K6 was good and the K7 was great, but there's no need to go on some old-school AMD and Linux rant. Why even mention Linux? That's just swinging around your elitest uber-geekness. AMD had a rough start, and saying that you always preferred them to Intel destroys your credability.

yea i had one of those k6's, but even then they were still rather poor..for gaming they were just weak. ok windows processors though. once the athlon came intel was in trouble though. and supporting intel? i'd rather not. before amd came along and became a credible threat intel could charge as much as they wanted to..and they did.