fishmonger12
Senior member
oh yeah, and what you just quoted was sarcasm 😉
-
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.
Buying New System
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Confusednewbie1552
Golden Member
I don't see why there's anything wrong with buying a Dell in your case. The Dell might actually be a bit cheaper, I don't know, but check and see. If you want to have fun and build a system and go ahead. Otherwise if you just want to get a computer for a cheap price that can play games then that Dell you mentioned is a very good choice. It all dpends on whether you want to build or not. I strongly recommend for you to go to www.newegg.com and make an identical system to the Dell one and see which one is cheaper, then ask yourself if you want to get this over with or just have fun and make a computer.
As far as I know the Athlon 64 runs less hot than the prescott Pentium 4's. The Athlon 64's are faster than the Pentium 4 in everything except encoding/decoding video and I remember reading something back then that now with Socket 939 the Athlon 64 is faster than the Pentium 4 in everything. I'm not sure about overclocking, but I believe they both can achieve awesome overclocks and still be stable. My Athlon 64 is stable. My first one got all messed up because I was being an idiot. I've owned both Intel and AMD Cpus and they're both awesome, but this time around, unless your buying the Dell, go get an Athlon 64.
As far as I know the Athlon 64 runs less hot than the prescott Pentium 4's. The Athlon 64's are faster than the Pentium 4 in everything except encoding/decoding video and I remember reading something back then that now with Socket 939 the Athlon 64 is faster than the Pentium 4 in everything. I'm not sure about overclocking, but I believe they both can achieve awesome overclocks and still be stable. My Athlon 64 is stable. My first one got all messed up because I was being an idiot. I've owned both Intel and AMD Cpus and they're both awesome, but this time around, unless your buying the Dell, go get an Athlon 64.
Terumo, you do realize the system app benchmarks are synthetic, right?
You sir, are funny. You do realize Prescott runs MUCH warmer than Athlon 64 right? I don't know how Xeons/Itaniums compare to Opteron processors, but since the OP isn't building a server, the point is pretty much moot.
OP: If you're building a system right now, there really is no reason to use anything but AMD. They've been equal with or ahead of Intel all year in everything but office aps and media encoding. For gaming, CAD, everything else, it's Athlon 64 for sure. They also consume less power, give off less heat, and beat Intel in price/performance on the mid to low end (high end procs are pretty much equal in price).
I say go AMD.
You sir, are funny. You do realize Prescott runs MUCH warmer than Athlon 64 right? I don't know how Xeons/Itaniums compare to Opteron processors, but since the OP isn't building a server, the point is pretty much moot.
OP: If you're building a system right now, there really is no reason to use anything but AMD. They've been equal with or ahead of Intel all year in everything but office aps and media encoding. For gaming, CAD, everything else, it's Athlon 64 for sure. They also consume less power, give off less heat, and beat Intel in price/performance on the mid to low end (high end procs are pretty much equal in price).
I say go AMD.
What the? Keep it simple?
478, 915, 925, 775, 910, 875, 865
Some of those are Intel Sockets. Some of those are intel chipsets. I doubt the layman or advice seeker, such as the OP, can distinguish easily. To say nothing of Intel's processor suffixs (C,E,J, etc.) and of course their famed "variants" (extreme edition et al).
If I had to hedge bets, I'd say Intel is more complicated on the desktop by far. AMD is no angel - IT companies usually aren't - but I think it'd be much easier to avoid compatibility problems.
CheesePoofs
Diamond Member
I agree with that completely.
Terumo: I have no idea where you got the idea that AMD's run hotter than intels, but it is completely wrong. Look at this comparison of power usage. These numbers are for the whole system power draw, not just CPU, but were taken with the intent of comparing the power usage of different CPU's, because all the other factors are the same between systems. The intel system draws much more power than the AMD ones, and that power is translated into heat.
The system apps benches are synthetic for all processors. There really is no practical method to benchmark actual app software. So yes, the AMD system app benches are synthetic as well.
*nix has no place on the PC.
But we'll get to that some other time. Where's the fight you're talking about? Apparently, you're turning this into more than it is. The OP asked for advice, and you posted some misinformation, either mistakenly or otherwise. We're just setting the record straight.
:shrug:
AMD Chips are avoided in servers?
You could have fooled me!
IBM, HP, Sun all sell Servers based on Opteron.
It also appears that Opteron processors outsold Itanium processors TEN TO ONE quarter 2 '04. This is why we're in here - it's not an AMD/Intel thing, it's the fact that you really need to get your facts straight.
No offense, but the string of infractions here is getting pretty long. Granted, Itanium is at a different price point to Itanium, and it's true competition is Xeon, but that's beside the point. People are buying Opterons - a lot of them - in server form.
You could have fooled me!
IBM, HP, Sun all sell Servers based on Opteron.
It also appears that Opteron processors outsold Itanium processors TEN TO ONE quarter 2 '04. This is why we're in here - it's not an AMD/Intel thing, it's the fact that you really need to get your facts straight.
No offense, but the string of infractions here is getting pretty long. Granted, Itanium is at a different price point to Itanium, and it's true competition is Xeon, but that's beside the point. People are buying Opterons - a lot of them - in server form.
Which makes it a cut-off-at-the-knees response. For that line of thinking hurts AMD more. If they're all synthetic and not worthy of consideration, then all the system pushes are fruitless (especially for bragging rights, as the 3DMark and such scores are inaccurate to start).
What a nasty downhill ride that is. :/
I'm not going to touch that with a 10 foot pole!
Actually it's more than a fight, considering you're defending AMD itself. First trying to cut the benchies down (but also eliminating the bragging rights of AMDers in the process). Now claiming "where's the fight"?
It was bound to come up with these decisions between Intel vs. AMD. You didn't fall off a turnip truck yesterday about this l-o-n-g history, right?
Actually it's not disinformation. It's very true. Run an AMD chip stock against a P4 stock (you'd love to use a Prescott) and get the temp readings. Which one is hotter, again?
Likewise. 🙂
All synthetics are best taken with a grain of salt. However, real benchmarks, such as those garnered from game apps, CAD apps, content creation apps (3DS Max, etc.), are the real deal. But the Winstone suite? Keep it at arm's length.
I believe this was already answered:
I don't know how many times we're going to have to point it out to you, but Prescott runs much warmer than Winchester. Being that those are the most recent cores from each manufacturer (and what the OP would be choosing from in a newly built system) I think this is a valid comparison.
On the temps issue (I'm staying out of most of the rest...):
Yes, an Athlon XP may have temps hotter than Northwoods or about the same as Prescotts, but A64s run cooler than all of those. It's a well-known fact; search for justification.
As for the sales thing: Pointless argument.
On synthetic benchmarks: The bragging rights of AMD buyers aren't cut into when throwing out these inaccurate tests; AMD has been proven the better performer in applications where you can make a direct measurement of "real-world" performance, like games.
Yes, an Athlon XP may have temps hotter than Northwoods or about the same as Prescotts, but A64s run cooler than all of those. It's a well-known fact; search for justification.
As for the sales thing: Pointless argument.
On synthetic benchmarks: The bragging rights of AMD buyers aren't cut into when throwing out these inaccurate tests; AMD has been proven the better performer in applications where you can make a direct measurement of "real-world" performance, like games.
Confusednewbie1552
Golden Member
Umm Terumo, just pointing this out, but you are being more offensive than Insomniak, they are just proving why you are wrong, with accurate links and reasons. I'm not trying to start an argument, but please don't be a hipocrit.
Edit: Let's try and give the OP some advice please.
Edit: Let's try and give the OP some advice please.
Irrelevant and off topic. You asked why the Opterons weren't being embraced. The sales figures clearly show that they are. That's the end of that discussion.
Now you're trying to open a new can of worms about who has more processors in servers in the field. That would be Intel, as everyone knows. This is for a number of reasons, but the big two are this:
1) For a long time, Intel's server processors were much stronger than offerings from everyone else from a price/performance standpoint.
2) Advertising influence. Intel gets a lot more media coverage, and continue to sell a lot more processors because of it.
And you're right - prior to the K8 architecture Intel's processors were cooler and better performing than AMDs offerings...prior to K8. Things are reversed now. Does that make Intel a bad choice? Not at all. They still make very competitive processors. But if I have a choice between cake and cake with icing for the same price...
I don't know how many times I have to say to you: I never mentioned Prescotts either.
You want to compare AMDs with the hottest Pentium 4s on the market, then compare that P4s are hot and underrated (would be considering the cache too).
So disinformation is abound. Nice try, but no cigar. 😛
You want to compare AMDs with the hottest Pentium 4s on the market, then compare that P4s are hot and underrated (would be considering the cache too).
So disinformation is abound. Nice try, but no cigar. 😛
Confusednewbie1552
Golden Member
Sorry, but i Have to say this! Icing sucks!!! 😛
So what? This thread is about building a new home PC - a well planned, properly built home-use PC assembled tomorrow will be using one of four cores: Prescott, Northwood, Newcastle, Winchester.
The AMD cores in that batch do run cooler than the Intel cores. If you go back to Athlon XP versus Northwood, the roles are reversed. But if you're building a PC tomorrow and you're using an Athlon XP processor in it, or a Northwood processor below 3.0Ghz, the PC is not well planned - hence the qualifier.
I want to compare the most recent core from AMD with the most recent core from Intel. Nothing more. Matching them up any other way wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison and would result in (ta da!) more misinformation.
I don't see how. I've posted numerous links to reliable sources to back my claims. From you, we have rhetoric.
Give me some beef, and maybe I'll consider putting some merit in your claims....until then...no thanks....
Well back to the issue at hand (hehe).
I'm leaning towards the Dell simply because it includes the warranty, software, tech support and because he'll be in another state so I won't be around to help him.
I've actually come to around $1500 myself using newegg without any software, warranties...although the CPU and Mobo I chose were better than what dell had, I think overall it would be safer to go with Dell.
My only issue is that everyone I know who's bought a dell, hp, etc somehow got screwed out of something.
what do you guys think? and no im not buying a server and im not overclocking...
I'm leaning towards the Dell simply because it includes the warranty, software, tech support and because he'll be in another state so I won't be around to help him.
I've actually come to around $1500 myself using newegg without any software, warranties...although the CPU and Mobo I chose were better than what dell had, I think overall it would be safer to go with Dell.
My only issue is that everyone I know who's bought a dell, hp, etc somehow got screwed out of something.
what do you guys think? and no im not buying a server and im not overclocking...
Confusednewbie1552
Golden Member
All the Dells I have have worked fine, but maybe i'm lucky.
OverVolt
Lifer
I don't agree with terumo at all, stability, 110F where is all this comming from? My most stable rig is an AMD, and it's a 22% overclock. I would like to know what makes AMD so inheriently unstable.
Buying a cpu based purely on applications benchies? like that has any real-world value? your contradicting yourself.
Anyway i don't feel like argueing but there is a TON of misinformation, and your fighting this to the death. The last time AMD had a heat problem that i can remember was with the 1.3TBird making lots of heat, or around the 1Ghz range athlon palimino cores and their thermal protection failing, that was about 4 years ago. The Athlon XP's did run hot, but far under 100w, nothing that would require durastic measures. Where does water cooling come in? why did you even mention it?
And with more webservers using P4/Xeon, what are we supposed to be looking for? I don't think that matters for this guy who wants a gaming PC, just....?????
stop the ninja parade.
Buying a cpu based purely on applications benchies? like that has any real-world value? your contradicting yourself.
Anyway i don't feel like argueing but there is a TON of misinformation, and your fighting this to the death. The last time AMD had a heat problem that i can remember was with the 1.3TBird making lots of heat, or around the 1Ghz range athlon palimino cores and their thermal protection failing, that was about 4 years ago. The Athlon XP's did run hot, but far under 100w, nothing that would require durastic measures. Where does water cooling come in? why did you even mention it?
And with more webservers using P4/Xeon, what are we supposed to be looking for? I don't think that matters for this guy who wants a gaming PC, just....?????
stop the ninja parade.
update...i went to customize the dell and ended up going over $2000 so looks like its back to plan A especially since im at $1200+tax without the case/monitor at newegg.
i figure its better to get the monitor and case locally since shipping costs are high for those items.
i figure its better to get the monitor and case locally since shipping costs are high for those items.
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: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
