Help me in Choosing AMD or Intel

[wildting88]

I really don't know about AMDs all that much although I've read some good and bad things about them both in this forum. I am planning to upgrade my computer from a PIII 800 to either a P4 or an AMD XP/Athlon (?)...

Could you all post me some good links that talk about AMD v. Intel and ALSO, I would like your opinion on what I should go for and what reason. I use the computer mainly for Digital Video Editing, DVD Authoring, and Sound Editing.

I am leaning more towards the P4 right now just because I have only used Pentiums in my lifetime (22 years old). AND I already have my RDRam from my PIII that I would be able to use in the P4 but not the AMD one.

I have two friends that both disagree with each other but they cannot give me supergood reasons why I should get one or the other. My friend that likes Intel's Pentiums says that he tried an AMD a while back one time and it would not work with some of his "professional sound mixing" equipment.

Thanks.

Jason

 

[gerrick]

I'm a big Intel guy. if you want zero problems get a boxed Intel mobo and cpu. if you want all out speed and more money in your pocket and have time to tinker go with AMD. I would buy Intel.

 

[MoFunk]

Since you already have Rdram, go with the Intel. I am an AMD guy and always will be, but since you have the ram already that will be one less thing you need to get. And since you will pay double for the chip you will need the extra cash. By the way I have an Athlon 1600XP@1544 at home and a P4 1.8@1.9 at work right now and I can tell you that I see no difference in the 2. All benchmarks are pretty equal. The only thing is that my XP crunches a seti work unit in 3-4 hours and my Intel in about 5-6 hours. Plus I paid $120 for my chip and my Boss spent much much more for the Intel.

 

[Wolfsraider]

I own intel as well but both are good for different reasons

I choose intel because I like them,they are stable, straight forward, and are easy to maintain.

the same could be said for amd.

I don't own any amd's but did build one for a friend although it was a 900 athlon (new when it came out)it was a fast and very nice system.

there are many and varied reasons why some prefer amd or intel,that is a personal preference as both "get the job done.


link 1

link 2

link to more reading


this is an unbiased post so feel free to look at the info posted and make your own choices and feel free to ask as many direct questions as you need.



hope this helps

 

[Gov51]

amd better, same performance as intel but so much cheaper use the extra money to get a better video card or more ram

 

[GeForceG]

With AMD you can pertty much get the same or better preformance for much cheaper.
They both have pros and cons, but AMD are really proven better then Intel in many reviews and benchmarks.
I would go with AMD. The AthlonXP is a really great CPU.
Hope this helps.

 

[gunf1ghter]

I do agree that AMD is currently the best bang for the buck... I really like AMD chips, and am writing this on an AMD 1.33 gig Tbird, that has been running great from day 1.

On the other hand, AMD chips do require better cooling... a friend who was not totally stupid managed to cook his XP1500 chip with inadequate cooling.

 

[Duvie]

first, Is that rdram pc800 that ran with that p3??? If not scrap it and just get ddr-ram which still leaves opyions open for amd or intel...

secondly,

look at this way....

amd xp 2000+ = ~p4 2.0a northwood....

So currently the p4 has fastest processor but for a premium more....

If you want fast speed for good price but don't want to oc = amd xp

If you want to oc I can't see why not get a northwood at current and oc it to 2.2ghz and beyond. I can't argue as an amd owner it wouldn't be faster then the 2000+ you could buy. The p4 1.8a can and should reach 2.2 to 2.4, and for 200 bucks (athlon 2000+ xp is around 260). Also this can be achieved with a low audible retail fan as compared to the more expensive aftermarket fan it will take to really boost the athlon xp to levels to compete with just a 2.2ghz p4....


I love amd, but planning to go intel for the moment...may be back when hammers arrive...

Amd has slighltly lost me for the time being due to the fact the thoroughbred will be only coming as a .13micornadvance and not incorporate sse2 codes or 512kb cache. I see the only improvement will be lower temps so that they can ramp a bit more before they have to go to the hammer.

If the p4 1.8a was not so oc'able I wouldn't switch....however it is and in my mind the best bang for the buck...the northwood that is not just the 1.8a. The 1.6a is looking sweet as well....

 

[oldfart]

You can also go with a Northwood 1.6A. Put it on a 133 FSB = 2.13 GHz for cheap. This is the current hot OC setup. The other reason to go with Intel is for the excellent 845/850 chipsets from all the top mobo mfgrs. No VIA headaches.

 

[mrman3k]

Since I build systems with both AMD and Intel processors all the time for your job I would recommend if you want to get a dual Athlon MP setup with the Tyan Thunder K7 motherboard. It is rock stable and has incredible performance, I had to build one for a guy that is using it as a file server which he leaves on 24/7, and it has not crashed since he got it. I think both Intel and AMD are both very stable but the dual MP's will get you better performance for DV editing. Also get PC2700 or PC2400 memory even thought he motherboard only supports up to PC2100, but the extra bandwidth will match up closer to the 2100 spec.

Also, what type of RDRAM do you have, PC600 or PC800? If it is PC800 I would lean towards the 2.2GHz P4 since that will eliminate a good majority of the cost. But I would recommend keeping your P3 system as another system and then build a whole new one. If you have any questions post em and I can hopefully answer.

 

[trisweb]

Well... isn't this the hot topic these days. Like everyone has said before me here, they each have their advantages. I, personally, have always been an AMD fan for many reasons, one of the biggest being that I like giving my business to the little company. It's like buying hardware (like wood and stuff, not soundcards and stuff) at the little hometown store rather than at Lowes or Home depot... you know. Intel is going to be around anyway, they have a huge portion of the market. The way I see it, the competition will bring prices down and invoke further innovation.

But I wouldn't buy AMD if they made crappy processors -- which they don't. They have an excellent product. It is slightly cheaper, but it does require better cooling; the RAM costs less, but the RAM is slower; I could go on. But I could do the same for Intel. I believe it is a matter of personal choice. And heck, with today's applications, any processor over a gigahertz is not going to feel slow or lacking. And when you get up over 1.5 ghz, you probably won't notice any difference in your day to day computing experience. So unless you are doing very processor intensive work, or gaming, either processor will do fine.

AMD I like because they are the underdog, and they have a good product, and it's cheaper, and it's fast, and they have a lot of potential for great new processors (like x86-64 ), and I like their web page design better than intel's. There's the extent of my mind for you...

 

[pressureEze]

<< I'm a big Intel guy. if you want zero problems get a boxed Intel mobo and cpu. if you want all out speed and more money in your pocket and have time to tinker go with AMD. I would buy Intel. >>



Quick question, what sort of tinkering are you talking about with the AMD systems? Is there something they require other than a 4 in 1 driver? I've seen people mention this numerous times around here and I've built about a dozen AMD systems in the last year that didn't require "tinkering". Am I missing something?

I've also noticed many people mention that the AMD needs more expensive cooling. 10 of the 12 systems I built used the stock coolermaster HSU and I've not had a single problem. Am I missing something here as well?

 

[PinkPanther]

i just ditched intel for amd 1800+, i would have to say AMD has done a hell of a job with XP chips. Buy amd, you will be surprised

 

[KouklatheCat]

pressureEze,

I was gonna make the same comment. I have not had to tinker with ANY of my AMD systems. My 66 Mustang, yeah I have to tinker with that. Oh and meebee the occasional case mod or cool gadget for my case. Other then that I don't have to do anything to my AMD system other then hit the keys on the keyboard, move the mouse etc........

I switched from Intel to AMD back when the 750 Athlon was the hot ticket. I am very pleased, I would recommend the AMD processor.

 

[KK]

I'd have to vote for a 1.6A Northwood. Right now I don't see anything that matches price/performance once you O/C it to atleast 2.1Ghz. Couple of weeks ago I woulda have said get the AMD XP. Plus since you have the RDRAM you can get a decent 850 chipset and be all set.
Anyone have this setup yet? How well does it O/C with the 850 chipset?

KK

 

[Wolfsraider]

apples and oranges lol


PinkPanther




<< just ditched intel for amd 1800+, i would have to say AMD has done a hell of a job with XP chips. Buy amd, you will be surprised >>



but you left out a very important piece of data what processor was the intel?

if it was p-3 then this is a good reason to upgrade but not to argue speed differences
if it was p-4 then wow! benches please and again what processor?

either way both are great processors but lets keep comparisons at least on a similar scale and include processor sizes so we wont have to guess or use our imaginations lol

 

[w9design]

I had an Athlon 1200@1333, it was pretty stable, but Athlons run SO hot compared to P4 its not even funny. My system sounded like a jet engine taking off.

Three days ago I bought an Intel P4 1.6A and an Asus P4B266 motherboard. I could not be happier. My system is more stable than my AMD system, quieter, and running a good 8-10C cooler. How fast? See my signature.

My little stint with AMD wasn't bad at all -- it would certainly not be a bad choice to go with an Athlon XP at all. But the sheer ease of assembly of this intel setup was amazing. I had the thing put together in 10 minutes. With the Athlon, you have the fear of frying or cracking your core by putting the heatsink on wrong. With intel, you just click it on and flip the levers. Good design at work.

However, P4 performance per clock isn't much to write home about. DDR memory at high bus speeds offers limited bandwidth compared to RDRAM, but it's harder to get an RDRAM system to overclock as high.

5 days ago I would have said go with the Athlon for price/performance. But now that I got an Intel 2.56GHz setup for $350, the crown goes to Intel, in my opinion.

Bottom line, you can't go wrong with either option. Both have strengths and weaknesses, but both are still good choices. Both are stable, both are fast. I've had both and I prefer Intel, but I know there are more than a few out there who favor AMD.

 

[mrman3k]

If you switch from an AMD to Intel system and you say the Intel is more stable, I have a few questions for you. First, did you reinstall Windows and all of the other software, because maybe it is just me but that seems to help make a system faster and more stable. Second, unless you are overclocking a standard aluminum heatsink with a quiet fan will be plenty to keep the AMD cool and stable. However if you decide to overclock then you will need the Swiftech or Alpha.

 

[pressureEze]

<< I had an Athlon 1200@1333, it was pretty stable, but Athlons run SO hot compared to P4 its not even funny. My system sounded like a jet engine taking off.
>>



So AMD is at fault because you decided to use a loud fan? That's like complaining that chevys run loud after you throw a performance exhaust system on your camaro

.

Point blank, the Athlon chips were designed to be able to run hotter. Why would you as an end user possibly care what the temp is if it's perfectly stable?



<< But the sheer ease of assembly of this intel setup was amazing. I had the thing put together in 10 minutes. With the Athlon, you have the fear of frying or cracking your core by putting the heatsink on wrong. With intel, you just click it on and flip the levers. Good design at work. >>



Now your just being silly. There's plenty of heatsinks that clip right on AMD chips. If you can assemble a whole PC from scratch, you should be able to manage getting a heat sink attached without being nervous. If you can't, you shouldn't be building a PC...

 

[Jerboy]

<< I really don't know about AMDs all that much although I've read some good and bad things about them both in this forum. I am planning to upgrade my computer from a PIII 800 to either a P4 or an AMD XP/Athlon (?)...

Could you all post me some good links that talk about AMD v. Intel and ALSO, I would like your opinion on what I should go for and what reason. I use the computer mainly for Digital Video Editing, DVD Authoring, and Sound Editing.

I am leaning more towards the P4 right now just because I have only used Pentiums in my lifetime (22 years old). AND I already have my RDRam from my PIII that I would be able to use in the P4 but not the AMD one.

I have two friends that both disagree with each other but they cannot give me supergood reasons why I should get one or the other. My friend that likes Intel's Pentiums says that he tried an AMD a while back one time and it would not work with some of his "professional sound mixing" equipment.

Thanks.

Jason >>




What is your preferred choice:

1. utmost reliability, maximum compatibity, acceptance among corporate users, price and performance at low priority

2. cost performance at most priority, speed and speed!

?

Go with Intel if you prefer "1". Many hardwares are designed and tested on Intel machines. There is no solid evidence showing how much Intel is more stable than AMD, but I'd think genuine system such as Intel would be more compatible than compatible systems such as AMD or Cyrix since everything is designed on Intel Inside®. Furthermore get a pre-built system like Dell or Compaq. The components in there has been tested for compatibility with eachother.


1. AMD's are gaining popularity within home users.

2. Corporate users, gov't, municipal, education still prefers Intel. Corporate users often use pre-built server from Sun Microsystems, Dell, Compaq and they seldom use systems built from parts by oh-I-know-so-well-about-computers employees.

 

[pressureEze]

<<
There is no solid evidence showing how much Intel is more stable than AMD, but I'd think genuine system such as Intel would be more compatible than compatible systems such as AMD or Cyrix since everything is designed on Intel Inside®. Furthermore get a pre-built system like Dell or Compaq. The components in there has been tested for compatibility with eachother.
>>



Wow, I didn't think people were still stuck with this perception. I thought you were joking for a second. Just listen to how ridiculous this is. You readily admit that "There is no solid evidence showing how much Intel is more stable than AMD" and yet you quote intel's marketing slogan as the reason you are willing to believe something that has absolutely no proof. Please tell me that this opinion is in the minority around here?

 

[imgod2u]

Well......you already have the RDRAM. Seems kinda a waste to buy whole new RAM (unless you only got 64MB of it or something). If you're planning on buying top of the line and not overclocking, ya the Athlon would make more sense. Stock speeds are comparable to the top of the line Northwood but a lot cheaper. If you are gonna overclock, it's less easy to choose. Since the P4 2.0 GHz Northwood retails for $300 as opposed to the AthlonXP 1.67GHz (no, I won't use the stupid PR system! ) which sells for $257 on pricewatch. That's not that much of a difference especially considering you're getting a very good retail fan/heatsink with the P4. The 1.8 GHz Northwood sells for around $200 as oppose to $192 on pricewatch for an AthlonXP 1.6 GHz. An even less difference considering how much more you can overclock the Northwood.

In the end, you won't be disappointed with either from a performance standpoint. As far as stability, I've known many Athlon/Via or SiS or ALi systems that have been completely problem free. However, I've also known those combinations to be nightmares. On the other hand I've not had any problems with any Intel solutions I've put together (except for 2 a while ago based on the i820 chipset). But they were relatively minor problems. It's not that big of a risk as far as problems with an Athlon solution and honestly, it has been blown way out of proportion. I can't suggest what you should get, but I've been on Intel chipsets since my first computer and have not had one problem so I'm sticking with it. Maybe if I tried a different chipset I may think they're just as good, but I'm stubborn

 

[w9design]

I'm going to go ahead and respond to a few naysayers:



<< If you switch from an AMD to Intel system and you say the Intel is more stable, I have a few questions for you. First, did you reinstall Windows and all of the other software, because maybe it is just me but that seems to help make a system faster and more stable. Second, unless you are overclocking a standard aluminum heatsink with a quiet fan will be plenty to keep the AMD cool and stable. >>



Believe me, I reinstalled Windows more times than I can count on the AMD system. Having to deal with the various 4-in-1 versions, not to mention keeping my SBLive behaving, was a pain. When it was set up with all the right drivers and patches, it ran perfectly stable. It's just getting it there that's tricky.



<< So AMD is at fault because you decided to use a loud fan? That's like complaining that chevys run loud after you throw a performance exhaust system on your camaro .
>>



Well, actually I didn't decide to use the loud fan. AMD did. I used the retail heatsink, and for some reason AMD decided to use a 60x15mm Delta on it. Was it unbearably loud? No. But I could turn off all other fans in my system (well except the PSU fan of course, which is really quiet) and I could hear the fan noise in the next room.



<< Point blank, the Athlon chips were designed to be able to run hotter. >>



True statement. But if they are designed to be able to run hotter, why is there no clock throttling or other protection against CPU overheat? I worked in a local computer retail store over the summer, and the sheer number of fried CPUs coming back was astonishing. Easily 3-4 cracked or burned CPUs per day. And this is a relatively low-volume store. It tapered off later on when people started to learn how to install heatsinks properly, but most of this could have been avoided if AMD had implemented clock throttling or CPU shut-down at a given temperature.



<< There's plenty of heatsinks that clip right on AMD chips. If you can assemble a whole PC from scratch, you should be able to manage getting a heat sink attached without being nervous. If you can't, you shouldn't be building a PC... >>



Last I checked, ALL AMD heatsinks clip right on the sockets (well, except the ones like the 8045 that use the mounting holes on the motherboard). Truth be told I've never damaged an AMD CPU during installation, and I've built 2 Athlon systems for myself and I built around 10-12 at the store I worked at. But to the new computer enthusiast who's not keeping up with forums or other communication, odds are he will screw up his build in some way. Likely, he'd improperly install the heatsink on the Athlon, and we all know the results of that. The P4 is brainless to install. Even if you do manage to improperly install it, you're not going to fry it. Now to the average AnandTech member like you and me, this isn't a big deal at all. I never said it was. And you're right, such a person probably shouldn't be building a PC. But such a person might choose to do so without consulting someone such as yourself.

Regardless I stand by my statements, which I will recap since a couple seem to have been skewed a bit:
1) AMD is much faster, clock for clock, though and Intel P4 on a 0.13u process can be overclocked extremely far, and as a result would perform better.
2) Intel machines run considerably cooler, and tend to be quieter.
3) You are far more likely to damage an AMD CPU during or as a result of improper installation than an Intel CPU.
4) It is generally easier to set up a P4 system.
5) Once you get everything cooperating on an AMD setup, it will be just about as stable as an Intel setup. Getting it there is the challenge, and much of this stems from VIA chipsets.

 

[Jerboy]

<<
Wow, I didn't think people were still stuck with this perception. I thought you were joking for a second. Just listen to how ridiculous this is. You readily admit that "There is no solid evidence showing how much Intel is more stable than AMD" and yet you quote intel's marketing slogan as the reason you are willing to believe something that has absolutely no proof. Please tell me that this opinion is in the minority around here? >>



No there is no solid evidence, but I know that many softwares and hardwares are designed on Intel architecture and I would think there will be less issues when used on something it was designed on than compatible replacement... When you're doing something mission critical you'd want that peace of mind.

 

[DataChief]

AMD all the way. Faster, always, and MUCH cheaper. Just get a nice stable board and you'll be fine. Run win2k and not XP too, that can help, XP sucks