If intel is so popular and they "allegedly" have the best cpu's then why...

[btbam]

Then why all I hear from every forum is AMD cpu's...


what does amd have thats so much better than intel, other than price wise. I know they can be found a little cheaper.

But like eveyone raves about oc'n to 2.2 with an amd, why dont they just go out and get a 3.2 P4.



These questions are just things I've always wondered, they don't reflect my opinions of either brand

 

[DAPUNISHER]

This just boils down to another AMD vs Intel thread which has been done to death already If you are reading all the forums then you should know why everyone is a buzz about AMD. If not then use the search function and you will get all the opinions, data, and testimonials on the topic you could hope for. No offense but this thread has no place positive to go, and can only bring the zealots in with flame throwers lit so here is my attempt to throw water on it before it can turn into a conflagration.

 

[jbh129]

Dont forget that Intel must be better because their chips have higher numbers.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
This just boils down to another AMD vs Intel thread which has been done to death already If you are reading all the forums then you should know why everyone is a buzz about AMD. If not then use the search function and you will get all the opinions, data, and testimonials on the topic you could hope for. No offense but this thread has no place positive to go, and can only bring the zealots in with flame throwers lit so here is my attempt to throw water on it before it can turn into a conflagration.

For your throwing of water, I offer another refreshing beverage.

:beer:

- M4H

 

[bobsmith1492]

Basically, AMD processors do more per clock cycle, therefore they don't need to run as fast 'megahurtzally' to be as fast actually.

 

[Atrye]

Originally posted by: jbh129
Dont forget that Intel must be better because their chips have higher numbers.

I hope you aren't serious.. lol

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Basically, AMD processors do more per clock cycle, therefore they don't need to run as fast 'megahurtzally' to be as fast actually.

This is absolutely correct. The AMD CPUs have much shorter pipelines than the Intel CPUs. This means that each thing an AMD processor does has less 'stages' to go through than on an Intel. Because of this, the AMD CPU can pump work through much more quickly (per clock cycle) than an Intel.

Overall, we come out to a competetive market...

AMD:
Short pipeline
Slower clock speeds

Intel:
Longer pipeline
Faster clock speed (needed to push data through this longer pipeline)

 

[Duvie]

They each have their strengths but for the current time and near future AMD has the fastest overall cpus. Intel is dealing with heat issues as well..Price is almost a no show anymore as in some cases the intel cpu is better priced....

The whole cpu market is stagnant in my opinion and will stay this way until next year and whn software dictates we need a lot of these advances. Either flagship or near top of the line cpu will in most all instances satisfy your every need, with items such as vid cards having more to do with most og the heavy pc gamers in this forum. Difference are still tight in many areas in near neglible on most.

Pipelines and MHZ are just the different routes and architecture each manufacture took. In the end it appears Intel route may have finally shown it was the wrong route technically as the ceiling has been hit, however in the marketing world it made sense to the majority moron in the world. In the end each will be going to dual core and quite more similar architectures. 64bit and onchip memory controllers have been great advances by Amd, as well as Hyperthreading by Intel.

 

[AMDbloke]

noob!

 

[AMDbloke]

Originally posted by: jbh129
Dont forget that Intel must be better because their chips have higher numbers.

LOL

 

[imported_Mitchell]

Intel has to be faster cause they run hotter!

 

[JSt0rm]

I was watching fox news and they talked about intel losing high end market share to amd so I DONT think that the normal consumer still thinks intel is the top dog. I'm running intel now and have but I think with the maturity of the nforce chipset and a64 I will be coming over next time around.

 

[Thermalrock]

dont forget the coolness factor. at college a girl told me she wants a new comp, i told her im getting one as well. she asked me what kind. i told her an athlon she was like 'huh? whats that?', said she never heard off that and that she did inform herself tho and to prove it said shell be getting a pentium 4 3400 with 512 mb ram a 120gb harddisk and a 8x dvd writer. had i told her ill get a 3.8ghz p4 with 1024 mb 4 300gb hdds anda 16x dvd writer she woulda been jealous.

 

[btbam]

Originally posted by: jbh129
Dont forget that Intel must be better because their chips have higher numbers.

no siR..

 

[Nixsun]

Does anybody have any links to benchmark tests for the Intel -vs- AMD war?

I have always used Intel, but I am considering switching to AMD pending...

AMD PCI-e??? 2005??
64bit applications??? What are the advantages of running 64bit windows, are there any other applications that are supported?

PCI-e is a big one for me, I may be sticking with Intel for this reason alone. I know AMD has it in the works, but I need something now.

I have to ask, AMD and Intel performance seems to be a wash, and if there is any gap it is very small. Although I would love to see some current benchmarks comparing to the new LG P4's to the AMD 64.

So than I have to ask, why AMD? and for those who choose intel why?

Flamer = homosexual, remember that!

 

[ZobarStyl]

Please Do Not Feed the Trolls.


Use the search function instead of inciting flamewars.

 

[imported_whatever]

Originally posted by: Nixsun
Does anybody have any links to benchmark tests for the Intel -vs- AMD war?

I have always used Intel, but I am considering switching to AMD pending...

AMD PCI-e??? 2005??
64bit applications??? What are the advantages of running 64bit windows, are there any other applications that are supported?

PCI-e is a big one for me, I may be sticking with Intel for this reason alone. I know AMD has it in the works, but I need something now.

I have to ask, AMD and Intel performance seems to be a wash, and if there is any gap it is very small. Although I would love to see some current benchmarks comparing to the new LG P4's to the AMD 64.

So than I have to ask, why AMD? and for those who choose intel why?

Flamer = homosexual, remember that!

PCIe should be available for AMD before christmas.
64bit windows runs faster than 32bit windows, all 32bit apps are supported. it will be even faster when there are apps written for it.

 

[Nixsun]

Is the AMD PCI-e board going to support DDR2?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Nixsun
Is the AMD PCI-e board going to support DDR2?

No, and that's a good thing for now. DDR-2 isn't any better currently, since it runs at terrible timings. But it's more expensive, and you will have to pay for it when getting a new Intel setup. AMD will support DDR2 when it makes a difference for them. Intel is jumping early on DDR2 support, in anticipation of their move to 1066MHz FSB next spring/summer.

Nixsun - go to the main Anandtech page and read the review on either of the NForce4 boards or the Nforce4 preview. There is your new AMD board for the next while.

Also, regarding performance; AMD has a marginal advantage at a given clockspeed/rating (ie 3200+ vs 3.2 GHz), and AMD has a sizeable performance advantage in games (10-20%).

64-bit is nothing right now - Windows XP-64 bit is delayed until next year. People are buying Athlon64's right now because of their superior 32-bit performance.

 

[Nixsun]

CPU Benchmarks

Found some, I know I should have looked before I posted, what can I say im lazy.

Thanks for the help Jiffy. I play a lot of games, and I also code games using C++, so gaming is real important to me =)

I just read this:

If games are your main interest, AMD is still impossible to beat. However, the more you move into the professional area with applications such as A/V encoding or rendering, the more attractive the P4 will be. Increased support for the SSE3 instruction set will only add on top of Intel's advantage here; this is an area that still needs to be addressed by AMD.

 

[CaiNaM]

curious... who "alleges" they have the best cpu?

and clockspeed (mhz) is not a valid comparison when considering 2 distinctly different architectures, as amd's architecture does more "work" per clock cycle than intel's.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Nixsun
CPU Benchmarks

Found some, I know I should have looked before I posted, what can I say im lazy.

Thanks for the help Jiffy. I play a lot of games, and I also code games using C++, so gaming is real important to me =)

I just read this:

If games are your main interest, AMD is still impossible to beat. However, the more you move into the professional area with applications such as A/V encoding or rendering, the more attractive the P4 will be. Increased support for the SSE3 instruction set will only add on top of Intel's advantage here; this is an area that still needs to be addressed by AMD.

Those CPU benchmarks are extremely misleading, to the point of it being comical. First of all, Tom's has been notoriously pro-intel in the past few years. Second, that's some generic CPU benchmark, it's just one benchmark, not the "whole picture" . But let's put even these biases aside and just look at that chart.

First of all he has overclocked Pentium 4's but not Athlons on the list (ie see the P4 EE 3.46 with DDRII-711). Second of all, he has the new top-of-the-line $1000 P4 EE on there, the 3.46, which is not really a consumer product, except for the ultra-rich. For a more realistic listing, take off all of the P4 EE's and Athlon 64 FX chips, although the FX-51 is affordable now (and the FX-53 and P4 EE 3.2 are available used on forums for well under a grand).


For a much better roundup, check out ones at Anandtech. A recent review of the P4 EE 3.46 was a real eye opener, as the 1066 MHz FSB with DDR-2 made a 0-2% difference compared to the 800MHz bus - incredibly disappointing for a chipset that won't even be available to the mainstream for another half of a year!

If you're a gamer, then there's basically no question: get an Athlon64. They just smoke the P4's. Especially at a given price point, ie the 3500+ compared to the P4 3.4 (the Athlon is actually a few bucks less, at least here in Canada ).

Best of luck - remember, unless you're absolutely loaded and willing to spend $1000 just for a CPU, ignore the P4 EE chips and Athlon FX chips in reviews and you will see how far behind Intel really is (it's not a chasm, but it's a real difference nonetheless).

 

[Lithan]

It's probably been posted a thousand times over on these forums. For a primarily gaming rig, you should be buying A64. For anything else the benches are close enough it really doesn't make much difference. DDR2 is a detriment right now. PCI-E is useless and doesn't look to be useful for at least another year or two. Hyperthreading's usefulness is at best debatable. Benchmarks show that the only things intel can win by any decent margin are heavily optimized products, almost exclusively video and audio working utilities. You've really got to talk to people who do a lot of that junk about it, but I'd suspect that the programs used in reviews to show intel winning aren't always the best programs available for the job any way.

In short, anything you buy will perform just fine for almost anything. Amd has a noticable advantage in gaming, intel in media-work. Amd tends to have a slight lead in almost everything else as well, but nothing spectacular.

In my opinion, amd's socket and chipsets have better futures ahead of them. I think p4 architecture (and sockets) is going to stagnate. If you ever see over 4.4ghz p4's I'd be surprised. Whereas a 5000+ or even 5500+ in the fairly near future (within a year or a year and a half) wouldn't surprise me at all.

You may consider me a fanboy, but I simply think that AMD's weaknesses have been almost completely addressed (early 754 boards had problems, 462 boards never really pleased me, but the more recent 754 and 939's are very nice boards). and they have a very solid chip right now. Intel has if anything taken a step backwards in the past two years. Shifting even less emphasis on performance and more on marketability. Prescotts which in most cases can't beat slower clocked northwoods, ddr-2 that can't beat ddr, PCI-E which is an unnecessary expense for the time being, Hyperthreading which is very overblown. Intel now is nintendo when the Gamecube was released. Sure it could play games and look good, but except for brand loyalty and very specific needs (I must play zelda games!) their was no real reason to choose it over an Xbox. The gameboy (Dothan) on the other hand, was the best in it's class.

 

[boyRacer]

I bought AMD because they sponsor Ferrari's F1 team...

 

[Nixsun]

PCI-E is useless and doesn't look to be useful for at least another year or two.

YOU MUST BE CRAZY!!!! Have you seen a PCI-e X800 yet, im guessing not. I have a a 9800 XT and its sweet, but man.... That PCI-e card is just insane! you need to check one out before you make a statement like that. Pretty much makes your whole post useless.

 

[ROcHE]

Originally posted by: Nixsun

PCI-E is useless and doesn't look to be useful for at least another year or two.

YOU MUST BE CRAZY!!!! Have you seen a PCI-e X800 yet, im guessing not. I have a a 9800 XT and its sweet, but man.... That PCI-e card is just insane! you need to check one out before you make a statement like that. Pretty much makes your whole post useless.

WTF? The same card in AGP form will perform the same.