Need advice between AMD or Intel

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

tolbyn

Senior member
Feb 23, 2002
313
0
0
Thinking of building a new system. Going to be mainly for gaming. I have a nice video card already, but wondering which processor to go with. Been an Intel user mainly, but thinking of going with AMD. I've heard mixed advice from friend's. What's everyone's thought as far as which is better or has more bang for the buck? thanks:)
 
A

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
I use both processors and I think AMD is the way to go for a gaming rig

Ausm
 
P

Pjotr

Member
May 22, 2000
67
0
0
If you pick between XP 1800+ and P4 1.6A, you should chose the XP under all circumstances except if you plan on a lot of overclocking. The P4 1.6A will probably overclock to 2.0 GHz or more easily, if your motherboard can overclock the FSB and RAM as much. But the XP 1800+ a better performing CPU and probably cheaper too. One more thing, do NOT get SDRAM for a P4, though.
 
T

tolbyn

Senior member
Feb 23, 2002
313
0
0
As it looks, I may be getting AMD since everyone seems to be leaning a little more towards it. Just wondering though, why is AMD a better performer than Intel, which I was told is the industry standard?
 
S

SSXeon5

Senior member
Mar 4, 2002
542
0
0


<< As it looks, I may be getting AMD since everyone seems to be leaning a little more towards it. Just wondering though, why is AMD a better performer than Intel, which I was told is the industry standard? >>



Ill recomend a P4 system and is prob cheaper or same price as the palomino 1.53Ghz here is what I think is the best buy:

-Pentium 4 1.6Ghz (Retail - Northwood) $135.00
-Asus P4S333 SiS645 $104.00
-2x256MB Corsair XMS2700 DDR333 $250.00

Bam! $489.00 w/0 shipping

And that bitch will oc to 2.1-2.4GHz easy! :D

SSXeon
 
CubicZirconia

CubicZirconia

Diamond Member
Nov 24, 2001
5,193
0
71
Well, you can get a retail xp 1800+ for 130, and epox 8kha+ for 91, and 512 mb of ddr 2100 for around 200 bucks. Thats cheaper than the setup xeon described. I'd go for the amd. I just built my system around an xp 1800 (now overclocked) and I am loving it.
 
B

Boobers

Senior member
Jun 28, 2001
799
0
0
The only reason Intel is still in business is Business Computers.

The only reason AMB is still around is Hobbiests and Gamers.

You decide...
 
S

senior guy

Senior member
Dec 12, 1999
806
0
0


<< Ill recomend a P4 system and is prob cheaper or same price as the palomino 1.53Ghz here is what I think is the best buy:

-Pentium 4 1.6Ghz (Retail - Northwood) $135.00
-Asus P4S333 SiS645 $104.00
-2x256MB Corsair XMS2700 DDR333 $250.00

Bam! $489.00 w/0 shipping

And that bitch will oc to 2.1-2.4GHz easy! :D

SSXeon >>

Couldn't agree more!
 
C

cmatthes1

Senior member
Mar 10, 2000
223
0
0
AMD, why are we still having this conversation? No offense to you though, I understand the confusion. I guess the gospel has not been spread, we need an AMD version of the 700 Club :D Just send me $20 and I will help you find the light in processors.
 
K

Kell

Member
Mar 25, 2001
138
0
0
>> Assume the 1.6a can be OC'd to 2.1 or 2.4Ghz, would it be a better perf/value?

If you're into overclocking, then yes. OC'd to 2.4GHz, the 1.6a would probably be faster than any stock-speed x86 processor available today (even the upcoming 2.4, because the 1.6a is getting not only a clockspeed boost, but a FSB boost).

If you're not overclocking, then the AthlonXP 1800+ is a much better value and will generally decimate the 1.6a.
 
A

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81


<< >> Assume the 1.6a can be OC'd to 2.1 or 2.4Ghz, would it be a better perf/value? If you're into overclocking, then yes. OC'd to 2.4GHz, the 1.6a would probably be faster than any stock-speed x86 processor available today (even the upcoming 2.4, because the 1.6a is getting not only a clockspeed boost, but a FSB boost). If you're not overclocking, then the AthlonXP 1800+ is a much better value and will generally decimate the 1.6a. >>




I have a 1.6A Northwood @ 2.4 gig and it doesn't seem much faster then my Athlon 1800+ XP...


Ausm
 
C

CraigRT

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
31,440
5
0
I'd personally go with AMD cause their performance is freaking awesome... low price and good performance = nerd heaven.. :D

I have an XP1800+ at just under 2000+ and it runs slick as can be.. very nice setup... I would recommend something along those lines.
 
S

SSXeon5

Senior member
Mar 4, 2002
542
0
0
<<I'd personally go with AMD cause their performance is freaking awesome... low price and good performance = nerd heaven..

I have an XP1800+ at just under 2000+ and it runs slick as can be.. very nice setup... I would recommend something along those lines.>>

Yea .. to tell you the truth, I really dislike AMD. There cores cracking and burning up and such, yet I know the cores dont break now with there new packages. And I hate Jerry (CEO AMD) and hes a blandering school girl :D But Now they have come along way from the crappy K62 - Athlon, and now to the impresive palomino. Still I perfer intel .... My sister and Mother both work there (after Ive liked them before hehe) and they love it! Im just glad jerry is finally leaving (stupid bastard :D) and now I have no more grudges with AMD .... I still am looking forward to the hammer and prescott batter in 2003 :D

SSXeon

 
DAPUNISHER

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,732
31,672
146
Hey tolbyn :)IMHO, If your new to the system building game then I recommend that you get the 1.6A Northwood as the basis of your platform due to it's protective heat spreader(prevents crushing the core when mounting the HS/F) and excellent over-heat protection(if you forget to mount your HS/F[hey, people have done it!] or forget to plug it in[read about this goof a lot and have done it myself once or twice) the survivability of your CPU is very high. Also, it overclocks very well without the need for expensive and/or loud cooling solutions. However, if you've built a few rigs and your fairly knowledgable concerning it then build your system around an XP 1600+-1800+. XPs require a bit more attention to detail and a superior cooling solution but the price/performance ratio is excellent and the tweaking potential of the CPU is superior(ability to unlock multipliers for overclocking instead of just FSB) making it the quintessential enthusiast's platform.
 
S

swifty3

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
392
0
0
Really, in my opinion u can't go wrong with either set up. Intel makes a great product, and so does AMD. Most people here use AMD, cause the price/performance ratio seems to be better, but really it comes down to your own personal preference. As for cooling an AMD, spend an extra $20 to get a good H/F combo.
 
KK

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
right now I'd choose the 1.6a. All you got to do is bump the fsb to 133 in bios, its as easy as that, and you got 2.133ghz. I don't understand why some folk are so brand loyal. I have both brands at home, an AMD tbird 1ghz I put together last Januaury. I just got done putting a 1.6a rig together last month. Both times I looked at the cost/performance aspect of it. AMD's are trickier to overclock as you have to connect the bridges, while this 1.6a as I said you just set the fsb in the bios. Next week, it may swing in AMDs favor but now I'd say intel has the edge. How can you disagree with this. Don't give me this, "what if you don't overclock" reason as there is no substance to this reasoning.

KK
 
N

Nate420

Senior member
Feb 4, 2002
264
0
0
I spent about a month pondering the same question..AMD or Intel.....I went through dozens or forums, sh!tloads of reviews, and anywhere else I could get facts and/or opinions of cpu,mobo, ram, ect... Not knowing much about AMD before hand, I gathered this:

AMD makes good CPU's, they have great performance, more performance clock for clock than Intel, several chipsets to support them, they are O/Cable. They run a little hot at stock speeds, they are hot like the sun when O/Ced, extreme cooling will be needed. Some popular chipsets are bugy, some experience random BSODs and reboots(chipsets or cpu related unknown)

Intel also makes good CPUs, they also perform well, but not as good as a similar clocked AMD. Intel has a slew of chipsets and a few from other makers, the Northwoods are EXTREME overclockers. They run cool at very high clocks with stock HSF. Intel's product testing is awesome, reassuring. They are pretty damn expensive, and until recently RAMBUS to go along was also expensive.

I went with Intel, got a 1.6A, run it at 2.5Ghz, got DDR, kept stock cooling, got cpu for $140. Very happy:D

It's 7 in the morning, half asleep, so forgive the gramar.
 
R

RobsTV

Platinum Member
Feb 11, 2000
2,520
0
0
If you assume the 1.6A will do 2.4GHz, then you should also assume that the XP 1800+ will do XP 2100+ speeds.
Performance tests at most major review sites put the P4@2.4GHz and the XP 2100+ fairly equal.
So stock speeds, or slight overclocking, and AMD is best bet, but with max overclocking, they are equal performers.
Then it all boils down to price in the end.
Looks like AMD wins that as well..........
 
KK

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81


<< If you assume the 1.6A will do 2.4GHz, then you should also assume that the XP 1800+ will do XP 2100+ speeds.
Performance tests at most major review sites put the P4@2.4GHz and the XP 2100+ fairly equal.
So stock speeds, or slight overclocking, and AMD is best bet, but with max overclocking, they are equal performers.
Then it all boils down to price in the end.
Looks like AMD wins that as well.......... >>



What is a normal o/c on the 1800+ chip. With my 1.6a I can only get the to 2.24, which I would consider this average o/c for the 1.6a.

KK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom