Need help on which to buy AMD/Intel

[HO]

designit,

I overlooked your reply to my first post. I thought you had ignored my attempt to reason with you, so I am mildly sorry that I told you to go away and called you a dunce.

BUT, I still think you have a serious blind spot when it comes to AMD/Intel. But, so what? I like American cars, my neighbor drives Toyotas. Frankly, I don't care what you buy; it's your money and you should have what pleases you.

That applies to the rest of us too.

 

[Hacp]

You guys have to take into mind that when comparing AMD's cheapest processor, you should compare the x2 4200 to the Pentium D 3.2 GHZ. Why? Because the AMD 64 3500 is the same processor in single core as the x2 4200. Obvoiusly the 3500 beats the 2.8 Pentium 4 without hyperthreading, so a 3.2 pentium D should be compared to AMD's 4200. Obviosly the 4200 is cheaper than the 3.2 pentium. However, if you want el cheapo dual core, then the 2.8 isnt that bad. Just make sure you purchase a cheap mobo and some cheap ddr2 667 ram.

 

[LiNoX]

Why does anyone even bother?

If all logic fails, frankly it doesnt matter what anyone says.

 

[stevty2889]

A. In a lot of cases, the higher speed P4's have heat issues. My 3.4ghz prescott was throttling and getting in to the low 70c's with even a thermalright xp-120. I had to go to water cooling to stop if from throttling at stock speeds, and I am not the only one who has had this problem.

B. Dual core P-4's are 2 already hot prescott die slapped together in one package, and heat is a major reason why they can't get past 3.2ghz, while AMD's dual cores are a true dual core. Intels first true dualcore with be yonah, which is for laptops. Their first true dual core desktop cpu won't be around for a while yet, as it's based on Merom.

C. A 3.2ghz dual core would be a huge downgrade from a higher speed single core in the 3.4-3.8ghz range, as hyperthreading while not as effeciant, already gives decent multitasking capability, so even multithreaded apps would loose performance by going to the lower speed dual core cpu. Plus it requires a new motherboard, while AMD's dual core chips will work on current socket 939 motherboards, and DDR1. DDR2 is clock for clock slower than DDR, has higher latencies, and costs more. The reason for AMD switching in the future, is becuase DDR2 will be in full production, and DDR will slowly stop being produced.

D. One of the main reasons Intel currently has more market share is due to the fact that they have much greater manufacturing capacity. AMD is working on getting more capacity.

If does depend somewhat one what applications you are running. For video enocoding type things, Intel will still have the advantage if you are in the lower budget field. At the top end however, AMD catches up and can surpass the Intel CPU's. A less expensive single core A-64, or a higher speed single core P4 will still have the advantage over even the fastest (3.2ghz) dual core pentium in almost all cases. The dual core A-64's have the advantage in almost all cases, as they are not heat limited, they can run at full speed, and are a true dual core design. These are the reasons it is hard for ANYONE to recomend a pentium-D....

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: Hacp
You guys have to take into mind that when comparing AMD's cheapest processor, you should compare the x2 4200 to the Pentium D 3.2 GHZ. Why? Because the AMD 64 3500 is the same processor in single core as the x2 4200. Obvoiusly the 3500 beats the 2.8 Pentium 4 without hyperthreading, so a 3.2 pentium D should be compared to AMD's 4200. Obviosly the 4200 is cheaper than the 3.2 pentium. However, if you want el cheapo dual core, then the 2.8 isnt that bad. Just make sure you purchase a cheap mobo and some cheap ddr2 667 ram.

Now I see a poster making sense and understand the jest of this argument.
Frankly I am disappointed w/ the way benchmark on dual core is conducted.
If this website had a better understanding of ordinary consumers, they would have shown a benchmark by price comparison. Price is an important factor, specially for those wanting best for their money.
Intel?s dual core 820D costs $220 . Since it only uses the new mobo the only drawback is a $200 mobo. But that will change too as everyone speculates on AMD dual core prices that is going to drop.
But lets say your mobo+ 820D costs you $420. Then Lets pickup an AMD CPU+mobo in the same price range($420).
Now tell me- If you compare these 2 setups and created a benchmark, I want to know the result.
Would any AMD Guru?s, who scorned me here, tell me for this amount of money spent, which setup gives me a better performance?
I think by now you know the answer-INTEL

 

[BTA]

I didnt even read all the posts but everyone told him to go AMD right?

And then a big fight ensued?

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Hacp
You guys have to take into mind that when comparing AMD's cheapest processor, you should compare the x2 4200 to the Pentium D 3.2 GHZ. Why? Because the AMD 64 3500 is the same processor in single core as the x2 4200. Obvoiusly the 3500 beats the 2.8 Pentium 4 without hyperthreading, so a 3.2 pentium D should be compared to AMD's 4200. Obviosly the 4200 is cheaper than the 3.2 pentium. However, if you want el cheapo dual core, then the 2.8 isnt that bad. Just make sure you purchase a cheap mobo and some cheap ddr2 667 ram.

a cheapo intel d board is $200+ and $220 for the ddr2

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: designit

Originally posted by: Hacp
You guys have to take into mind that when comparing AMD's cheapest processor, you should compare the x2 4200 to the Pentium D 3.2 GHZ. Why? Because the AMD 64 3500 is the same processor in single core as the x2 4200. Obvoiusly the 3500 beats the 2.8 Pentium 4 without hyperthreading, so a 3.2 pentium D should be compared to AMD's 4200. Obviosly the 4200 is cheaper than the 3.2 pentium. However, if you want el cheapo dual core, then the 2.8 isnt that bad. Just make sure you purchase a cheap mobo and some cheap ddr2 667 ram.

Now I see a poster making sense and understand the jest of this argument.
Frankly I am disappointed w/ the way benchmark on dual core is conducted.
If this website had a better understanding of ordinary consumers, they would have shown a benchmark by price comparison. Price is an important factor, specially for those wanting best for their money.
Intel?s dual core 820D costs $220 . Since it only uses the new mobo the only drawback is a $200 mobo. But that will change too as everyone speculates on AMD dual core prices that is going to drop.
But lets say your mobo+ 820D costs you $420. Then Lets pickup an AMD CPU+mobo in the same price range($420).
Now tell me- If you compare these 2 setups and created a benchmark, I want to know the result.
Would any AMD Guru?s, who scorned me here, tell me for this amount of money spent, which setup gives me a better performance?
I think by now you know the answer-INTEL

you have to also take into account most people already have pc3200 ddr1, so throw another ~$220 into the equation against intel.

 

[Hacp]

Nope. The cheapsest 945 chipset mobo is like 120 dollars from ASUS I think. And I think ASrock found a way to have the PENTIUM D work with DDR400 whith the 865P chipset, which supports AGP and DDR400. IMO those will hurt the Pentium D's performance, but those are the facts. I myself picked an AMD 64 X2 because I was worried about heat issues, and also was worried about price/performance. In single applications, the AMD 4200+ beats the Pentium D 3.2 GHZ. I'm going to be using alot of single threaded applications(GUILD WARS).

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Nope. The cheapsest 945 chipset mobo is like 120 dollars from ASUS I think. And I think ASrock found a way to have the PENTIUM D work with DDR400 whith the 865P chipset, which supports AGP and DDR400. IMO those will hurt the Pentium D's performance, but those are the facts. I myself picked an AMD 64 X2 because I was worried about heat issues, and also was worried about price/performance. In single applications, the AMD 4200+ beats the Pentium D 3.2 GHZ. I'm going to be using alot of single threaded applications(GUILD WARS).

i stand corrected, thanks for the info, but who would want a asrock board?

 

[HO]

I just had to revive this thread so I could post this latest revelation from Tom's:

It's a good thing for AMD that the X2's chief competitor, the Intel Pentium D processor, not only runs noticeably slower but also earns bad marks for high power consumption.

That nugget was contained in his recent review of the X2 3800. Of course, he takes his customary swipes at AMD whenever the opportunity presents itself. One thing that cannot be hidden by the rhetoric is the fact that the X2 3800 is (at least) equivalent to the Pentium 840 D for considerably less money.

I am really looking forward to the day mine arrives.