Need help on which to buy AMD/Intel

[suicidalpigeon]

motion to ban.

 

[n7]

To the OP: d00d...you got issues.

Intel has its place. Anyone with common sense understands why we recommend AMD.

If you need a budget multitasking machine, a cheaper Pentium D is fine.

If you need a light portable laptop, Pentium M (Dothan) is the way to go.

I am sick of hearing you morons claim everyone here is AMD biased, when that's completely untrue.

Personally, i find Intel disgusting, but that's because of their dirty market practises.

If they release a better CPU for less than AMD...i'll be happy to grab one. Hasn't happened for a few yrs. now though.

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Maybe you've been sucked into thinking that AMD is trying to brainwash us.

AMD is pound for pound, the better processor. The P4 3.73 Extreme Edition, Intel's top processor, is still much slower than AMD's FX-57, despite an "enormous" 1ghz clock difference. Hell, the A64 4000+ ($474) is just as fast as Intel's Pentium 4 670 ($850), if not faster. The only category that Intel takes the lead in is some encoding tasks. And of course, they come out on top in certain benchmarks and programs that are optimized for Intel processors.

Part 2, heat output and power consumption. The Intel 6xx series processors are huge heat problems. They have been known to raise the ambient temperature of a room by 3-5 degrees Celsius. And they take enormous amounts of power to run. Zebo, one of the senior members here, made a chart illustrating how much money you could save on your power bills by switching to AMD.

Fist of all I was talking about intel's 820D @$225
Compared to AMD dual, much much cheaper.
The test conducted clearly shows that Intel is a better CPU. I admit that intel in some of the charts are behind AMD but not by much and not on real practical terms.
The question and most important factor is that I can buy 820D at a reasonable price, but wont come near AMD dual because its too expensive. And if you cant admit this then AMD has got you hooked,and no need to discuss further because it will upsets you.
So you are worried about spending $19 more /year on your utility bill ? and this should stop u from buying intel?

 

[n7]

Learn how to quote buddy

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: yanon
Tomshardware an extensive review which demonstrate that AMD64 system in general consumes less power and dissipate less heat than P4EE system in general. Not to mention that you will get more computing power per dollar spend on a AMD processor than an Intel processor.

Again, I amd taling about intel's 820D at $225 dual CPU. AMD cost a lot more.
You so called experts have already spent 500 on you box and psu's w/ state of the art heatsink. and now you claim because intel runs little hotter you are not buying?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: designit

Originally posted by: yanon
Tomshardware an extensive review which demonstrate that AMD64 system in general consumes less power and dissipate less heat than P4EE system in general. Not to mention that you will get more computing power per dollar spend on a AMD processor than an Intel processor.

Again, I amd taling about intel's 820D at $225 dual CPU. AMD cost a lot more.
You so called experts have already spent 500 on you box and psu's w/ state of the art heatsink. and now you claim because intel runs little hotter you are not buying?

Why don't you wait then? If you want Dual Core. I won't argue with you. Intel hands down. But what about when the 3800+ comes out? I swear cheap DDR1 and cheap motherboards will NEGATE the price premium of hte 3800+. Sure its $100 more, but RAM and motherboard will EASILY make up.

So. Single core. AMD. Dual Core, Intel (unless you got lots of $$$$ to throw around), and if you wait? AMD. It's AMD. Period.

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Maybe you've been sucked into thinking that AMD is trying to brainwash us.

AMD is pound for pound, the better processor. The P4 3.73 Extreme Edition, Intel's top processor, is still much slower than AMD's FX-57, despite an "enormous" 1ghz clock difference. Hell, the A64 4000+ ($474) is just as fast as Intel's Pentium 4 670 ($850), if not faster. The only category that Intel takes the lead in is some encoding tasks. And of course, they come out on top in certain benchmarks and programs that are optimized for Intel processors.

Part 2, heat output and power consumption. The Intel 6xx series processors are huge heat problems. They have been known to raise the ambient temperature of a room by 3-5 degrees Celsius. And they take enormous amounts of power to run. Zebo, one of the senior members here, made a chart illustrating how much money you could save on your power bills by switching to AMD.



Now, if you wish to be an adamant Intel fanboy, join Intelia. If you would like to accept that AMD is the better processor, at least for right now, then feel free to do so.

I am not any's fanboy. I am a new buyer trying to upgrade. for your info I have an old AMD system. I have been searching to upgrade for best system for the price and at the same time stay with today's tech. I posted here before asking opinion about buying a reasonable AMD setup, because I almost decided to go with AMD. But after reviewing what is out there and what is upcoming, I havnt decided yet. I have become interested in Intel's dual core @$225 because it does more for me for the price.
This is the heart of argument.
I dont know what I would buy if AMD drops the price on its dual core. What i know is this AMD new chiset is going to be 940 amd the M series. and I have to wait and see what that is all about.
But i know Intels' dual D is good enough for me for time being and I dont have to worry about new chipset in the works. for what I know Intel is coming up with virtual CPU ( multi OS system) but I have no use for that.
So I am at a cross road and came here to help me decide. But unfortunately I can not say you guy's have been objective and fair to me, Intel and any new buey.
If I wanted to get all the prep talk about any CPU manufc. Iwould have just browse their site.
So please dont call me an intel fanboy, because im not.

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: Kensai
HAHAHAHAHAHA :laugh:
I'm sure that the X2 that I'm getting for my system will outperform everything that Intel can offer. And when I overclock it, I'll trash Intel's server CPUs.

Of course, I do prefer Intel's Pentium M in the notebook market.
~Crazy battery life.
~Low Power consumption
~Low heat output

What else could you ask for?

Us guys at Anandtech Forums like to be effective and we like the most bang for the buck.

You are contradicting yourself. If your computer outperforms Intel and fast or faster , why do you have to overclock it?
And if overclocking was a good think to do I promise you, AMD would have done it in factory and sent it out claiming couple of 100 MHZ to make them look better.
you see my point.
I think AMD has created a MHZ fobia for you and all you defendes. and this may have cause some of you medical attention/concern

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: designit

I am not any's fanboy. I am a new buyer trying to upgrade. for your info I have an old AMD system. I have been searching to upgrade for best system for the price and at the same time stay with today's tech. I posted here before asking opinion about buying a reasonable AMD setup, because I almost decided to go with AMD. But after reviewing what is out there and what is upcoming, I havnt decided yet. I have become interested in Intel's dual core @$225 because it does more for me for the price.
This is the heart of argument.
I dont know what I would buy if AMD drops the price on its dual core. What i know is this AMD new chiset is going to be 940 amd the M series. and I have to wait and see what that is all about.
But i know Intels' dual D is good enough for me for time being and I dont have to worry about new chipset in the works. for what I know Intel is coming up with virtual CPU ( multi OS system) but I have no use for that.
So I am at a cross road and came here to help me decide. But unfortunately I can not say you guy's have been objective and fair to me, Intel and any new buey.
If I wanted to get all the prep talk about any CPU manufc. Iwould have just browse their site.
So please dont call me an intel fanboy, because im not.

You sound so reasonable now. Why did you find it necessary to make such an inflammatory initial post?

Not only that, everyone who clicked on this thread was mislead by it's ambiguous topic.
Then you practically blasted everyone in AT with your first post. Don't tell me you're surprised that you ruffled a few feathers.

Edit:

Originally posted by: designit


You are contradicting yourself. If your computer outperforms Intel and fast or faster , why do you have to overclock it?
And if overclocking was a good think to do I promise you, AMD would have done it in factory and sent it out claiming couple of 100 MHZ to make them look better.
you see my point.
I think AMD has created a MHZ fobia for you and all you defendes. and this may have cause some of you medical attention/concern

Of course noone (intel or AMD) HAS to overclock. Most A64s will smoke any P4 in the things that I do with no overclock at all. But since I have such a great processor that will give me a nice linear performance boost when overclocked, I see no reason not to.

 

[BOLt]

It's not worth proving this guy wrong. Don't waste your time, guys.

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: bob4432
so designit, what do you design?

I am an architect. I design just about anything in this field from custom residence to multistory buildings.
And I am interested in a setup that would give me a decent performance on my CAD, drawing/rendering
This is why I am interested in Dual CPU. By looking at the benchmark conducted here by anadtech I see Intel does better.
So I cant say for others and what part of the chart they see best fit them, I found my answer.

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: fierydemise
who are you really? Porkster? Dothan? or are you one of the "zinnites" Intelia has been raving about?

Is this your best defense? of AMD.

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: Kensai
Our DDR > Your DDR2
Our SLI > Your junky nForce 4 Intel edition
Our Integrated memory controller > Your Northbridge
Our dual-core CPUs >>>> Your dual-core

I maybe wrong but I thought Intel came up with SLI
so ar PCIe
AMD is also upgrading to DDR2--another intel's idea
SATTA,
Dual channel,
memorry controller,
shall i continue?

 

[Greenman]

Ok, no one told you that AMD X2's cost more than intel DC's. I'm very sorry.
I guess I'll have to be the one to tell you the truth. Everyone here works for AMD, for every person we con into buying an AMD cpu, AMD gives us $200. If it's someone who's english isn't very good, we only get $100 because they assume it was an easy sell. So when we sold you on AMD we didn't do a very good job because, well, lets face it, $100 isn't all that much, you just wern't worth it to us. I still think you should get an AMD cpu, come back here, and we'll cut you in on the kickback deal. Go see if your intel buddys will match that.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: designit

Originally posted by: fierydemise
who are you really? Porkster? Dothan? or are you one of the "zinnites" Intelia has been raving about?

Is this your best defense? of AMD.

Sorry your first post seemed very similar to the ravings of a couple of intel trolls, you have become alot more logical so I apologize for my post.

 

[BOLt]

Originally posted by: Kensai
Our DDR > Your DDR2
Our SLI > Your junky nForce 4 Intel edition
Our Integrated memory controller > Your Northbridge
Our dual-core CPUs >>>> Your dual-core

Yes.

 

[HO]

designit, you need to reel in the flame bait.

FWIW, I am a semi-pro photographer/part-time graphic designer who committed heresy by abandoning Macs as soon as I left school. I have used Intel based systems for graphics since 1997 and my current box is centered around an Abit board with a BX chipset. That board began its life as home to the original Celeron 300A, a processor that was, at the time, the easiest overclock on the planet. I followed that with a Celeron 533A flipchip, and finally, a Powerleap Tualatin upgrade processor running at 1.2G. Quite a feat for one mobo... probably the most upgradeable board I will ever own. Intel has treated me well. As for AMD, I NEVER considered putting one of those off-branded bastards under my desk simply because I required compatibility and reliability, two things that came standard with anything bearing Intel's name.

I said all that to say this: Now I am planning to build a new box in October. After evaluating all the early reviews, AMD where I'm putting my money. Especially now that they have announced the reasonably priced Athlon 3800 X2.

Why AMD? Their dual core architecture is elegant, Intel's is not. Some would say it is crude, a hack. Intel will most likely implement a design similar to AMD's with their second generation dual core chips. Why should I wait? Another factor is heat. Intel chips simply run hotter and I don't want to deal with excessive temps in my box. Period. The other leg of the heat demon is power, and Intel CPUs requires a LOT of it in order to produce all those BTUs. Another feather in AMD's cap is that many folks with Athlon chips can plop in an X2, do a bios flash, and find themselves wrapped in DC lovin. Intel lovers will have to spring for a new board, and maybe a new power supply.

All these words are probably wasted on you. You seem to want to do nothing more than come in here and kick dirt in the faces of AMD users. You preach about the superiority of the Intel solution, but if you'll try being just a wee bit objective, I think you will see that your opinion puts you in a distinct minority.

By the way, I must have overlooked the links to the reviews that document Intel's thrashing of AMD. Can you point me to them?

Thanks.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: designit

Originally posted by: bob4432
so designit, what do you design?

I am an architect. I design just about anything in this field from custom residence to multistory buildings.
And I am interested in a setup that would give me a decent performance on my CAD, drawing/rendering
This is why I am interested in Dual CPU. By looking at the benchmark conducted here by anadtech I see Intel does better.
So I cant say for others and what part of the chart they see best fit them, I found my answer.

where do your designs go? so i know where to stay away from, if your design skillz are anything like your reasoning skillz those buildings are f*cked. and 940 is not a new "chiset", it has been out for some time.

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: QueZart
Been Looking all Over and I still Cant Find one the websites he mentions, So Far every Comparison I've found Lands On the AMD side, except on MultiTasking. For sure idf you Liek to run several Programs at once which I'm guilty Of lol You should get a Intel Chip.... hhhmm

The whole argument is about dual core and how unreasonable AMD's price is.
U don?t need to go to any other website. I am sure you have already know the answer. and if you look closer here you find the answer, but you have to be objective.
the tests here "anadtech" is good enough.
and multitasking is what everyone has been doing for a long time but w/ headache. Now
you have no choice but to accept this fact-single cores starting to become history
Just remember the time that you had no choice but to change from win95 to win98 to winxp. And now win64 to accompany it w/ dual core.
Also accept the fact that AMD is always one step behind Intel. Example: DDR2 that AMD is changing to.
Let me ask you this/ what good does it do when you have 2000 Hyper transport when DDR400 can only give 800?
Is this why you have to overclock your memory to compensate for the lost FSB ?
The most you can get out of latest DDR(2) @ 667 is 1200MHZ. Intel new mobo w/ dual core will handle it to the last MHZ/and without overclocking.
No... I was debating to just buy a cheap AMD w/64 and wait another 6-12 months and then see what is out there since both Intel and AMD are in transitional period right now.
But after studying more I am tempting to start my setup w/ Intel's 820D and I am good for couple of years.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: designit

Originally posted by: QueZart
Been Looking all Over and I still Cant Find one the websites he mentions, So Far every Comparison I've found Lands On the AMD side, except on MultiTasking. For sure idf you Liek to run several Programs at once which I'm guilty Of lol You should get a Intel Chip.... hhhmm

The whole argument is about dual core and how unreasonable AMD's price is.
U don?t need to go to any other website. I am sure you have already know the answer. and if you look closer here you find the answer, but you have to be objective.
the tests here "anadtech" is good enough.
and multitasking is what everyone has been doing for a long time but w/ headache. Now
you have no choice but to accept this fact-single cores starting to become history
Just remember the time that you had no choice but to change from win95 to win98 to winxp. And now win64 to accompany it w/ dual core.
Also accept the fact that AMD is always one step behind Intel. Example: DDR2 that AMD is changing to.
Let me ask you this/ what good does it do when you have 2000 Hyper transport when DDR400 can only give 800?
Is this why you have to overclock your memory to compensate for the lost FSB ?
The most you can get out of latest DDR(2) @ 667 is 1200MHZ. Intel new mobo w/ dual core will handle it to the last MHZ/and without overclocking.
No... I was debating to just buy a cheap AMD w/64 and wait another 6-12 months and then see what is out there since both Intel and AMD are in transitional period right now.
But after studying more I am tempting to start my setup w/ Intel's 820D and I am good for couple of years.

so all of the peeps that are running x2 have to run xp64? news to me....

i didn't realize that this whole argument is based on dc cpus, wait 2 mos and see what will happen, i am sure the x2s price will come down

the only item i will agree with you on is the price of the amd x2 cpus, they are currently too high, but you must remember that you can pick up a 939nf4 m/b for <$90 where the cheapeset PD m/bs are $220+ and then you need new ram because of ddr2 (remember intels rambus ram, flop, funny how your forgot to mention this in your "intel invents everything that is good rant").

in a couple of months the x2 will come down in price and the price difference between new ram and m/b will be negated by this, plus you will get a better cpu.

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: designit

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: designit
I think the other problem here is- AMD has sucked almost all of you to buy their product and attract you because of winxp64.

I think you are dead wrong. I dont give a rats a$$ about winxp64 right now. All I care about, and many others on this forum, is getting the best bang for my buck on a good CPU. The athlon 64 does that. I can get a $140 CPU and turn it into a beast that challenges the best CPU's on the market (see sig). Can Intel do that for $140? No. Also even if I wasnt a cheap a$$, and others on here as well, I (we) would still buy an Athlon 64. The reason being is that they win most benchmarks in most applications, let alone gaming. So to come here and argue that we have been "sucked" to buying AMD soley for winxp64 is utter bullsh!t.

Unfortunately you only interested about the part of the chart that shows AMD performs better and that is not by much either. specially most of the charts that is conducted are not practical end users parctice. Why dont you look at the chart where show Intel twice as fast and on most practical usage.

I was talking about dual core and DDR2. Amd lowest is$750 and intel is $225
the chart compare AMD's $1200 CPU with Intel's $370.

Home users need their computers for practical use. and It is crazy to pay $1200 for AMD dual core and try to show off with it that it beat INtel a hair on some crazy benchmarch"1200 browsers openned). who the right mind opens 1200 browsers?
No... Intel does me good with $225 processor and I dont think you can afford $1200 on AMD to just say to me your AMD can beat you when 1200 browsers are open.
I look at 3D, downloading, encoding and all of the daily normal usage with dual CPU and
imultitask for only $225.
And when you bought your $1200 AMD then call me and tell me you have openned 1200 browsers and it is fast.

Originally posted by: designit


Yahh overclocking is good but why do you have to overclock in first place if you already have a quality and fast CPU? AMD is fooling everyone by unlocking their CPU?s for overclocking. But why? Because they have to compete w/ Intel?s 3.8 GHZ stock CPU. Common guys be real don?t fool yourself.

Intel 3.8 $632

Athlon 64 4000 San diego $474

Hell, that athlon 64 is $160 cheaper, and owns that Intel at stock speeds in the majority of applications. So much for your argument that AMD has to overclock to beat Intel. :roll:



Im not even going to bother poking holes in the rest of your dumbass argument, its not even worth my time.

AMD 64 fx55 $821, single core (2.6ghz)
Intel's 820 D $225, dual core (2-2.8ghz)
How is this for dumb comparison?
Or
AMD 64 4000(2.4ghz) $483
NEW Intel's Celeron D/em64t (2.6ghz) $95
This is new celeron D hitting the market w/ 64. 4 times cheaper than your AMD 4000
and is faster.
So how is this for dumb comparison?
You know 820D has you AMD boys and girls all choked up
because your best is 400% higher in cost and is single threaded.
I am not even gona bother mentioning Intel's HT
to put you on tighter corner.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: designit


AMD 64 fx55 $821, single core (2.6ghz)
Intel's 820 D $225, dual core (2-2.8ghz)
How is this for dumb comparison?
Or
AMD 64 4000(2.4ghz) $483
NEW Intel's Celeron D/em64t (2.6ghz) $95
This is new celeron D hitting the market w/ 64. 4 times cheaper than your AMD 4000
and is faster.
So how is this for dumb comparison?
You know 820D has you AMD boys and girls all choked up
because your best is 400% higher in cost and is single threaded.
I am not even gona bother mentioning Intel's HT
to put you on tighter corner.

You're actually claiming that one CPU is faster based on clock speed?

Waitaminute are you trying to say that a celeron D is faster than ANY Athlon 64?

Dude, PLEASE do some research before you make claims like that. I'll give you hyperthreading, but the fact is even intel isn't classifying their processors by clock speed and that should let you know that it's not a good indicator of performance these days.

Take Yonah for instance. Yonah is going to be the next Intel DC architecture and it will hit the market clocked at a maximum 2.16 ghz. You don't believe it?

See for yourself.

I honestly believe that Yonah will be one badass mofo and it's NOT going to be because it's running at some fantastically high clock speed. Some processors are simply more efficient and are capable of doing more work per clock cycle.

You need to do some reading and readjust your criteria for determing how fast a CPU is.

 

[Valkerie]

Originally posted by: bob4432
hahaha you are so funny. you don't make much sense. you quote some intel demo in another forum and think you know everything, you are just ignorant and obviously brainwashed by the intel hype. go to toms where they love intel, around here we like what works for us, regardless if it is intel or amd.

xp64? give me a break, most people are using the 32bit xp.

I agree. Don't base everything off of that CPU propaganda, some of those companies may privately fund those websites so that they even run - don't get me wrong, I've seen and heard enough wild stuff about the computer world.

Anyway, Intel for office, AMD for gaming. You can vice versa that two, but this is my opinion.

 

[Valkerie]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Maybe you've been sucked into thinking that AMD is trying to brainwash us.

AMD is pound for pound, the better processor. The P4 3.73 Extreme Edition, Intel's top processor, is still much slower than AMD's FX-57, despite an "enormous" 1ghz clock difference. Hell, the A64 4000+ ($474) is just as fast as Intel's Pentium 4 670 ($850), if not faster. The only category that Intel takes the lead in is some encoding tasks. And of course, they come out on top in certain benchmarks and programs that are optimized for Intel processors.

Is faster than Intel's CPU compared to what?

This *post contradicts itself.

 

[justly]

You might as well go Intel designit, it obvious that no one can reason with you, or correct the amount of errors in your posts as fast as you can make them.

So I will just say good luck with your new intel system.

For those who haven?t figured out what article he is talking about I think it might be the Linux article Dual Core Linux Performance: Two Penguins are Better than One by Kristopher Kubicki

designit don't forget what you said about this site "This site is useless to me since I find it bias" but if I'm correct you do believe an article on this sit written by Kristopher Kubicki (thanks for the laugh, maybe someone else will explain why this is funny).