• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ultimate AMD vs. Intel

E

eXx08

Banned
I'd like to here your guyses opinions on AMD vs. Intel. Personaly I have no Idea what to get. Here are my choices.

1) I could get an Intel 3.2GHz, faster Ram, and better MOBO
2)Get AMD 3700+ with ok MOBO and slow RAM
3)Get Intel 3.4GHz slow Ram and better MOBO
4)Get AMD 3500+ Better MOBO and slow RAM

I am not into O"Clocking at all and I am a gamer. I do alot of video editing too. A little Photoshop. Search the web alot. I also am a student and have lots of reports for school. Which one should I get?
 
A specific budget would help.

What particular MBs and RAM are you referencing?
 
First of all, the DDR2 that Intel chipsets supports have double the frequency of AMD-supported DDR, but they also have twice the memory latency, negating their frequency advantage.

If you're in school, then perhaps gaming should not be the highest priority. That said, the slower Intel should do ok if it supports hyperthreading be sure it's a 500j series and not 600 series, so that it's merely a spaceheater for your room instead of a furnace.

If you can afford it, then I'd recommand the dual-core AMD Athlon 64x2 4200+. Its multithrading capability exceeds Intel's "virtual" multithreading in their hyperthreading, and for the most part, any AMD chip 3000+ and greater will beat any Intel chip right now in gaming. If this is for school, I'm assuming this is a laptop; if so, I've seen some manufacturers offering the AMD dual-core laptops.
 
I opt for 4
Better mobo means better feature, and such features comes in handy for future
But it's a waste not to overclock Athlon Venice 😛
 
Well it depends what you do more.
If you game most, get the AMD, if you do video editing most, get the Intel.
 
Any this is my price code or what ever.

Low end Mobo-$100
Mid end Mobo-$150
High end Mobo-$200

Low end CPU-$175
Mid end CPU-$250
High end CPU- $330

Low end ram-$80
Mid end Ram-$100
High end ram-$150
 
Given your price-ranges, then I would have to recommend #4, but like Kensai suggested,

AMD 3200+ Venice
Any decent socket 939 mobo
1GB dual channel kit of Corsair Value Select

If this is a desktop system, then you'll be able to upgrade to a dual-core processor when their prices come down in the next year or so.
 
This is a desktop by the way. X2 should be coming down in price soon right? If so I've seen benchmarks for it and a single core works better for games and dual works better for Photoshop and movie editing. I will be doing about egual of everything. Mabey less on the report side. Also if you didn't catch it I will be in the 8th grade and am not in college. So school is not the biggest priority because I will mostly be on summer vac. The only real games I like are FPS games that use the Open Gl and stuff. I am not a big fan of the stratogy games but I do like Rise of Nations. I will be downloading music alot too and need a very good encoding CPU. On benchmarks the 3500+ did good.
 
Originally posted by: thekillerjks
How does the Intel Dual Core CPU Perform because it is alot cheaper.
Click to expand...


Not bad at all for the money. The problem is that the motherboards and DDR2 RAM that they need to run are so expensive that it practically makes up for the higher cost of the AMD dual cores. You end up with a system that not that much cheaper but considerably weaker in the performance department compare to the X2s.
 
The only reason I would go intel would be for dual core. Otherwise, go AMD.

A couple advantages of dual core:

-Multitasking that is almost twice as fast as a single core CPU
-Great encoding performance
-"Smoothes the feel of the computer"

Disadvantages:

-Expensive
-Must be supported by the program you are running

speaking of running, I'd better get off the compy before I get fired...
 
Originally posted by: thekillerjks
I'd like to here your guyses opinions on AMD vs. Intel. Personaly I have no Idea what to get. Here are my choices.

1) I could get an Intel 3.2GHz, faster Ram, and better MOBO
2)Get AMD 3700+ with ok MOBO and slow RAM
3)Get Intel 3.4GHz slow Ram and better MOBO
4)Get AMD 3500+ Better MOBO and slow RAM

I am not into O"Clocking at all and I am a gamer. I do alot of video editing too. A little Photoshop. Search the web alot. I also am a student and have lots of reports for school. Which one should I get?
Click to expand...

You're never going to get a straight answer out of these people. Naturally, though, my opinion is best, and you should consider it carefully when you make your decision....

You can forget about Intel. The only CPUs Intel is offering that might be worth the price are the Pentium Ds, and apparently they're a bit out of your budget. So, the question is, should you get an Athlon 3500+ or 3700+?

The motherboard won't offer much if anything in terms of performance. The VIA chipsets are a bit slower, but the gap is darn near negligible. However, getting a cheap motherboard could result in problems down the line. Low prices mean corners cut, and while it's quite possible you might never have a problem, the risk is ever-present.

The problem, of course, is that getting more expensive board, or something with more features, does not necessarily translate into better quality. Everyone loves the DFI Lanparty line, for example, because it has a great chipset and loads of features--but who knows if it's actually well-manufactured? Only time can tell the whole story, but you need a PC long before that time passes.

In the end, though, there's always a risk. Whether you buy a $50 PC Chips number or a $150 DFI Lanparty, you can't escape the lingering chance of motherboard failure. It's just a matter of minimizing odds. If you want to play that game, go ahead. I choose not to.

However, if you want to know merely which setup will *perform* better, the 3700+ will beat out the 3500+ regardless of which motherboards you use (provided you don't overclock).

A little hint, though: If you go with socket 754, I bet you can afford a 3700+ and a quality board.
 
An Athlon 64 is a much better choice if you're only doing some light photo editing. The only reason to go Pentium 4/D is if you're doing heavy video encoding/graphics rendering/etc...
 
How about instead of getting a Athlon 64 3500+ or the Intel equivilant you just try the cheaper 3000+ venice core and overclock it to 3500+ speeds? For $147 the Venice core isn't half bad a OCer.
 
Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Well it depends what you do more.
If you game most, get the AMD, if you do video editing most, get the Intel.
Click to expand...

He is gaming, and even AMD chips are better for video editing.
Click to expand...

I am not into O"Clocking at all and I am a gamer. I do alot of video editing too.
Click to expand...
I know he's gaming, he's also video editing.
And AMD are not better than Intel at video encoding
Intel kinda almost stomps AMD at video
When you consider he's looking at single core processors, Intel is better for video, AMD is better for gaming, as I said, so it depends on which he does more, since he is going to be doing both.
 
Originally posted by: Lonyo
I know he's gaming, he's also video editing.
And AMD are not better than Intel at video encoding
Intel kinda almost stomps AMD at video
When you consider he's looking at single core processors, Intel is better for video, AMD is better for gaming, as I said, so it depends on which he does more, since he is going to be doing both.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but those benchmarks prove my point, not yours. Sure, maybe the top model Pentium EE out-muscles the FX-55 (although those aren't the top models any more), but the CPUs in this fellow's price range (Athlon 64 3400+, Pentium 4 630) tell a different story. Just look at the benchmarks. The Athlon 64 3400+ toasts the 630 in almost every test. If you prefer, you can look at the 640 benchmarks--the 640 performs similarly to the 540J, which is also about the same price as a 3400+ or 3500+. As you can see, the 3400+ stands up pretty evenly to the 640.

Intel used to be a good choice for video editing. Now they're just overpriced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top