Which is better and whats the difference?

[dave518]

Im very new to computers and anything like that, but from what I have noticed gamers tend to like AMD processors and alot of computer comercials on TV have Intel processors.
I was wondering what the difference between the two is.
Also I have noticed that AMD processors have lower operating frequencies, why is that?

thanks for any responces in advance

 

[Duvie]

You really need to search this in the forums...It has been beaten over the head several times...IOt is not a simple answer at this current point...may be a bit more clearer in a few weeks, but ultimately each cpu is excellent if you determin its ultimate strengths to your use as well as price/performance...

I cannot justify any 8xx series P-D's...I could on a good deal presler...

I can still justify AMD pruchases now and even in a few weeks versus core 2 duo...especially for the price cuts that have been announced...

Ultimately the crown jewel and clear cut winner will be Core 2 Duo in a few weeks..It is just a matter if that power is needed by you or if the price is right....The core 2 duo prices are not bad even for preorders but the boards may carry heavy early-adopter type prices...DDR2 is very competitive to older ram in price...


Gamers may like AMD still cause very few games take advantage of multicores...so perhaps a cheap sempron 3100+ or single core chip is all a person needs and they would be better off spending the cash on the video card...

 

[Conky]

Noobs shouldn't make threads.

 

[dave518]

Thanks Duvie

Does operating frequency affect the performance of the computer much?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: dave518
Thanks Duvie

Does operating frequency affect the performance of the computer much?

Yes to a degree.....More importantly it is about IPC and how many instruction can be done per clock cycle

Netburst was high mhz but got less done per clock cycle, hence why an AMD64 at nearly 1.4-1.6ghz slower could still equal or better it...AMD has more IPC units and gets more done per clock cycle

The operating frequncy is generally the raw power...It is more prevalent in number crunching scenarios, rendering (3D and Photos), encoding and decoding, etc....Games are more heavily dependent on gpus (graphic cards) to render objects and textures ...Therefore a fast speed cpu with a slow video card will be no faster then that same slow video card often with a much less of speed cpu....Most games at higher res nowadays are limited by graphics cards and thus even a single core chip like a sempron 3400+ can run modern games no problem....

 

[dave518]

Oo, ok, that makes sense, thanks for your help, sorry Im being a Noob

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: dave518
Oo, ok, that makes sense, thanks for your help, sorry Im being a Noob

Wasn't trying to pick on you but asking "which is better, AMD or Intel" is what is normally called a troll or a flamebait post... both designed to create havoc and nonsense on a board like this.

You need to read some of the posts here and decide for yourself which is better for you.

The hot things right now are the so-called Conroe based chips by Intel and the AMD X2 lines. Hard to go wrong with either brand although many will swear up and down that one or the other is the devil. :laugh:

:beer:

 

[DrMrLordX]

You also need to read about a little chip called Conroe that is starting to trickle into retail stocks as we speak.

 

[dave518]

I shall read up on this Conroe indeed then

Thanks

 

[broly8877]

Core2 > A64 > XP/P4 > Athlon > P3

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: dave518
I shall read up on this Conroe indeed then

Thanks

If you are looking to buy a new rig now, then think only Conroe. If you want cheapness then the A64 AM2 range is dropping in price soon, so that will be a good buy for a lower price range.

EDIT: Never mind just read the OP, i see you were just asking the question and not looking to buy.

 

[dave518]

I just read about the Intel Conroe at the link below, it does seem to be quite a processor, out of my price range however.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713

 

[DrMrLordX]

If the cheapest Conroe (E6300) is too rich for you, take a look at the X2-3800+ prices and Pentium D 915, 930, and 940 prices by the end of the month.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: dave518
Oo, ok, that makes sense, thanks for your help, sorry Im being a Noob

Wasn't trying to pick on you but asking "which is better, AMD or Intel" is what is normally called a troll or a flamebait post... both designed to create havoc and nonsense on a board like this.

You need to read some of the posts here and decide for yourself which is better for you.

The hot things right now are the so-called Conroe based chips by Intel and the AMD X2 lines. Hard to go wrong with either brand although many will swear up and down that one or the other is the devil. :laugh:

:beer:

or just be like me and don't give a rats ass about which is better and buy both brands...they both have there pros and cons...but generally AMD's(until Core 2 Duo is offically released) are faster than Intels and have less heat issues(geez I can remember when it was AMD having all of the heat issues.....1.4Ghz T-Birds anyone?)

 

[DrMrLordX]

Not all of us can afford to buy both brands simultaneously, hence the need to pick and choose.

Also, I believe the desktop Barton-core XP-3200+ ran hotter than the 1.4 ghz Thunderbird. Or, at least, it had a higher TDP rating.

 

[akshayt]

Intel Core 2 duo on average beats Amd by 20% +-5% for the fastest lot, on average i think.

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Not all of us can afford to buy both brands simultaneously, hence the need to pick and choose.

Also, I believe the desktop Barton-core XP-3200+ ran hotter than the 1.4 ghz Thunderbird. Or, at least, it had a higher TDP rating.

I don't have TDP numbers handy, but the 1.4 GHz Thunderbird is listed as 65 W typical here, while the Barton 3200+ is listed as 60.4 W. Maximum runs the other way, 72 W vs. 76.8 W.

If you want to talk about a fairly recent AMD chip producing a lot of heat, the Athlon XP Palomino is a better choice than the Barton. They also suffered from not having an effective enough heatsink.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Right, I was thinking of the maximum TDP on the 3200+. The Tbird was a hot all-around chip (I owned one, ugh).

And yes, AMD was plagued by inadequate stock HSFs from the T-bird through Barton era.

 

[dave518]

You guys sure do know a whole lot about computers huh, is it just experience or how do you learn all of this?

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: dave518
You guys sure do know a whole lot about computers huh, is it just experience or how do you learn all of this?

It's a never ending learning process.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Reading, reading, and more reading. You also have to learn how to work with and understand computer technology at the end-user level. A fundamental understanding of all the engineering behind modern CPUs is not necessary to competantly evaluate the speed of a chip or even build your own PC from parts. It helps, but it's not necessary.

 

[dave518]

read what kind of materials?

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: dave518
read what kind of materials?

Try AT articles on CPU/chipsets

 

[DrMrLordX]

Yeah, Anandtech articles are good. So are these forums if you can pick out the right posts and get past any FUD that might crop up.

Also, do a search on all posts by the user "pm" in the CPU/Overclocking forum here and read them. He knows his stuff.