Which is better?

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: rnp614
Hrm having a problem with the A64:
I have 1 stick of 512mb Corsair XMS that is working fine (i'm using that comp right now) but when I put in the second stick the computer doesnt do anything. The screen just sits black and nothing comes up. I've read the site and I believe that I use slots 2 and 4 for Dual Channel. Are there any settings I need to check or change?

What kind of mb do you have?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: krnxpride83
In most of apps.. intel faster
In every game.. AMD faster..

false

 

[RollWave]

MSI Neo2-FIR

 

[PhlashFoto]

For me, I always prefer Intel.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: ELopes580
For me, I always prefer Intel.

You poor soul

 

[Gamingphreek]

A64

 

[PhlashFoto]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: ELopes580
For me, I always prefer Intel.

You poor soul

Oh turn that frown upside down!!

EDIT: BTW, I have used an AMD back in the day, very unstable system. ( Yes I knew what I was doing)

I had a brand new Intel and a new AMD system. The AMD was unstable, while the Intel ran flawless. Even though the AMD had better performance, it is useless if I cant run my machine 24*7*365

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: ELopes580

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: ELopes580
For me, I always prefer Intel.

You poor soul

Oh turn that frown upside down!!

EDIT: BTW, I have used an AMD back in the day, very unstable system. ( Yes I knew what I was doing)

I had a brand new Intel and a new AMD system. The AMD was unstable, while the Intel ran flawless. Even though the AMD had better performance, it is useless if I cant run my machine 24*7*365

Back in the SS7 days, or even SlotA days, AMD was very hit and miss.
These days, they're solid, so do yourself a favour and buy what suits your needs based on price/performance, not by ancient history.

 

[PhlashFoto]

True, but as the saying goes "Noone ever gets/got fired for buying Intel."

 

[Zebo]

Stock they are same
http://behardware.com/articles/510/page11.html

Features
-AMD uses almost no power like 35W Intels C using about 70W.
-Intel has Hyperthreadiing which is useful if you run a couple intense apps at once
-AMD has mem-controller intrgrated for instant snap due to incredibly low latency.
-AMD has 64 bitness which is useful if you ever want to run a 64bit OS and or apps

Overclcoking
No qeustion AMD since every 100Mhz you OC it you need about 150 Mhz Intel OC to match

In other words 3000@2600Mhz = 4000Mhz P4 (which you aint going to do with a C chip)

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2242

I'd pick AMD chip.. P4C is nice but getting dated.

Why not bench them yourself...I would..be fun.

 

[fatty4ksu]

A 570J performs worse in games than a AMD 3000+
A 3800+ performs worse than an 520 in MPEG-2 encoding.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: ELopes580
True, but as the saying goes "Noone ever gets/got fired for buying Intel."

I'd say it's more like "Noone ever got fired for buying HP/IBM/Dell/Sun" in reality.
And since both HP and Sun have strong AMD based offerings even on the enterprise side these days, I'd say AMD is good enough these days

 

[PleasurePaulie64]

I got a P4C 3ghz, and an A64 3000+ both have 1gb of ram.

In games, windows boot times, and giving a very "snappy" feel of usage, the AMD is better. Also is cheaper then pentium 4.

However, the P4 feels nicer to use over a wide range of applictions and just "smoother" and doesnt bog down as much. Probably a bit better at DIVX encoding as well apparantly - Not that I notice.

Personally, Id just go straight to a dual core processor as I can't see any benefit having such high speed single thread performance. The P4 dual cores are fairly cheap as well.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
My music server has a "slow" Tualatin 1.3 GHz processor that takes ten minutes to rip and encode a music CD. But since I only buy a couple of new CDs a month, I'd get almost zero benefit from buying a 3 GHz CPU to reduce the rip and encode time to 6 minutes for just 2 CDs a month.

is that a 512k tualatin?

 

[bob4432]

in all reality, you will not notice the difference from what you are doing. in fact my wifes 1GHz Athlon/384/30GB 7200rpm and my xp2000/256MB/9GB 7200/120GB 7200 chugs along pretty good with just internet/word/office/small server stuff compared to my rig. in encoding audio/video my rig kicks a$$ as long as the encoder is smp/smt aware, if not i only get 50% cpu usage. next machine will probably be a x2...

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: ELopes580
For me, I always prefer Intel.

open your mind and use what is best for your given situation.

 

[Pabster]

So the guy prefers Intel. So do I. Big deal!

Use what makes you happy.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Pabster
So the guy prefers Intel. So do I. Big deal!

Use what makes you happy.

Your posts in this thread, while still have your personal preference are much better.

Because you cited information that is pretty true. The Intel chips multi-task much better due to there long instruction pipeline, which is helped even more by HT.

As for Audio/Video Encoding. It is hard to call Intel the undisputed leader here anymore. While Intel wins most of these AMD takes a few of its own. You will likely not notice the performance delta.

Of course the 3.0C is the superior chip.

Sort of fell apart right there didn't you.