Which Prossesor Is Better

[win98]

which processor brand is better

[Tulac]

I'd say AMD at the moment, they have cheaper and faster processors, Intel really blew it with their presscot proccessors, but they still have most of the market share though...

[Dino]

Cheaper doesn't mean better :). In most cases. that is. I'd say Intel... Why? Well, overall higher quality and far less overheating. P4 HT are especially good, but can't say anything about EE (Extreme edition), haven't had the chance to try them.

[Tulac]

Originally posted by OvErLoRd@Jun 12 2005, 12:26 AM
but can't say anything about EE (Extreme edition),
Actually all presscot based proccesors tend to overheat ;)
And the days of AMD being unstable and overheating, are far away now, though people still have that prejudice :whistle:...
AMD just jumped over Intel with 64-bit proccessors...

[Caged]

right, AMD just overtook Intel in WorldBench 5 test scores.

The difference between the 2 types though is their intended use. AMD kicks when its processing game data or anything graphical oriented, especially with 3DNow! technology.

Intel has its downside with games but where it lacks in that area in jumps above and beyond in raw computing power as well as multitasking.

If one is to correctly choose which type of processor to purchase, all one needs to do is think about the computer's intended use.

[win98]

i have amd at the moment

[win98]

at the moment amd is in the lead

[Rogue]

Same processor most of the cosnoles uses

PP - ibm's power processor

68000 and 68020 where cool too. :D :ok: (Amiga 500 and 1200) :D

[troop18546]

Well, I have AMD, it's cheaper, but the fact is +100euros for Intel's speed is way much better. Anyway, if AMD is better for gaming I vote for AMD.

[Tulac]

Originally posted by troop18546@Jun 12 2005, 11:29 AM
Well, I have AMD, it's cheaper, but the fact is +100euros for Intel's speed is way much better.
AMD has the fastest proccessor on the market at the moment :whistle:

[troop18546]

Well, I have AMD 3000+, but it works as 2091mhz, but Intels 3.0GHz works as 3.0GHz. So there. Well, if now AMD is fastest - whoopee. Could I ask what speed the newest has??? :blink:

[xoopx]

AMD chips have better FPU performance ...
so thats good for most people, because its better for games, encoding movies, emulators, etc which is where the 'big gun' power of a chip is usually needed.
and they cost less.

[Tulac]

Originally posted by troop18546@Jun 12 2005, 11:51 AM
Well, I have AMD 3000+, but it works as 2091mhz, but Intels 3.0GHz works as 3.0GHz. So there. Well, if now AMD is fastest - whoopee. Could I ask what speed the newest has??? :blink:
It's not all in the Ghz, per say AMD FX-something has 2.2 ghz clock but has better performance than pentium on 3.6Ghz, even Intel has abandoned marking their proccessors by Ghz, because it makes no sense, because today there are too many other factors that decide the speed, like overall architecture, cache memory etc.

[troop18546]

Well... O.K. then its AMD for life then. :D


AMD :kosta: AMD

[Quintopotere]

I loved AMD processors from their first appearance! And i always hated the Intel predominance!

I could explain this with many technical reasons... but i'll tell you that my preference it's only caused by a subjective personal preference!

Anyway, nowaday, no one could find differences between two processors of the same class if you don't tell him...

[Rav3n]

Yeh, I have a Pentium 4 3Ghz+ with HT

Runs like a charm...I had some issues with my video card (ATI Radeon 9800XT, it overheated and I had to replace the heatsyncs) but not with the Processor

[omg]

i use amd becuse i dont use my pc as a rendering farm. intel is for hardcore programmers and render farms + vidio editing terminals maybe. for a home pc it has to be amd. (oo it rhymes, possible advertising message?)
i have heard if you are building a multiple processor cluster it has to be intel, but i have never desired such madness to be sitting on my desk. and i dont want to buy from a company that is rooted in american defence contracts.

[xoopx]

Originally posted by omg@Jun 12 2005, 12:36 PM
i use amd becuse i dont use my pc as a rendering farm. intel is for hardcore programmers and render farms + vidio editing terminals maybe. for a home pc it has to be amd. (oo it rhymes, possible advertising message?)
i have heard if you are building a multiple processor cluster it has to be intel, but i have never desired such madness to be sitting on my desk. and i dont want to buy from a company that is rooted in american defence contracts.
hm well i hate to tell you, but a lot of intel chips are embedded into things you probably own ;)

[konfliktPL]

Amd and Intel CPUs are of comparable performance, but since AMD are cheaper You can spend the money You save on a better GPU for instance... I vote AMD.

[Caged]

Originally posted by troop18546@Jun 12 2005, 06:51 AM
Well, I have AMD 3000+, but it works as 2091mhz, but Intels 3.0GHz works as 3.0GHz. So there. Well, if now AMD is fastest - whoopee. Could I ask what speed the newest has??? :blink:
Just as a bit of info, I too was troubled by the fact that AMD chips never seem to run at their intended speed. Come to find out, one has to move some jumpers around on the mobo in order to get the recommended speed. :ok: :Titan:

[omg]

Originally posted by xoopx@Jun 12 2005, 12:57 PM

hm well i hate to tell you, but a lot of intel chips are embedded into things you probably own ;)
noooooooo. im going to have to start taking the back off of things to find out which things have there chips in.

[xoopx]

Originally posted by Caged+Jun 12 2005, 03:07 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Caged @ Jun 12 2005, 03:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-troop18546@Jun 12 2005, 06:51 AM
Well, I have AMD 3000+, but it works as 2091mhz, but Intels 3.0GHz works as 3.0GHz. So there. Well, if now AMD is fastest - whoopee. Could I ask what speed the newest has??? :blink:
Just as a bit of info, I too was troubled by the fact that AMD chips never seem to run at their intended speed. Come to find out, one has to move some jumpers around on the mobo in order to get the recommended speed. :ok: :Titan: [/b][/quote]
@_@

are you saying you run the cpu's real-world mhz at the "+" speed rating?!

it might be running a little hot ;)

[Tulac]

The 3200+ and such aren't intended to be clock speed, and I find it almoest impossible to raise it to those speeds(that is unless you have nytrogen cooling or something), because that designation is only a comparation, it suppose to show that this proccessors is fast as an equivalent of Pentium at that speed, so that means that 3200+ @ 2.Ghz(or whatever it is) is in around the same as the speed of Pentium4 3.2Ghz...
But now Intel has too abandoned the Ghz signs and also numerates it's products...

[Moshchu]

My CPu comes from the times that AMD didnt even exist and it is made by Intel. Does it mean that i am an Intel fan? Well, that little contraption in my machine works since 1999 so I guess i am an Intel fan :sneaky: .

[xoopx]

i had a cyrix chip 200mhz once! no amd or intel involved!

[win98]

i thing amd sounds good for me

[WolverineDK]

an AMD thunderbird 1 GHZ is in my pc at this moment so i vote for AMD

and second AMD and cyrix made 486 cpus on license from intel.

[xoopx]

Originally posted by WolverineDK@Jun 12 2005, 11:04 PM

and second AMD and cyrix made 486 cpus on license from intel.
no.

[win98]

i have an amd athlon xp 2000 clocked at 1700mhz
running win98 runs fast

[Rogue]

Originally posted by Moshchu@Jun 12 2005, 03:25 PM
My CPu comes from the times that AMD didnt even exist and it is made by Intel. Does it mean that i am an Intel fan? Well, that little contraption in my machine works since 1999 so I guess i am an Intel fan :sneaky: .
AMD existed well before 99.

[WolverineDK]

Originally posted by xoopx+Jun 12 2005, 11:08 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (xoopx @ Jun 12 2005, 11:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-WolverineDK@Jun 12 2005, 11:04 PM

and second AMD and cyrix made 486 cpus on license from intel.
no. [/b][/quote]
please correct me in other ways :)

with a link because it was not clone processors,
they made before the new processors

(i would not call them clone in pirate way)

[Caged]

Originally posted by xoopx+Jun 12 2005, 02:09 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (xoopx @ Jun 12 2005, 02:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Caged@Jun 12 2005, 03:07 PM
******QuoteBegin-troop18546@Jun 12 2005, 06:51 AM
Well, I have AMD 3000+, but it works as 2091mhz, but Intels 3.0GHz works as 3.0GHz. So there. Well, if now AMD is fastest - whoopee. Could I ask what speed the newest has??? :blink:
Just as a bit of info, I too was troubled by the fact that AMD chips never seem to run at their intended speed. Come to find out, one has to move some jumpers around on the mobo in order to get the recommended speed. :ok: :Titan:
@_@

are you saying you run the cpu's real-world mhz at the "+" speed rating?!

it might be running a little hot ;) [/b][/quote]
I run my sempron chip at its advertised 1.5G

When I installed it and found it only at 1.2G, I got ticked off and demanded to know why. 1.5G is its safe maximum and my board simply wasn't configured to tap into it completely. As soon as it was, it worked nicely giving me a slight speed boost. :cheers:

[win98]

i now know amd has been round for ages sweet i guess you do learn something everyday

[The Fifth Horseman]

AMD for me. They have overall better performance then Intel, IMHO, and this dates back to the times of x86. They also overclock much better (and are more stable afterwards).

[Apocalypse Dude]

As far as I know the performance is about the same, aswell is the heat that's coming from the CPU's.
But I work as a repair engineer for a major computer builder (to remane nameless here) and in the last 1.5 year I've seen a whole lot more of AMD's failing then Intel's. So my mind is made up I rather pay a little bit more money knowing that I buy a CPU that lasts....

[_r.u.s.s.]

intel sucks
I've seen a whole lot more of AMD's failing then Intel's.
durons, new AMD processors are just better, especially 64bit athlon!

[Apocalypse Dude]

I said in the last 1.5 year, so no Duron's but I mean Athlon's, Athlon64's and sempron's