|
Intel or AMD?
|
|
Staff Member
4 product reviews
|
25. August 2005 @ 18:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi everyone,
Looking into building my 1st PC and need a good processor, for games, backing up movies, music conversion, avi/mpeg conversion, internet browsing, etc.
Now my question is AMD or Intel?
This processor was looking fine to me,
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Venice 1GHz FSB 512KB L2 Cache Socket 939 Processor
but it runs at a 2.2 while a Intel comparable priced Pentium 4 chip runs at 2.8.
I know you can O/C AMD chips but will it be sufficient for games, movies, etc.
Thank you in advance, i would like some advice or even testimonials of these chips.
Also the AMD chips fits perfect for the MoBo im looking into.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. August 2005 @ 18:09
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
25. August 2005 @ 18:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
go with the amd especially for games
|
|
dkertesz
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
25. August 2005 @ 21:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
im planing to build a new pc too with the same AMD pro(3500), and i was looking at intel and saw an intel that ran at 3.2 for the same price as the amd that ran at 2.2, isnt the intel alot better :S
Dave kertesz
|
|
jaydeeX3
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
26. August 2005 @ 07:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
look if you were to benchmark that 3500+ against a p4 running at over 3 ghz, youll stil benchmark higher than the p4 chip.... amd 64 athlon chips have remarkable bus speeds.... i have the 3200+ and my FSB runs at 2000mhz..... i killed my friends p4 3.2ghz with my 2.0ghz chip.....and for games AMD smokes intel...
|
Senior Member
|
26. August 2005 @ 07:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yes there far better for games but if you look at benchmarks you will see P4's are faster at video encoding.
aye aye man
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. August 2005 @ 07:32
|
|
jaydeeX3
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
26. August 2005 @ 07:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
lol.....well with those top notch chips, intel should be able to benchmark higher at everything...that just goes to show you, intel cares more about there ghz speed then the actual quality of the chip, AMD's chips are well rounded, thats why they always kill intel chips..
|
Senior Member
|
26. August 2005 @ 07:38 |
Link to this message
|
aye aye man
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
26. August 2005 @ 12:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
AMD all the way!
Gif by Phantom69
 |
|
webhedreg
Suspended permanently
|
26. August 2005 @ 14:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Although I'm using an AMD FX53 and mainly do video work, I believe that when it comes to Video encoding etc... The Intel processors are better due to their raw processor speed compared to the AMD. Having said that I find my system still knocks the crap out of anything it?s compared against especially when gaming.
|
|
Wolf36
Junior Member
|
27. August 2005 @ 00:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
What Pulsar said. yeah!!
|
|
Daggy-G
Member
|
27. August 2005 @ 03:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
cheap example if u compare an amd 2400+ with a intel 3 ghz the amd smokes intel because the 2400+ is running at 1800mhz & still matches that of the 3 gig intel (SHAME ON INTEL) at half the price)
|
|
DMW
Member
|
27. August 2005 @ 04:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have always been an AMD fan and recent chips are seeing the Intels off at MOST things, but as always one is good for one thing and one may be better at the other.
Short answer : AMD :)
@Daggy
Which 2400 beat a 3GHz? I certainly never saw an XP2400+ (2ghz) beat one or a sempron (1.6ghz) either? Just curious.
|
|
Daggy-G
Member
|
27. August 2005 @ 05:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
I guess i phrazed it wrong, I meant is 2400+ amd is equal to a 3ghz intel
|
Senior Member
|
27. August 2005 @ 10:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Every benchmark I've saw comparing a xp 2400+ against a P4 3ghz the P4 has been the clear winner even the xp3000+ is slower in benchmarks, the 64bits wipe the floor with the P4's thou. Doesn't 2400+ mean it's the same as a p4 2.4ghz.
aye aye man
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. August 2005 @ 11:29
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
27. August 2005 @ 11:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
yes
|
|
Daggy-G
Member
|
30. August 2005 @ 06:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
You silly chumps forgot 1 thing the 2400+ sempron is a budget processor
& Wasn't meant to compete with normal p4 3ghz processor
It was made as a counter measure to intel's hurting 3gh celloron processor. (which infact is soooo slow!)
The sempron 2400+ is equal to intel p4 2400gh yes!
BUT ONLY IF U COMPARE IT TO A NON BUDGET PROCESSOR!
(meaning sempron2400+ is a buddget processor that is equal to that the power of the p4 2400 ghz processor which is NOT a budget procesor)
SHAME ON INTEL!
The sempron 2400's go anywhere from 1600 mhz to 1800 mhz
& still RIVALS a intel p4 2400gh processor & sure as the bj i am getting while typing this ... It outdoes a p4 3ghz celloron!
:-)
I see diff pc's everyday & celleron 3ghz is not even On the sempron 2400+ level but the p4 2400ghz IS.
The sempron 3000+ which is another BUDGET processor is on the same level as p4 3 ghz which is not a budget processor.
For gameing amd is the only way to go.
Those hurting benchmark u saw r by intel fan boys go look some more you'll see other benchmarks prooving my outake to this to be true.
Hope this helps u decide
As for video ... Look at the quality of the video encoded with amd then intel ... u will notice amd takes 15 to 20 mins longer to do video ... But they use a totally different method of encoding which that of the pic quality is alot better.
2 bonuses ... AMD chips are made to be overclockable. amd the company has taken over the market with this & it seems they got Billions of happy customers worldwide.
AMD chips are also half the price of intel
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. August 2005 @ 06:37
|
|
Destra
Member
|
30. August 2005 @ 06:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
AMD will give you better bang for your buck but if you plan on doing a lot of video encoding then get Intel.
|
|
bliberal
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
30. August 2005 @ 06:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
I was told that P4 had an instruction path that is 21 instructions in lenth while AMD's path is 12 instructions deep. The longer the path the greater the gigahertz number you can generate. The look ahead routine used to predict the next instruction is often wrong, and the execution
must restart. The fact that AMD must only restart and do 12 instructions gives it a slight advantage even though it does not have a higher rating.
It appears that the WORK DONE can be equated like this - 3.8 is 3800+.
Just put the decimal point after the first number in the AMD number and you get the equivalent work done by the intel P4 number.
True or not, AMD is generally less expensive and has the advantage of a
private association with NVIDIA. Many people prefer NVIDIA over the other companies.
I do know that the socket 939 will take all levels of AMD chip, such as
32xx and FX plus the new daul core chips. The trick is to get a board like the DFI SLI board with SATA 3 gigabyte support for the new SATA hard drives. This way you will be obsolesence proof for many years to come. I hope this helps DVDBACK23.
|
Senior Member
|
30. August 2005 @ 07:17 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
AMD chips are also half the price of Intel
Are you sure about that it seems Intel are alot cheaper now.
As for encoding i always get great quality and I've seen AMD encoded video and there's not much of a difference well at lest not to me, AMD are better for games FACT, Pentiums are better at encoding FACT, even if the benchmark's are by fanboys it still shows the results.
AMD have fanboys too you know!
aye aye man
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. August 2005 @ 07:24
|
Staff Member
4 product reviews
|
30. August 2005 @ 07:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks for all the advice, everyone.
It seems that AMD would be a logical choice for my gaming and video encoding, as will be buying ahead with a 939 instead of 747?.
Again, thanks for the SOUND and FACTUAL advice.
|
Senior Member
|
30. August 2005 @ 07:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
No problem :)
hope it as goes well, post back once you have it running and tell us how it runs.
aye aye man
|
Member
|
30. August 2005 @ 23:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
if you want DRM go with intel.If you want a well rounded processor go with AMD.
Is it crap or is it memorex?
|
Senior Member
|
31. August 2005 @ 01:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Id have to go with AMD especially if its for your gaming needs
|
|
bliberal
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
31. August 2005 @ 06:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
Here I go again. I just hit the wrong key and went into deep space. I lost the data I was entering. If you see something from me, and it is incomplete, ignore it.
I was replying to DVDBACK23's questions.
Planning is the key to this process. I have built some nice PCs, and I learned something with each one.
The most important considerations are data rate and cooling.
Data rate seems to be broken down into data flowing from memory to the CPU. Using examples to illustrate this is best. For instance, with single channel 512mb pc3200 DDR we can achieve 3.2 gBs (gigabytes per second),
but with the same memory in a daul channel configuration, we can get 6.4 gBs. Hence, the advantage of insisting on daul channel support.
Other data rate considerations involve the FSB. P4 is usually 800 mhz with the Prescott chip, but you can get 1066 mhz if you try hard and spend the money for the extreme edition. AMD socket 939 3500+ has a 2000 mhz front side bus (fsb). This is presumably achieved by the fact that the CPU is directly involved with video and memory management of the data flow. It is called Hyper Transport.
The 939 socket will take 32xx, FX, and the upcoming dual core chips.
All of this in worthless without a case and airflow to keep it going.
Thermaltake makes cases and heat sinks that work well together.
My 3800+ chip has a copper heatpipe sink with a big aluminum fin setup that has a 120 mm fan extracting the heat. It is massive and requires a
little wider case than some little $29.95 case with a 350 watt power supply. Can you imagine the little old lady that buys them??
Just remember this, you are producing substantial heat and you must evacuate it from the CPU and the case. Video, memory, and hard drives get hot too, and they must be in the air flow to function well.
I use a PCI slot squirrel cage fan affair next to my video card. It only costs $10. I use 120 mm fans front and rear to move air without
excessive noise. The power supply is itself important to cool, because their ratings are determined just after they are removed from the freezer. The hotter the supply, the lower the power it produces. Take a look at the website called www.coolerguys.com. They have many intersting products to help cool your rig. If you hate fan noise, use 120 mm fans with the word STEALTH written on them. You will be able to drop the voltage to about 8 volts with fan controls, but you must monitor temperatures. My CPU runs about 49 C with all of this.
All of this heat and cooling is much more imortant when you have SLI video with two cards. Good luck DVDBACK23.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
kuqdew
Suspended permanently
|
31. August 2005 @ 14:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
Get Intel
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. August 2005 @ 17:24
|
