AMD vs Intel

[HornsInTheHouse]

I've always used Intel, but I know a lot of people who swear by AMDs despite their lower clock speed. I'm looking to get one of the new AMD 64-bit chips, the 3000+, but it's only 2 ghz vs a similarly priced 2.8 ghz Intel. Any recommendations/differences between the two?

 

[TexasOwnzYou]

amds are shitload cheaper than intels

compare the price of a 2500+ and a 2.5 ghz p4.

 

[Ags_EE]

I basically swear by AMD because I'm a cheap bastard and can't afford otherwise. My 2500+ and mobo set me back about 100 or so, and the thing runs at 3200+ easily. (Got it sitting at 650 mhz above stock at the moment.)

The AMD will be a lot faster in most applications you will use it in. Clock speed doesn't matter when dealing with comparisons between architectures.

/ee mode

Basically the P-4 is heavily pipelining their processor in order to get faster clockspeeds. Unfortunately, pipelining more reduces the amount of work done per clock by a lot and negates a large portion of clock speed gains. The new P-4 stepping, Prescott, is a good example. Intel jacked up the pipelining which killed work done per clock and had to massively increase cache to make up for it.

 

[hooklahoma]

I've built w/ nothing but AMD's because the MoBo's you can get for them are usualy easy to overclock. (If you're into that kind of thing.)

Forget stated clockspeed. Go over to toms hardware guide or one of the other harware geek sites and look at the compareable benchmarks for the kind of computing you want to do (ie:Gaming, CAD, video processing , etc) I do that kind of research whenever i build a machine and the AMD chip always seems to be the best "bang for the buck".

 

[Hornin NYC]

"I've always used Intel, but I know a lot of people who swear by AMDs despite their lower clock speed. "

Clock speed is only one part of the equation just like horsepower is only one part of the equation for a car.

Lower clock speed AMDs are typicaly faster AND lower priced than their Intel counterparts.

Performance is measured not by clock speed as but by benchmarks and computer tasks tusually measured by 2 free programs, PC/3dMark and Sandra.

You could get very technical here but in almost every case for the same price the AMD is faster (i.e. more powerful).

I currently have an FX-51 system (AMD 64bit) and it hauls serious *** and is faster than it's Intel counterpart.

For example currently at the top (Newegg):

AMD FX-53 AMD is $765

the Intel P4/3.2 extreme edition is $915

Guess which is faster?
The Link

Just one review with the AMD not running 64 bit native code. If it was (which it can't becasue xp 64 is in beta) it would be let's say, embarrassing. Then again what it COULD do is irrelevant. However what it CAN do is still better.

At a more reasonable price point:

AMD athlon XP 3200 Barton - $187

Intel P4 3.2/800 -$272

(note if an AMD is 3200 it means it's meant to compete with the intel 3.2 - this is to make it easier on people who just compare clock speeds)
The Link

Here you will fiund that the Intel outperforms the AMD due to it's quad pumped FSB (800 mhz vs 400) but not by a huge margin.

So Intel is better? Wait, you are paying $100 more for the Intel.

What happens if you buy an AMD worth 100 more?

Hmm for $282 you can get an AMD Athlon 64 3200+

Yes, for the same price you get 64 bit technology which annihilates the equally priced Intel on performance. *****-slaps it.

I don't hate Intel, when they make a chip that costs the same as the equally priced AMD that is faster I will buy it.

There is no reason to buy a processor for the name value anymore if there ever was.

Intel chips aren't easier to use, there isn't software that runs on Intel and not AMD, their customer service isn't better, their return policies aren't better.

The only plug I can toss in for Intel over AMD is occasionally the surrounding components like motherboards are more expensive for AMD (but only at the super high end FX-51 or FX-53 and not significantly then).

Plus AMD is in Austin!

Gamers and geeks like AMD becasue in the past AMD was more concerned with the gaming/geek community. Their chips were cheaper and easier to overclock. Thus the following.

Both companies make great chips that work fine, you can't go wrong with either but at most price points AMD gives you more bang for your buck.

 

[idigTexas]

Ditto.

I can't really expand on what has been posted so far other than to say that you can find more than adequate discussion on this topic at various web sites that specialize in this sort of thing.

If you've read any of the "build your own PC" threads on here, you already know where most of us go for information.

There's nothing wrong with asking the knowledgeable posters of HornFans, but a secondary source never hurts.

 

[longhrnfan]

i have a sweet mac now. but i still use my old PC from 2000... it was an amd 700... i LOVE it. I rarely have problems with it associated with speed, but it also has like 512 ram. I researched both processors, they were the same price then... i dotn remember why i picked athlon.

anyways. i'd go for the g4 or g5 apple processor.

 

[Hornin NYC]

"i'd go for the g4 or g5 apple processor.
"

Absolutley, they cost more and are less powerful. Add the fact that you then own a Mac and you get the crappiness trifecta.