AMD or Intel

I have a home network of 5 computers a P4, P3, Celiron, AMD Duron 800 Mhz and an Athlon 64 3500+ 90mn. As I am on meny forums I read alot about computers and find it funny that people are allways going head to head over this hands down my AMD Rigs out run my Intel. there are things my Duron will do better then my P4! Don't get me wrong Intel is a little better when coding, but I have found the AMD build better over all when looking at; cost, temp, what they do how fast they do it devided by clock speed. Some people say AMD run hotter then Intel... Well core temp of my 3500 at this time is 57 F aloot cooler then my P4 that is at an even 40c (100 F)... the system will not read in F degrees because the mobo on my P4 is built in and for Canada/UK. Aside from a 43% jump in temp I personly do not want to spend $100.oo to $1500.oo on something I have to add a larger fan to keep cool.

P.S. the P4 and 3500 are in case the same size and all the fans are the same down to the models the heat sinks are the same build one for the AMD the other for Intel and both computers have the same speed harddrives... you would think that the AMD would be hotter with the 2 Extream n6800 Ultras in it having 1.14 Ghz each of GPU speed to work with. You know; I look at buying a computer as long as I can, normaly the day after I buy a computer is am keeping notes on what CPU and parts I will use in my next Rig,it is hardly ever these parts but I know the flaws and strong points of everything I own eg. down side to my 3500 if I run Norton on the system it must be 2005 or better.

yeah i've been going through the same debate in my head too. this summer im planning on building my first pc, and at first i just assumed i would do a P4, but now im swayed into AMD-land. i guess what it would come down to would be this:

ease of construction: as this will be my first build and would like the cpu install to be as pain-free as possible

computer usage: this will be a computer primarily for memory intensive apps (music progs) and day to day multitasking, with occasional gaming on the side

upgradeability: not as important as the first two, but it would be nice to know that a year or so down the road i could upgrade the chip and get a good boost.

any thoughts?

I've always been partial to AMD.

One simple reason is that they are Intels only competition. If we don't support them, AMD goes out of business, Intel and M$ partner and completely monopolize the PC industry. Then They partner with Dell, the 3 of them giving each other huge discounts, creating super cheap PCs, which then sell like mad, causing manufacturers to partner as well to get in on the action. This puts the little guys out of business. But nobody cares anymore because PCs are so cheap. Customer builders get the boot because they'll have to pay premium prices to get the OS and CPUs.
Then the world just blows up

But when it comes down to it. For price and gaming and everyday stuff, go for AMD. When people are programming, doing video and audio mastering and compression (basically super intense calculation stuff), go for Intel.

On the 64bit side, I would ONLY do AMD right now. Because Intels 64bit were actually SLOWER on 32bit OS then their 32bit CPUs. But AMDs kicked **** on 32bit right from the start.

Anways, my two cents.

well, N8..I would agree with what Vigilant said...'specially the part about the world 'just blowing up'.

I just built my first PC from scratch...and I knew next to nothing before coming to TechSpot.

I went with AMD all the way. The performance/price ratio was better, for my case.

If you got Intel you probably wont have much regret, but the AMD Athlon64 3000 that I ended up getting does everything I expected, and more..(heavy multi-tasking, some gaming..) BTW, the video-card plays the bigger role when it comes to most games, anyway...regardless of Intel or AMD...and Im not saying the brand isn't a factor....just that it's not really the factor.

Now, I dont have a fast Intel chip, so I can't speak to that, but I can say that the Athlon64 I got is awesome...no regrets...very fast. (I'm coming off a 1.1 gig Celereon, so factor that in)

And I think, should you go with AMD, that an Athlon64-with socket 939 is the way to go. It will be upgradable in a year or two(or more, perhaps)...and it will handle the new 64bit Windows when/if it comes out en masse. And the chip price is very low (relatively speaking). The 939 socket is important, the other sockets are being 'phased out', but the 939 is just coming into it's own, and I believe that all 939's have DUAL Channel built in(which speeds up the memory ability).



Easy to build, (as a 'newb', it took me about 1 hour, with a little help)

I got the Chaintech S1689 for $70--works great...and the Athlon64 for $150, incuding heatsink&fan.
It was like stepping thru a time-warp for me, when I powered it up

And a lot of great help from the TechSpot folks...keep askin 'em questions...they keep giving answers,...(and they don't even make you pay hehe...)

If i only.....

Yea i have a p4 and every day i wish i had invested in a AMD. I have always owned a Intel..all the way back to my old 66MHz pentium 1. I even have some of my college money invested in Intel Stock But my p4 runs hot, is slower, and cost more then a comparable AMD. So i must agree with you...

Sean

Like everyone here this is just what i think. So to all my Intel buddies dont send threating emails to egg my house.

heyy thanks for the help guys. yeah im really stuck in a pickle about which to choose. comparing prices, for 145 on newegg you can get an AMD A64 3000+, vs a 2.66ghz P4 prescott. i'd rather have a processor strong in audio/video capabilities (intel), but does this speed and temp. difference make up for that?


also another rumor i read...that amd's are not as longlasting, any truth to that? i would imagine that the intels running hot would hurt their life more..oh well.

well the 3000 will kill the 2.66

Yea even with a 2.66 p4 and AMD 3000 the AMD would win hands down, even with the audio/video coding advantages from the p4 i would go with the 3000+

Sean

P.S. kill the p4?!?!? how dare you say that... be nice to my intel

im a bit surprised to hear some of these things. amd's products excel in certain gaming applications, but the prescott has generally better performance. a lot of people bash intel, but they don't realize that intel is primarily responsible for the existence of the x86 architecture. all non-intel x86 compatible cpus borrow heavily from intel's designs and instruction sets.

yeah thats what i figured, the difference in speed would counter the prospective cpu's specialities. i gotta say im a bit nervous with amd, i had a custom computer built years ago, 1.2ghz athlon, and it froze up a crapload..had to send it back :-( i ran a search on google, how to install amd A64...and i got tons of results of people that had problems..little scary. but the reviews of the cpu itself are quite favorable. is there anything special that needs to be done because its 64bit rather than 32 bit? or is it just a preparation for the future? does it pose any problems for today?

Well I have to say AMD I run a Batron right now never had any problems and this is really stable running at 2.10 Mhz it will play any game and do what I want it to do.Intel have there good points too AMD know for gamming and Intel more for multitasking .. I believe we has this talk here already the ins and outs of both But the big point here is was not for AMD we all be paying over 2000$ for a 2 gig CPU.. It was AMD that brought prices down that is why they say more bang for the buck..

I personally Like AMD better been using them for a long time now..

I used to be a Intel only type person back in the P3 days. When P4 first came out I went with AMD and am glad I did. At times Intel has out performed AMD but usually not for long. For a hobbiest AMD is great because of the overclocking abilities of the chip. Not only can you do a FSB OC, but (with the right chips) you can also use in the CPU multiplier to raise FSB, by lowering the multiplier to get the MB as fast as possible, without the CPU being pushed too far. The faster the MB is clocked the greater the memory bandwidth. The AMD64 looks to be a pretty competent chip. It's much cooler than the Intel Prescotts, and runs circles around them. I'll be going to AMD64 939 pin....as soon as my wife gives me back my credit card! :haha:

Don't fear AMD. IT's a good CPU by any standards. As far as not lasting as long, BS. I've had my CPU OC'd from 1833Mhz to 2620Mhz (43% OC), running 100% load, 24/7, for over a year, without a problem. I've got all voltages maxed out too. They don't wear out early!

awesome! thanks a lot. if AMD still has its prices lower than intel in july, im going AMD. those socket 939 boards are pricier though! hopefully they'll drop by july.

quick OS question...i have an XP pro cd from another comp in my house...does microsoft have any crazy spyware or copyright protection? i honestly dont think i should have to spend the money on XP..AGAIN...but if theres protection i guess ill do it..

ps: im not quite as knowledgable with pcs these days, ive been in mac-land for several years its really quite nice, ive got a powerbook, and i figure a mac laptop and a pc desktop, killer combo! just taking me a bit of time to get into the swing of things, new CPU's..sockets, etc. ive always wanted to build a computer ever since 98/99...just never had the courage to do it.

Amd

AMD is cheaper, faster, and able to overclock. Need I say more.
Well yes the FX is way too much.

Hey N8..This socket 939 is the cheapest I could find at Newegg.com, in fact this is the board that I got: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-152-052&depa=1

It works great for me, was easy to set up, though the manual could've been a little bit better, it had all the necessary stuff in it.

Also, it has dropped in price already once, and the other 939 boards have been dropping steadily in the past few weeks, even as much as $30-40 in just a few weeks.
On top of that, the Athlon64 3000+ has dropped a bit in that time, too...this is the one good thing about the constant parade of new technology...prices have to drop.

Whatever you do, make sure to get the socket 939 if you go Athlon64....it comes in socket 754, which is being phased out.

As far as your WIndows copy, I believe that you can get an extra license for less than full cost ,,, go to Microsoft.com: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/addlic.mspx ...also,someone in this forum will know better than I.

You also have an option to 'transfer' your copy to a new PC, and there are some restrictions on that, as well, but that can be done for free.

Yea i cant belive i said that

In response to Zephead yea i have a prescott, and i must of been really tired when i wrote that. I cant belive that i recomended a AMD. I am a loyal intel fan and i will never buy one. But for his needs i think a Athlon would be best

Sean

amd has a lower clock speed and intel's processors have generally higher performance. amd has comparitively recently gained the ability to successfully overclock. you think pre k-7 amd products were good? and lately hot amd processors have begun to cost quite a bit (excluding fx- series)

I wouldn't compare AMD and Intel as a "who's better" comparison. They both have strengths and weaknesses.

While Intel does pioneer a lot of things, so has AMD. AMD has their own instruction sets and so forth. AMD does a much better job of continuing to provide faster and faster chips on the same socket then Intel does. Seems like every 500mhz Intel has a new socket. While AMD held on to Socket 7 forever and held on to Socket A for the longest time. While Intel has like what? 10 sockets? I like AMD because I know they'll continue to make chips for current sockets. While, for example, the socket 754 came out and is already being phased out. You don't usually get that from AMD.

I'm not saying that should be the only issue to pick a CPU. But looking to future upgrades, AMD has been more stable at providing faster chips with your current motherboard.
I wouldn't worry about overheating to much. I'm sure AMDs technicians have ran a million tests to make sure their stock heatsink/fan keeps it running. Though with todays huge hard drives and monstrous video cards that seem to be growing back into the same size they were in the ISA days; I would hope you add a few more fans to your case. And ANY serious gamer would replace a stock heatsink/fan anyway, from either company.

We've only built a handful of 64 bit PCs, both Intel and AMD. I must say we had more trouble with Intel. Only in that, with the new CPU, new motherboard, you ALSO need new RAM and new video, if it's PCI-X. We found that out the hard way.
But go AMD, they continue to provide solutions for todays stuff.
And of course there are some exceptions to these thoughts, but oh well.
Throw your eggs!

A few Words

Just a few words. INTEL ROCKS ALLL!! :knock: Intel :hotouch: AMD in all ways to me. And intel is releasing a 64Bit processors this year which will of course smoke AMD again. Intel's are just always better. I built my own computer and its got a 2.8GHz P4 with 512MB PC3200 Ram and it totally kicked an HP with a AMD64 so called 3200+ (more like -) with 1024MB of PC3200 Ram. Intel=better.

Really, intel beats amd all the time?
Check this out.
Amd beating the tar out of Intel


Beating even worse


Oh, and some more beating.

Man, Amd beat Intel multiple times, but amd is "always" beaten by intel.

Your intel based computer beating a hp amd system doesn't prove that intel is better. More likely it proves that building your own pc results in faster computers than the oem's make. You probably used a quality motherboard, whereas hp probably uses some junk cheap brand with lower performance.