AMD or Intel

HP and all oem computers dont use performance parts, they use basic boards and they are not made to be upgraded....

see these computer companies like hp and dell etc.....they dont want you to have high performance and they definately dont want you to be able to open your pc and just put a faster part in it...because then you have no reason to buy a new computer. so you cant compare a home built system to an oem system.

We have about 7 pc's running in my home right now and everyone built by us with the majority of them being performance parts except for my laptop.

Each AMD system we have out perform the intel systems we have, also they run much cooler even when over clocked, besides being easier to over clock.

as far as a good 939 pin board out right now for the amd 64's Look into MSI's K8N neo4 platinum if your interested in PCI-e, if you need AGp slot. the Neo2 is kicking some #%$ among the competition.
The top three boards right now for the 939 pin is msi, abit and asus in that order. with DFI coming in somewhere.....
I personally would never own an asus, no matter how many people swear by their performance. I know of many computer stores that have waited six months or longer for replacement boards from asus, and their customer service just isnt their.

Again Pride......

Like I said in my previous posts "what you have is always going to be better than the next guy" just like ford vs chevy, peanut butter vs jelly, freddy vs jason....somone is always going to have a side......Know what I reccomend ? If you have the extra cash (wich most of you buying P4 3.8's And FX-55 chips do)
Build 2 systems, one of each......same specs same exstimated performance, same memory similar motherboard video ect....Dont have to be nothing lavish just somthing to get a feel for each type of CPU. Use each for a month then make a statment on either or, then ebay the lesser machine or sell it somone always needs a PC.....Basically these people bitching on here about amd and intel have probably have had only one or the other. Or maybe had a bad experience with one years ago and are now swear by the other. I think that maybe you should take advice from the people on here that have multiple systems in their home based off both platforms....Almost always they agree AMD out performs their intel systems....Atleast they are open enough to give both platforms a try and I can garuntee their opinions arnt bios because of that. Try it for yourself before saying your brand is better just cause its what you have !!!! And again like I said in previous posts, maybe your needs are not the next guys needs. Just to let you know I dabble in both feilds I prefer AmD because I game and time and time again guys with similar intel systems just dont get the frame rates that I do with my AMD system plain and simple.....But I just ordered a Intel P4 3.2 because I do a lot of video converting and I know Intel is better for that. If you want me to post some benchmarks against my AmD system when I get the Intel put togeather I will gladly do so..........

AMD all the way and the reason

I say AMD all the way and here is the reasons: People are that look at the "P rating" of a chip are fooled. This is why: this is a "rating of preformance in relation to what a chip can do" eg. a 3500 is a "P rating" of 3.5 Ghz the chip only runs at 2.2 Ghz but will do the aproimate job as a 3.5, in most cases it does more in some cases a little less. Intels overall are better for top end media coding but on less you are going to be coding a high end million dallor blockbuster movie or mastering Lord forbid Elton John's new CD there is no need for the added cost of the Intel based CPU for even coding.

If you get VM ware and run Mac O/S X video and sound apps on an AMD built Rig you will have better product then using anything Intel builds, rember Macs Use RISC CPUs. I have done this on my 3500 and it smokes my P4 for this kind of coding. Draw back you will need alot more Ram then with a P4 in the end you still pay less on the system to go AMD.

The new AMDs seem to run cooler then Intel and anyone that says the speed is the only thing that counts in the preformance of a computer I invite them to bring it on, I will go head to head with any CPU that works at or around 2.2 Ghz to prove that wrong.

Though I do own Intel at this time the cost to the benifit they give is not justifable to the cost in anyway. I am not Slamming Intel in anyway I am just saying at this time the need to realy thing about their role in life and the way they will get their. On-top of that If every one did buy Intel they the world may just blow-up...or at least the the computer world. :hotbounce :dead:

there seems to be a lot of critism toward intel, most of it slander.

amd isn't the underdog because intel strong-armed them. amd simply couldn't make thier product as good.

Yes there is something a mist.

I have beeen told by a tech at Compaq/HP that AMD gives flat rate discounts on large unit sales eg. 10% off 1000 12% off 2000 and so-on they don't care if you also sell Intel; Intel will give smaller discounts if you sale AMD and in some cases make you pay retail even from them, unless you use only their chips. Now I have run my own company for a few years and if my supliers pulled something like that on me I would never even think about using their products, well aside for Coke, but they have even changed that.

there's a difference between common business practices to protect a company's interests and outright 'strong-arming' of the market. intel has a lot to lose.

couple years ago when P4 has just came out I decided to get it, I think it was a 1.7 or so, well it was good for games I used to play back then, but with current games and applications it doesnt match to my amd2600 barton core it may be slower FSB333 vs 400 but it works great, much better than my P4, I got lucky my mother in law got a laptop and gave me the barton I had build for her. I used to like Intel, but I dont know anymore.

AMD=4=LIFE

Evil

:evil:
:darth:

Home built / OEMs

Unless you use the lowest grade part there is out there a home built system will always kick an oem hands down and to compare a tower to a laptop even if the laptop has a tower based cpu is like a 20 year old scrapping a 9 year old it should never be done and if AMD are so poor compared to Intel why are more and more computer companies building with AMD. Aser is almost all AMD; HP and EVEN DELL are using them now. 63% of China, Japan, Korea, Germany and Russia's computer sold this past year are now AMD. I works like this; with more demand needed out of a computer the real industry wants a CPU that will do more work per clock rate at a lower temp, using less power supply wattage. Intel has fallen behind in this and their feable attempt to fix this AKA is the BTX form factor case that has been out for about 3 1/2 years now and has made Intel, the point of meny jokes. such as "How does Intel save power?" A: "They use more." If you worked in top-end security ( that I have been for about 8 years or a real computer sepecialist you would LOL at it). Intel is a Joke in my comunity they build a CPU that needs more and more power changing their sockets everytime costing more and more money, never thinking about the fact that soon you will need a 550 watt outlet to run their systems with God knows what for a power supply. I can build an AMD top-end sever for about 2/3s of a mid range Intel and it will hold it's own with the Intell top-end severs. You as an I.T. tech owe your employer the lower cost server, and it is up to you to tell them not to toss their money away on the Intel. and this is the very reason the worlds best servers are AMD not Intel.

I do thing Intel has thier place but thay realy need to shape up.

I agree with everything you put in except the DELL part that you put in capitals. They dont sell AMD!! And i am not aware of an aser company that you put but if you are talking about acer they are practically non existent in the retail markets here in america they might be a dominant force outside of the US ( i am not sure if they sell those in retail markets in canada either). Here is the info for the dell:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050224-4652.html

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,39189071,00.htm

http://news.com.com/Dells stance on AMD Look but dont touch/2100-1006_3-5587566.html?tag=nefd.top

This is a chart of the fastest computers in the world broken down to manufacturers for 2004, the 2005 results will be released this june:

http://www.top500.org/lists/2004/11/charts.php?c=9

As far as intel being a joke in the tech world yea sure that mite be true but a good business is based on marketing to the mainstream and this is why intel is the monopoly that it is.

I dont care which way anyone goes just making sure we have the right info on the threads. Please back stats and numbers with a link. :wave:

44 Magnum Stainless Steel very cheap for Sale.

Thats what you get if you buy the $380.00 Athlon 64 3800+ and no need for extra super fancy cooling or OC. This is the king of the Amd 64 bargain wise . This thing with out any OC is only A hair below the FX and the fastest intel costing $600.00 more. For games the 3800+ is spliting hairs with both Intel and AMD king and Queen. sure you can OC a 3500 to 3800+ speed but thats extreme oc there. and not just cruising like the 3800+ would be.

First off:

1) 100% wrong about the Prescott. The WInchester A64 cores absolutely destroy the prescott. The FX defeats the EE.

2) Intel is only responsible for x86 because IBM adopted x86 at the time. Regardless of what the big players had chosen, the others would have followed. Intel did not make some huge breakthrough with x86. There were better alternatives out there, and still are today. Read history.

3) Provide one link where a P4 3.4 Prescott is better, overall, than an Athlon 64 3400+

not this argument again...
intel processors didn't get into four-fifths of the world's computers by being inferior to others or by some corporate trickery.
enough said.

hrmm

Well, this is always a toughy, and before I say anything let me note, that im running an AMD64 right now.. Im equal sided on this debate, both companies are good for what they offer. Back when AMD first started off, they literly were ran by Intel, they used intels designs everything. Intel allowed this, they sold them their processor designs up until mid 90's. AMD has always been the "follower" in the microprocessor market. In these past years, they seem to be moving further away from this, but even in todays market they continue to "reverse engineer" most of the engineering intel does. I personally think, Intel is the company with the magic, the engineering, the technology and the quality! AMD offers the market their lower prices. Now you may say, well if AMD reverse engineered intel wouldnt they be the same? But let me add this: Is a copy better than the original? Its really Quality(Intel) vs. Price(AMD). Its a hard decision, and a personal one at that matter.

You as an IT Professional should know that NO ONE in IT uses AMD Servers, because their a POS. Thats one of the key reasons Intel has outsold AMD in 32bit and 64bit systems in the last year. AMD does ok, when talking consumer computers. But you can't even attempt to bring them into the server world.

"I can build an AMD top-end sever for about 2/3s of a mid range Intel and it will hold it's own with the Intell top-end severs. You as an I.T. tech owe your employer the lower cost server, and it is up to you to tell them not to toss their money away on the Intel. and this is the very reason the worlds best servers are AMD not Intel."

The prescott looks even worst against the 3800+ http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2/athlon64-3800/index.x?pg=6

Enough said or not, you were wrong about that. Don't ignore facts.

Also, the majority of technology that Intel "shares", such as MMX, Intel is forced to share and they also get paid to license it.


Saying intel is this and that because of they are huge is like saying Microsoft has a 95% marketshare because they have a superior product, when this is clearly not true. Intel is good at MARKETING. As far as technological superiority, AMD has that crown right now for desktop processors, through and through. Keep in mind Intel is now using AMD's reference for 64bit, instead of their own which was canned.

all you did was say the winchester destroys the prescott. take a look at these benchmarks from THG:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-13.html
there's pages and pages of benchmarks. doesn't look at all like the winchester is 'destroying' the prescott. the tests don't even include intel's latest 6xx series. i don't put all my faith in benchmarks like those myself and others have linked to, but they aren't meaningless either.

Pretty sad when a CPU running a full 1000mhz+ slower is outperforming the EE in 75% of benchmarks, isn't it?

Actually, it isn't. What's sad is someone who believes that "bigger is better". Intel has brought nothing revolutionary to the table for a long time. Microsoft gave Intel the finger and AMD the thumbs up for a reason. MS has adopted AMD's 64bit technology because it is a superior technology to Intel's former.

The 6xx series cannot be compared to the single-core Athlon64s. When dual core A64s are released later this year, then we will compare .

However, this has been a continuting pattern. since the release of the original Athlon (K7). AMD has always had a faster chip for a lesser price.

I AM NOT SAYING INTEL HAS A BAD PRODUCT. Intel chips rocks. For 99% of people, whether they have an Intel or an AMD makes no difference.

However, the P4 was a major step backwards. Going forward in reverse, if you will. Why do you think Intel will no longer be using the P4 architecture, but is instead revamping the P3 architecture? (See the Pentium M) Intel realizes it has made huge mistakes with both P4 and Itanium. Technologically, they are inferior chips.

A companies "superiority" over the market has nothing to do with the quality of their products. You can easily outsell a product with excellent marketing. If you take a marketing class or are in marketing this is one of the common knowledge rules you live by.

If you were a salesman, you would attempt to sell your product by either lying about your product, or shedding light on only the good qualitys of that product.

On the other hand totally ignore the good/bad and take Intel's approach. Make a "neat" looking commercial, which is funny in some ways (mainly cause its kind of ridiculous) and appeals to 99% of consumers that watch television.

Intel loves to act like Nvidia and basically say "Our product is better, so buy it for that reason". In the process wasting millions of dollars that they could use on research and development to make that product better.

As far as AMD vs Intel goes, there is NO WINNING BATTLE in a discussion like this here (Why? Because its obvious no one will ever agree and the differences are not large enough to make a decent comparison of advantages). You either pay a LOT more for Intel or you don't. Who is smarter in this scenario? In my opinion the person who saves money and gets an AMD processor.

I personally don't think spending a lot more money on a product that will only be superior by a SMALL margin of 5% (MAYBE 10% in EXTREME circumstances) is smart. If your rich, fine.

Remember this small margin of possibility is hardly EVER noticed by you, in anything but benchmarks. You normally will never ever notice the performance difference with your "naked eye".

If you were crunching numbers and a small margin of performance was important in your business, and could possibly cost you time and money then go with the product that is 1% faster or more.

Lets remember, Intel is "better" in some situations, AMD is better in some situations. You really have to figure out which is "better" in the scenarios you will be using the processor most for. One may be better at gaming, the other may not. One may be better at Photoshop performance, the other may not. It's pretty much 50/50.

Unless your using a PC entirely for video editing then you won't really be able to decide for/against AMD/Intel in a way that you will win 100% of the time in everything you do. Your AMD/Intel will beat the competition one minute and not the next minute, depending on what you are doing.

AMD may excel slightly in some areas while Intel may excel slightly in other areas, but not by that much.

Now, if you decided that a Intel motherboard had the features you wanted that a AMD board doesn't then that would be a good reason to go Intel. Would it make sense expenditure-wise? Maybe not. That would be up to you.



By the way, Soul does know what he is talking about. I've not met a single person that has proved him wrong in anything he has ever said, so I would take what he says pretty seriously.

Even though he is a ****wad. HAHA Soul. :wave:

Soul_Harvestor:
"Actually, it isn't. What's sad is someone who believes that "bigger is better". Intel has brought nothing revolutionary to the table for a long time. Microsoft gave Intel the finger and AMD the thumbs up for a reason. MS has adopted AMD's 64bit technology because it is a superior technology to Intel's former."

Nothing revolutionary to the table in along time? How about dual core dies, and just a resent breakthrough with the 9 laser processor, and how about the optical processor design? AMD has NEVER brought anything revolutionary, because they simply reverse engineer all intels ideas. About MS adopting AMD 64bit technology... is that why MS waited 2 years to come out with a 64bit operating system.. If you didn't know, Intel and microsoft are basically like a family.