Amd or Intel?

[drfefe2]

First i'd like to say im kinda new to all this so please dont make fun of me.

anyways im buying a new computer. at first i wanted one with a pentium 4 2.93gh processor. then i was told the amd athlon 64 is better. the amd is only 2.2gh. how could this be better?

 

[A_DOG73]

Intel and AMD are different types of processors. If you translate AMD 2.2 GHz into Intel, you probably get like 3ghz Intel. AMD equivalents of Intel are always a smaller # ghz but run better, cooler, and are more reliable. Thats just my opinion though.

 

[drfefe2]

thanks, this helps me alot

 

[DonNagual]

You can go to this website to see how the various CPUs do against each other. Pretty useful info.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html

What do you intend to use your computer for mainly?

 

[hesham1516]

I agree with DonNagual, it all depends on what you want to use your computer for...
it also depends on how long you want to keep the setup pc for...
personally i'd recommend AMD processors

The amount of Ghz doesnt really matter when it comes to processors, its kind of like Games consoles, the xbox (think of it as a AMD) having more power Owns the PS2, but more people own a PS2 (Intel), and both systems are 128bit.

 

[Norak]

Not only is AMD better, it is also cheaper. AMD is also easier to install, and now has more of a range for motherboards. AMD is clearly the way to go.

 

[drfefe2]

Im going to be using the computer for just about everything, but mostly games.

this new computer will replace my current computer (pentium III 933mhz pile of crap) which i cant play any games on even whith a decent graphics card.

 

[pizzada]

Earlier this year I got an Athlon64 3000, runs everything well. (I too, use it for 'everything') including 'MS FlightSim 2004' , which is a processor 'hog', and also a graphics 'hog'.
And it runs quite well at the processor end of things. I usually have audio programs running in the background, and still does the job well.

You'll do better either way you go.

PS (just in case, my graphics card is 6600GT)

 

[hesham1516]

i would recommend pizzada's setup.
maybe if he could post the rest of the specs...

 

[pizzada]

Specs

If it helps, here's what I got:


MoBo: Chaintech 1689 socket 939...(they don't sell it anymore, but Chaintech now sells their better VNF4 Ultra socket 939 for even cheaper than mine was 8 months ago. about $70 at NewEgg.com It has an on-board DSL Modem and RealTek 7.1 Sound output, with audio out jacks etc..., of course.

CPU: AMD Athlon64 3000+ 'Winchester'

CD Drive: Lite-On CD R/RW

Video Card: LeadTek 6600GT (which has gone WAY down in price from a few months ago)

Memory: 2 sticks GeIL Value 512MB (2 x 256MB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) Unbuffered Dual Channel Kit ((price has gone down a LOT on these also))

Hard Drive: 80 Gig WesternDigital IDE ( I got the cheapest one they had, but runs everything well.)


Keyboard/Mouse/Monitor/Speakers are all basically Generic, though , for graphics sake, the monitor is 17inch FlatScreen CRT, which I run at 1152 x 864.

 

[DragonMaster]

I say go AMD. Why?

-You don't encourage the biggest processor monopoly, Intel.
-Less design bugs than Intel
-There's no 3DNow! with Intel
-Same clock=faster
-L1 cache is not sharing with L2 cache
-Cheaper
-The latest stable Intel was Pentium I
-etc.

 

[Tedster]

ah, the perrenial argument. Each chipset has advantages and drawbacks.... go with what suits you.

 

[DragonMaster]

If you would've saw my Pentium II... It's best ability is crashing. Even by changing RAM, PSU, graphic card, motherboard, reinstalling Windows, etc.

My Celeron has that kind of problem too. They all run off 440BX.


Oh, and I wasn't even talking about chipsets in my previous posts, CPUs themselves.