I know this is becoming the age old question and I think I already know Uncleel's answere. Things change though, and change fast. The Falcon Northwest Mach V can be configured on either an AMD platform or an Intel http://www.falcon-nw.com/config/build.asp. So which board combo delivers better performance all other components being equal?


C'mon you guys I really value evryones opinion so please don't be to shy to share yours ; especially you Unc if your still around the boards.

The only thing I know is that Intel is usually more expensive than AMD.

Well, I wrote a small article on my website a while back for this very occasion (www.casualconsulting.com). Don't try to access the website, it will be down for about a month until I get back from vacation in Florida next month.

--


So your friends are telling you that Pentium 4's are the "rave", your local sellsman is trying to sell you a Pentium 4 PC, and you have ALWAYS heard how great Pentium 4's are. Well, I'm here to give you the facts so that you are not mislead.

The largest misconception among PC buyers is that Pentium 4 is leading the market. We are in a new melinnium, and Intel no longer is THE king baby. For years now AMD has been the forefront of technology, closely being chased by Intel. To your delight you will be glad to know that you can buy a AMD processor which performs just as great as the equivelant Intel for a much lower price.

A basic easy way to explain AMD vs. Pentium is this; AMD processors are a "higher end" processor which run at a lower MHz than the equivelant Intel processors, but actually perform about the same. If you were to compare some of the most popular processors as far as quality and speed they would be listed something like this:

#1 AMD Athlon
#2 AMD Duron
#3 Intel Pentium 4
#4 Intel Celeron

Another thing you may find interesting is this; AMD and Pentium both have their version of their fastest processor. AMD's fastest processor is the AMD Athlon, and Intel's fastest processor is the Pentium. They also have their own versions of lower priced, slower processors. AMD's version is the Duron, and Intel's version is the Celeron.

If you look at a AMD processor you will notice that they have ratings specified by numbers such as "2100+". This number means that the processor runs at the speed of a 2.1GHz Pentium 4 processor. Although a 2100+ AMD processor's speed is 1.73GHz, since AMD's are a much higher quality and faster processor they run at the speed of a 2.1GHz Pentium 4.

You may find it very pleasing to know that AMD's processors are not only much faster and of much higher quality, but they also are much cheaper! Want to compare prices? Lets!

AMD Athlon XP 2.16GHz 3000+ $270.00
Intel Pentium 4 3GHz $423.00

That is a $153.00 difference!
prices taken from newegg.com on 5/27/2003

These two processors run at the SAME speed, but do you see the price difference? Before you take me too literally, remember this; speed is actually not everything. Two processors running at 3GHz does not necesarilly mean they both actually perform at the same speed. Although they both technically run at the same speed, the fact is, you must factor in the quality of the processor. A higher quality processor equals a faster processor. AMD is a "higher end" processor, Intel is a "lower end" processor (compared to AMD). Though you must realize is your processor does not solely determine the speed of your system, but also so does the speed of your RAM (but we won't get into that in this article).

One detail you have to take into consideration when buying a pre-built PC from a company such as Dell or a stand alone processor (if your building your own system) is that processors do not only have one detail you must worry about as far speed. Each processor has its own "Front Side Bus" (FSB). This front side bus connects the CPU with the main memory and is used to connect to other components within the computer. The faster your FSB, the faster your computer, because with a faster FSB your processor can "communicate" with the rest of the hardware in your system at a higher speed. Before I go any further let me point out something to you. Since were comparing AMD vs. Intel, lets use another example.

The specs below do not necesarilly mean that ALL of these processors run at these FSB speeds. Different model's of these processors may run at different FSB speeds.

Intel Pentium 4 3GHz @ 800MHz FSB
AMD Athlon XP 2.16GHz 3000+ @ 333MHz FSB

I know right now you may be thinking "wow! the Intel's FSB is 800MHz. That is MUCH higher than the AMD's front side bus! It must be much faster!". Technically, yes. Though the 800MHz FSB would be considered a lot faster, it isn't. Why you ask? I'll tell you exactly why. For the 800MHz bus to be utilized fully, then other hardware in your PC must also run with a 800MHz FSB. Since, most hardware today, even in hard core gamer's PC's only run at about a max of 400MHz then in that case only HALF of the 800MHz front side bus's power would be used. So you must ask yourself why spend much more money on a processor just because it has a 800MHz front side bus when it wont even be used? I wouldn't advise wasting your money.

Wow that was a lot of great info. I've seen a lot of that on the boards already. ("search option is my friend") I also remember that AMD's chip handles more info per clock cycle making it more efficient. Problem for me is that a lot has happened over the past few months. Is the Canterwood technology all its supposed to be? From what I understand Intel's chips are becoming more efficient with hyper-threading (?) and boards built with the new 875P chip set. -Uncleel where are you when I need you- Any how Falcon's price for the AMD platform is only $5.00 less than for the same rig based on Intel chips. So upon what does one use to base a decision except for the informed opinions of respected enthusiasts like you.

I realize there are some technical errors and grammar/spelling errors but this was written in about 45 minutes, late at night and I haven't edited it yet due to my website being placed as a project to work on, on a later date. Though it still does give you some good information.

Duron is not faster than P4. My mistake.

"Since, most hardware today, even in hard core gamer's PC's only run at about a max of 400MHz then in that case only HALF of the 800MHz front side bus's power would be used".

When I typed this I mean most FSB do not run higher than 400mhz. This does also not include the fact that FSB at 400mhz are not TRUE 400mhz FSB, same with 800mhz. As Soul pointed out, most FSB really only run at max of about 200mhz (TRUE FSB speeds).

You just can't campair them, AMD lost the Ghz battle, and changed numbers to fool you.

AMD makes great CPUs. Intel makes great chipsets(and CPUs too). System setup and stablity are better on the Intel side, and presler/cedar mill cores might give them a edge over AMD. Then there's Conroe...hope for the best.

BTW, Just won a 540 on ebay for $118, new OEM. OCs to 3.8 easy on air and creams 3200 64s.

They may have lost the Ghz battle, but AMD still give you more bang for your buck (mhz for mhz). Intel will give you more raw power; good for video editing, 3D rendering. But AMD are more efficient processors. Running at lower temps and doing more per clock cycle (as bedlam said). I think its measured in MIPS (Millions of instrucions per Second). It all depends on what you want from your processor. Personally I think AMD are the way to go ( being better for games). But if you like your oc'ing INtel is what you need. AMd seem to have a lower ceiling.

Is it really necessary to resurect 2 year old threads to fuel once again some beaten-to-death topic ?

I agree.

I just biult a gamer for my kids. I wanted to do a 939, but I got the 540 for $118, and the 3200 was $200. I found a P5P800 for $46 at newegg(referbished). A 939 board was twice that. I biult it for about $250 with old drives and PSU. Where did that price advantage go?

Sorry for the post on such a old thread.(Why was it on top?)

this could go on ad nauseum.......

You CAN compare them and AMD didn't lose the "GHz battle" they just achieved the same performance at a lower speed which meant that because Intel had a "faster" processor the AMD was a better performer at a lower clock speed! So AMD reclassified their CPUs to remove any confusion by renaming them as an XP2800+ meaning it is an equivalent to a P4 2.8GHz each better than the other with particular tasks.

Intel CPUs are raw power processors and perform better with stuff like CAD, high-end video production and are more expensive. AMD processors are better for things like gaming and are cheaper, so depending on how you are going to use your computer really determines which brand suits you but only if you want maximum performance - confused?

Let me put it this way: if you want to wring every bit of performance out of your computer then you need to weigh up which way to go, eg: spend as much as you can on a really good motherboard (everything talks to everything through the motherboard therefore crap motherboard=crap performance). Next get as much RAM as you can especially if you want to run several applications at the same time.

Now what is left in your budget goes towards the CPU. It may be a bit slower than what you originally wanted but your setup will actually perform better than just getting the fastest CPU and then compromising on all the other stuff.

Another thing to look at is the L2 cache as it changes with both Intel and AMD CPUs and the bigger the better.

You will also find lots more Intel processors around than AMD because they are more well known (Intel advertise much more and most people have heard of Pentiums because of this) and some outlets don't even stock AMD or motherboards for AMD.

If you want a budget PC then I suggest an all-in-one motherboard (ie:sound and VGA video on-board to plug speakers and monitor directly to motherboard) which are pretty good these days and an AMD CPU. At the time of writing the Socket A stuff is no longer available and the 754-pin combination is a really good buy at the moment.

I just bought (AMD 754-pin) AsRock ($55), MSI ($65) and Gigabyte ($75) all-in-one motherboards, as well as AMD Sempron 3000+ with fan for $120 add 512MB DDR400 RAM for $55 so for $230 to $250 is a system that won't handle later games but will do just about everything else without a problem.

These amounts are in Australian dollars.

I am building/upgrading systems all the time.

The above information is one approach and there are other possibilities and a system to be built for the best possible price should be configured for the end user, eg: office, gaming, surfing net, etc.

You can build a whole system including CRT monitor, keyboard, optical mouse and PC tower with 80GB hard drive and DVD burner for under $500 (Australian) which covers all the hardware for a fast basic system - use search engines to find the best prices and type the products description followed by review and then search to compare them.

I hope this helps out and happy 2006 to all!!!!!!!!

AMD's lead ends this july in desktops, servers will be very close, and AMD never had any thing close to the Pentium M. Conroe is to be 30% higher IPS than Dothan.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28602

AMD's AM2 will be 5% better than 939. The old Pentium M was about the same as K8. It's looking like AMD will need a bunch more GHZ to compete.

Its obvious that Mirob just likes to boast about intel because he prob has never used an AMD before. . . and what a loser he must be to need to ressurect a 2 year old thread just to make his point known.

The correct statement here is Intel @ x.x ghz = AMD @ xx00 rating. . . they just specialize in different areas.

You are very wrong, read my profile. I've used many, I'm nobodys FANBOY, just the facts here.

AMD numbers are not very good to use a like that. The 3200 XP was not much better than the 3000, the numbers are just wrong. It's getting worse too, how many 3000+ and 3200+ are there?

My 3200+ Venice is MUCH better than my 3200+ Winchester, BUT THE SAME NUMBER!

venice cores perform better than Winchester ones ..
notting beats san-diageo cores yet !


and bout the battle b/w intel and AMD ....
well, AMD was supposed to be good in gaming and Intel always won in Encoding

But c da DUAL CORE benchmarks in *any* site man ! AMD ROCKS and has leaped ahead of Intel in many ways than one..

In the long run , AMD is bound to overtake Intel .. Intel has a real stable reputation and that'z the reason for AMD's slow growth .. But once ppl get to know of AMD, therez no chance for Intel .. It's just a matter of time before lay- PC buyers KNOW what AMD is and start buying AMD

cheers
AMD RoX

Everyone here is AMD

Ive noticed after looking through this board, everyone things AMD is better. I really dont think you can just this unless you work with many AMDs and many Intels. People with an Intel will be biased to Intel and people with AMD will be biased to AMD. I have an Intel, never used an AMD so i cant input on whos better. Ive read a lot about the differences and understand that AMD has less pipeline stages, but are more complex stages. This means that they have the abilty to do more work per cycle (i think someone already said this). Intels on the otherhand, have gone to more pipeline stages that are simplier. One Intel stage does not compute as much as one AMD stage. However, with more stages that the Intel has, it enables them to acheive a higher clock speed. If AMDs had the same pipelines as Intel, they would not only acheive the same speed, but do more work. This is not possible with technology now because the AMD's complex stages take up more space on the chip (not enough room to put them all on one chip). AMD = 13 stages, Intel = 21, now with 36 in new cores (approximate).

However, one thing has made me mad about AMD; their 64 bit processors. As a lot of you know, Intel came out with the first 64 bit with the Itanium. But that was so far of that it was never widely used. So Intel has been working on a different one than that core. AMD had their 64 bit processor being made, however, not as efficient as Intel was making. AMD had a 16 register design while Intel was aiming at 32 or more. AMD's came onto the market before Intel (because Intel was taking it slow and trying to get it right after they missed so far with the Itanium) and set the standard for 64 bit processors. Therefore, Intel had to revert to this lesser processor. Now, we have to wait until a 128 bit processor for more registers. Oh well, still way more power with a 64 bit, even with 16 registers.

One last bit of info on Intel, since they make their on chipsets, there may be a better compatability with their processors to make them run better. AMD does not make their own, so different makers may do different things. In the long run however, i dont think it will affect you unless its a chipset from a crappy maker.



And as for me, Im going with Intel, always have and always will, nothing against AMD. (i do video editing too, and studies show they perform better than AMD with those programs)

Happy processor choosing everyone!

Well AMD's 4800+ X2 is about the best now, but the FX57 and 955EE are right there with it. See http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2658&p=1

FX60 soon. None are great values.
Yonah is here, and matches X2 clock to clock, with a FSB of 667mhz, vs AMD 1000mhz HTT, and with much lower TDP.

Conroe will have a 14 stage pipeline and 4 issue wide core, on a 65nm die, and 65w TDP. Soon to be the new top dawg, with a base clock of 2.66ghz, FX57 performance for $200-ish
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25623
Great stuff comming soon from Intel, and 45nm is set for next year.

I like overclocking a little bit, here is a overclocked X2 to Pentium D review,
http://legionhardware.com/document.php?id=465
In Intel can take the lead here, even in games.
My AMD rig is for games, my Intel rig rips CD's in seconds, and DVD's in minutes. They are both OCed, and realy matched for power, a 3200+ Venice at 2.6 and 530j at 4ghz. The 530 is better at most benchmarks and the prices are the same now.

Intel is a marketing ***** and probably pays Dell and other pre-build PC companies a hell of a lot to use thier CPUs.

I think if AMD advertised on TV and maybe radio, that would rake in a lot of marketing cash and people would get to know them better, buy their cpus, and
those funds would help AMD be able to produce new CPUs that rape Intels in the PC business because right now, AMD is a serious underdog because they don't market thier product.

But for the battle, I'd say AMDs are better for gaming, and Intels are better for
non gaming applications like servers and video editing.

yupp! When it comes to gaming, AMD rocks...
Intel may have a slight edge over AMD in Encoding, MultiThreading etc..