Poll on Athlon vs Intel


Do you like Athlon or Intel Better

Poll closed Nov 25, 2005.
  1. Athlon

    27 vote(s)
  2. Intel

    3 vote(s)
By spartanslayer · 99 replies
Nov 13, 2005
  1. Vigilante

    Vigilante TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,666

    Rick does indeed work for the evil empire, but if any "beans" are spilled from his plate, black suits in black vans with black tinted windows will come to his house and do horrible things to him. They may even take his PC away. His every move is monitored and recorded.....
  2. Mirob

    Mirob TechSpot Paladin Posts: 478

    Yah, that's something like I thought. I'm just a little curious. Something is bound to leak out by the time AMD fixes (seems there are some problems) and releases M2. A little rain on the parade.
  3. Vigilante

    Vigilante TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,666

    Hopefully this newfangled M2 stuff won't be as expensive as the dual cores and FX's, Opteron stuff. Costing us lowly blue-collars upwards of a grand to get one.
  4. Didou

    Didou Bowtie extraordinair! Posts: 4,274

    The M2 will just be a socket, it won't have a price. On the other hand, there will different CPUs for it, from low-end (Sempron) to high-end (Athlon64-FX,etc.) so the prices will probably be the same.
  5. spartanslayer

    spartanslayer TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 394

    Well the poll is over guys, thanks for your support. I think that the majority of people voted for athlon (hahaha). See yah round.
  6. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 4,572   +65

    Not my AMD computer! :eek:
  7. Mirob

    Mirob TechSpot Paladin Posts: 478

    I have a M2 mobo, but it came without the socket...Asrock Dual Sata2.

    I realy don't think we will see Sempron for M2 untill it's slated for death. Now M2 comming, 939 Semprons are comming. AMD is not for us blue coller guys now they own the high end. Glad they are here, imagin Intel without them. Might be worse than Microsoft.

    I'm very wrong about the Semproms
  8. Vigilante

    Vigilante TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,666

    wow only 3 or 4 months to go and we can get the M2 4000+ Orleans with DDR2.

    One thing I wish AMD would have tried harder to get those core clock speeds up. It's kind of depressing to buy a new Athlon 64 4000+ and learn it runs at a ho-hum 2.4ghz. It's fast, yes, but our Intel friends actually ARE getting the 3ghz and 4ghz core speeds.
    But then again, hand it to AMD to crank the speeds out of much less clock speed.
    Or then my 32bit Athlon 3200+ running at 2.2ghz. Now I am debating to OC or not.
  9. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 4,572   +65

    Conroe is going to be a low-clocked CPU as well. But it is getting about 30-50% more performance per MHz than current P4 processors at the same clock speeds.

    It seems like the emphasis is no longer GHz, but how fast it actually is. Which can be kind of good I suppose, since your average consumer sees a budget CPU at the same speed and can't imagine why it is slower... But they really need to figure out a standarized rating system.
  10. Mirob

    Mirob TechSpot Paladin Posts: 478

    Not AMD's number system, how many 3200+ are there? Thay don't even write the core on the box so you need to understand the numbers on the CPU. Even the week numbers make a difference. I don't have a clue how thay could factor in speed, cache, socket, cores...on and on. I liked it when it was just speed, and product line. Intel's getting messy too.

    I think when branch prediction is correct 90% of the time, my 4 ghz+ prescott is hard to beat. Smoth in windows even multitasking, doing things that make my AMD lag. But in games things are much different.

    Sure hope that conroe clocks are not 30-50% slower. Yonah seems clock to clock with X2.

    3ghz, sweet. Still no sight of a i975 mobo.
  11. SOcRatEs

    SOcRatEs TechSpot Paladin Posts: 966

    A Detailed Comparison of Intel and AMD Processors

    Borrowed From : overclock.net By The_Manual

    This guide is not biased for either Intel or AMD. Before I start giving out all the details know this fact. AMD at this current moment in time are better for games than Intel and Intel are better for multi-tasking than AMD. This will all be explained later in the guide.

    First, Intel Processors (mainly looking at the 5xx and 6xx series)

    Intel Processors are currently better at multi-tasking than AMD processors this is because of certain technologies and features in their CPU’s.
  12. SOcRatEs

    SOcRatEs TechSpot Paladin Posts: 966


    .................................................. .............................
    That concludes this guide.

    Special thanks to Xavier1421.
  13. Vigilante

    Vigilante TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,666

    Cool info.

    I just have one question; why does he say to turn off AMD Cool N'Quiet? It sounded like he was praising it.
    I suppose, though, if you have aftermarket cooling and you're not worried about power consumption, there is no need to have it on.
  14. Mirob

    Mirob TechSpot Paladin Posts: 478

    Intel=speed x 6
    AMD=speed x 9

    Wish it was so simple, if it was a 2.4ghz AMD would ALWAYS beat a 570, but it's not so. I think he means in games. The long pipeline pays well when branch prediction is right. Hurts games and work well in raw number crunching.

    A short read on pipelineing and branch prediction.
  15. zephead

    zephead TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,569

    yeah, i was rather disappointed with how intel's stab at a longer pipeline went (34 stage prescott/all since) compared to the 20 stage northwood.
  16. SOcRatEs

    SOcRatEs TechSpot Paladin Posts: 966

    Alittle more...tho

    I didn't want to clog the post.

    xls cpu spec sheet
    Had to double rar & zip bag it to upload at 98kb
    but well worth a look.
  17. DragonMaster

    DragonMaster TS Rookie Posts: 327

    Do you also want a debate ;)

    OK, I'm gonna start :

    AMD, AMD, AMD!


    -In my experience, AMD does NOT crash and Intel DOES. (3 different systems of each CPUs)
    -I've been told that there are more design errors with Intel CPUs.
    -Intel is the most popular.
    -AMD is cheaper for the same performance.
    -I don't like Intel.

    As simple as that.

    Now I've finished. Nothing here is scientifically proved but is what -I- found while using both systems.
  18. Mirob

    Mirob TechSpot Paladin Posts: 478

    Don't blame the CPU, blame Windows, blame the modo, or blame the memory(maybe user too?). That isn't Intels fault, their chipsets and cpus are stable, better than any other.
  19. Rage_3K_Moiz

    Rage_3K_Moiz Sith Lord Posts: 5,443   +38

    Bottom line: AMD gives screaming gaming performance when compared to Intel. My FX-57 wins hands down from an Intel EE any day :grinthumb
    Also, for apps, the X2 is far better than the Intel Pentium HT or D (IMO).
  20. Mirob

    Mirob TechSpot Paladin Posts: 478

    I know a little about that, cheak out my profile. I have another rig not there, a P5P800 with a 530j at 4ghz(kids gamer/HTPC). About the same in games as my 2.6ghz Venice, but blows it away in most other things. AMD is for good gaming, Intels is a awesome encoder. Holds true with the FX/EE comparison too. Both cost too much, price/performance is real bad. The Venice is easy to cool, Prescotts or hard to cool but I did it. They didn't get that fast without a blue screen eather, but now I don't get them any more. I'm on my 540 rig now, it's folding (as always) it only gets restarted to install things. Most stable comp. I ever had.
  21. howard_hopkinso

    howard_hopkinso TS Rookie Posts: 24,177   +19

    Hey mate.

    I can`t get the zip file to extract. I keep getting an error that says "no files to extract"

    Regards Howard :)
  22. hewybo

    hewybo TS Maniac Posts: 435

    apples and oranges

    Which is better- Lincoln or Cadillac? BMW or Mercedes? CNN or Fox? Asphalt or concrete?

    What YOU like is what's best.

    See? I've settled the whole thing. We can all go home and watch TV! :angel:
  23. DragonMaster

    DragonMaster TS Rookie Posts: 327

    I already blamed every of those, it still crashes.

    I tried 4 mobos,
    reinstalling Windows 5000 times,
    EliteMT, MT, NEC, CuBIG and Kingston RAM(Maybe 10 sticks),
    different HDDs, still crashes.
    Tried MDK Linux, Win98 SE and Win2k, crashes.

    Chipsets are 440BX and VIA 113Z.
    I've also been told that their chipsets were cheesy.
    I used Pentium II, Celeron and Pentium III, all of them crash.
    I sometimes use Pentium 4 and it's slow and crashing.

    BUT, all of my Pentium I non-MMX are OK.

    While my 2x K6-2 400MHz with VIA MVP3 and the other with an ALi chipset are NOT crashing, also my Athlon XP 2000 (KT266), an Athlon XP 1600(KT266) I know and my AMD DX4-100 are NOT crashing.

    And the same "bad working" memory sticks, PSUs, and HDDs used with the Pentium I to III are OK with the K6-2 ones.

    Lincoln or Cadillac? Can't drive.
    BMW or Mercedes? Can't drive.
    CNN or Fox? Not in the 'states.
    Asphalt or concrete? In winter, if you want to be able to walk, I say asphalt.
    AMD or Intel? I compared, AMD
    Sony or Panasonic? Panasonic
    ATi or nVidia? I'll have to try something better than an Xpert 98.
    Duracell or Energizer? None, rechargeable. If not, Panasonic.
    MacOS or Windows? Windows
    Windows or Linux? Linux
    hp or Lexmark? hp
    Lexmark or Epson? Lexmark
    hp or Canon? Canon
    (Local) Bell or Videotron? Bell
    (Local) Rogers or Videotron? Rogers

    and the list goes on.
  24. werty316

    werty316 TS Rookie Posts: 185

    AMD all the way since XP days :grinthumb
  25. Mirob

    Mirob TechSpot Paladin Posts: 478

    Chevys are best, but thay can't fold.
    Well I folded one around a light poll once.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...