Which is the better brand? I've heard that Intel is better, and I've heard AMD is better. So what's your guys opinion.
And in your opinion what is the strongest, fastest processor out right now? I have a 2.6 GHz Intel Celeron Processor, and I hate it, it's so slow.
ID:276606
 Dec 13 2005, 5:40 pm
|
|
I'm interested in this too- if someone in the know could explain it in laymans terms, I'd be really pleased!
I have an AMD 1.8 GHz processor and it's fast enough...I wouldn't really know what to expect with a faster processor speed, though. | |
For gaming, an AMD for sure. My friend's 1 ghz AMD used to outperform my 1.7 ghz Pentium 4, or so it seemed to me.
My next PC will be an AMD-based one for sure. ~Kujila | |
AMD is better at processing one application at a time, while Intel is better at processing several applications at a time.
With the older chips, AMD is cheaper, and works well enough for any home computer user on multitasking. If your looking at something aside from Dual Core, it's the way to go. Intels run cooler than AMDs, again the older ones, and are better at running several applications at once. By several, I mean you wouldn't notice it until running a high number of high CPU usage applications. Intel would run a server better, for instance. AMD is also not good for overclocking. They come overclocked off the market, and run extremely hot. I'm not saying it isn't possible, just not a good idea. On the newer chips - Dual Core(It's been a while since I've read this, correct me if I'm wrong!) AMD - Still the gaming chip. Runs cooler than the Intel. Costs more. Less power consumption- Intel - Still the multitasking chip. Even better now, dual cores have 4 logical processors. Runs hotter. Uses more power. | |
SSJ2GohanDBGT wrote:
AMD is better at processing one application at a time, while Intel is better at processing several applications at a time. AMD was always the over clockers choice, the vence kicks butt With over 1 GHz over clock on air! On the newer chips - Dual Core(It's been a while since I've read this, correct me if I'm wrong!) Shamefully X2 beats the Intel D in all multitasking bench marks. Intel - Still the multitasking chip. Even better now, dual cores have 4 logical processors. Runs hotter. Uses more power. That what you would think but the X2 spanks the Intel down in every way. It runs cooler, uses less power and has more push to it. ps. I'm not an AMD loyalist I just researched the bench marks. I know Intel is working hard to bring a new line-up to compete. we will see when the new lineups are released. | |
I usually am playing computer games, internet, instant messaging, Dream Maker, notepad, and Microsoft Works. Usually I have them all open due to my laziness with opening, and closing applications unless I'm playing a game that take a lot of CPU like Sims 2, or Sim City 4.
Which leads me to the real reason I want a better processor even with all the settings on The Sim 2, or Sim City 4 on low they run so terribly, but yet on my friends Intel Pentium 4 HT they run ultra smooth on the highest settings. | |
Clock speeds can't be compared between the brands. a 2Ghz AMD 64 runs about the same as an Intel 3Ghz.
| |
Drumersl wrote:
Clock speeds can't be compared between the brands. a 2Ghz AMD 64 runs about the same as an Intel 3Ghz. That's why I said to ignore the clock speed labels, since the AMD proccessors do more per clock in comparison to Intels. :P ~~> Unknown Person | |
No, as I said above, it isn't the only thing that determines the speed of a cpu. This is a nice read about what determines how fast a computer system could be.
~~> Unknown person | |
Read Tomshardware. The X2 runs hotter, but uses less power. In terms of pure power, the Intel is better.
I'm a gamer, I'm an AMD fan. :P The AMD XP was an overclockers choice, not the 64 bit. The 64 bit comes highly overclocked off the market. | |
Ah, I was just thinking that instructions per clock would tell you how much they do per clock than you could compare them. Than I remember how Intel rates there clock speeds.
| |
SSJ2GohanDBGT wrote:
Read Tomshardware. The X2 runs hotter, but uses less power. In terms of pure power, the Intel is better. In pure power aka single application the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ will give you much better performance. thats what tom says :P. infact if you look at the charts on the site the X2 beats intels best in 3 of 4 tests. it only did worse in divX encodeing. Here is a secound review: http://reviews.cnet.com/ 4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=cnetfd.sd and a third :P http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_055e.html I'm a gamer, I'm an AMD fan. :P you kiding? the venice/sandigo core is the best overclocker there is right now. I got a AMD 3000+ 1.6 Ghz runing at 2.6 Ghz on air. But as i said already, it will all come down to what intels new architecture is capable of in 2006. | |
SSJ2GohanDBGT wrote:
AMD is better at processing one application at a time, while Intel is better at processing several applications at a time. Xzar wrote: In pure power aka single application the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ will give you much better performance. Yeah, that's what I said =o The AMD XP was an overclockers choice, not the 64 bit. The 64 bit comes highly overclocked off the market. It still doesn't change that the AMDs run hot. I actually haven't looked into the Dual Cores, but the AMD Athlon 64s are not the best for overclocking(single core). The Pentium 4s are very stable overclocked. I'm on a Newcastle 3500+, I can't put it up more than 200-250 Mhz over, or it freezes up windows. I was trying to be a smartass and get my benchmark over 10k and it corrupted a few Windows system files. Anyhow, if your running 1 Ghz over, what the heck kind of cooling system are you running? That's insane. Edit: Thanks for the link, I had lost a bit of faith upon reading Tomshardware's first review. I might look into a Dual Core X2 now, since my system supports it =) | |
Kujila wrote:
My friend's 1 ghz AMD used to outperform my 1.7 ghz Pentium 4, or so it seemed to me. That's a given. I personally prefer Pentium 4, so I'm not saying that it's given that AMD is better than Pentium 4. The thing about AMD is that it's strategy is to not rely so much on clock speed as Intel does. So a 1 GHz AMD might pair up better with a 3.0+ GHz Intel P4. AMD is the generally accepted choice as better for gaming, but a large multi-tasker may find that Intels run smoother. So the choice between them really comes down to what you plan to do with your PC. I'm hoping for Intel to pull through in '06 and come up with an all-around better processor....gaming, multi-tasking, quiet, and cool. That'd be really nice. =D Hiead | |
I wonder what happend if someone made a mobo compatibale with a intel and an amd proc(meaning two proc) now that be awesome.
| |
Intel and AMD use a different pin configuration though, I don't think this would be possible, or plausible at any rate =\
| |
SSJ2GohanDBGT wrote:
SSJ2GohanDBGT wrote: stock, lol. I don't have the money to go pase-shift or water cooled like by friend :(. Edit: If I had the $$ i would too :P. I want to compleate my SLI first through. and maybe add another gig of ram. my current rig is: AMD 3000+ oc 2.6 Ghz, 1 Gig ram, Asus SLI, and 1 6600GT need another :P. Heres a good site if you are going to go into overclocking: http://www.overclock.net/ | |
Heh, in my opinion, SLI is a waste of money. The next series up will always overpower two the series below in SLI, and will cost less.
2 6600 GTs < 1 6800 GT 2 6800 GT < 1 7800 GT or 1 7800 GTX SLI gives around -10% to 60% more performance in some games in higher resolutions for some games. You'd need some good monitor really need and notice the difference. :P ~~> Unknown Person | |
~~> Unknown Person