AMD or Intel?

[Corsair Freak]

Hey all,

I was bored so I decided I would virtually build a new computer at Tigerdirect. When it came to the CPU I was stumped... I didn't know which to pick...AMD... or Intel... which do you think? well, since I don't have any expierence with AMD, I just threw an Intel into the mix. heres the specs on my new computer  ;D

CPU: Intel P4 3.4GHz (775 Socket)
MOBO: Asus P5P800
MEM: Corsair ( ) 1GB PC3200
HDD: Maxtor 160GB
PSU: Ultra 500W
GFX: 256MB XFX GeForce 6800GT

should run like lightning... once I get $1500  :D

[Gunny04]

Well do you edit or game or both? if its gaming well, the AMD, but if you dont game much and do loads and loads of editing and office work, Intel will do.... Cheers, Gunny

[beaky]

I am by no means an expert, but I chose AMD for my machine, and it could be better for the money than the equivalent Intel chip, from what I've heard. It certainly does the job, and stays cool through hours of flight simming. I was just reading an online  technical comparison of my chip vs. the equivalent Intel, and the author agreed with me.
But I certainly wouldn't head up at a 3.4 chip, even if it was Intel...

[the_autopilot]

Depends

for gaming. AMD, no question.

For other stuff, like video editing, office work, mathmatical calculations etc, intel is the way to go. Intel handles multimedia pretty well and does great in synthetic benchmarks, but is easily beaten by AMD in games.

The above only applies to single core CPU's.

For dual-core, AMD rules the market in ALL fields in terms of performence. Intel has no dual core that can match AMD's dual core offerings. Be aware that AMD dual cores are way overpriced and that the best performence for price ratio for dual cores lies with Intel.

[congo]

From the reviews and benchtests I've seen, (for single core cpu's), there was no great margin between the equivalent technologies in multimedia anyway....... I mean, it's either gonna take Intel 58 minutes or AMD 61 minutes to process a long movie .......

Unless you actually go out and build a couple comparitive rigs in each genre, then compare them over a range of applications in great detail over time, I doubt many people would ever notice the difference.

Both camps are producing some fantastic hardware these days.

It should also be pointed out that no matter how fast the actual hardware is,  the operator is still quite able to screw it all up anyway........ and the largest performance differences between high end systems will most likely be marked by configuration and software installation variations ....... not the hardware itself.

I don't know enough about the dual core cpu technology to comment, but Autopilot's comments are very interesting. This will bode well for AMD unless Intel come up with an equivalent at least.

[cobzz]

Depends

for gaming. AMD, no question.

For other stuff, like video editing, office work, mathmatical calculations etc, intel is the way to go. Intel handles multimedia pretty well and does great in synthetic benchmarks, but is easily beaten by AMD in games.

The above only applies to single core CPU's.

For dual-core, AMD rules the market in ALL fields in terms of performence. Intel has no dual core that can match AMD's dual core offerings. Be aware that AMD dual cores are way overpriced and that the best performence for price ratio for dual cores lies with Intel.

a single core 3.4ghz computer bate a dual core amd athlon dual core, dont know which type

[Mehdi]

Has to be AMD, even though I sim on Intel setup. AMDs are generally cheaper and much better than Intels.

Probably the only thing I prefer about Intels is their general superiority over AMDs in video/audio applications; I convert a lot of files, mostly from MP3s to OGG for my phone with my Intel comp.

[MWISimmer]

AMD, even though I sim on Intel setup.

Same here, however i chose P4 over AMD as my missus does music editing, and LOTS of digital photo editing.

My first PC was Intel, then 2 AMD Durons in succession, now this one, P4.
Intel for me (and her).
Rob.

[4_Series_Scania]

I've just sold my p4 for an AMD 64 3000+, bang for buck performance , Intel just cannot compete.

For serious uses, Intel is supposedly better, after years of abuse from AMD owning friends, I've converted to the dark side!  ;D

[the_autopilot]

a single core 3.4ghz computer bate a dual core amd athlon dual core, dont know which type

Not at all.

Single thread apps like games work much better on single core computers b/c singles cores are very fast.

Dual cores are much more powerful than any single core, but each core is running at a much lower clock rate than single cores. Since single threads apps only use a single core, dual cores are at a disadavntage.

Dual cores become powerful with multitasking. For example, you'll be able to game and say, burn a dvd or encode files, with NO loss in performence for the game b/c they will be running on different cores.

I don't know enough about the dual core cpu technology to comment, but Autopilot's comments are very interesting. This will bode well for AMD unless Intel come up with an equivalent at least.

You can read moe about AMD's crushing of intel here in a dual core stress test.:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/stresstest-03.html
see bottom of page for summary.

[congo]

Thx autopilot  ;)

[bm]

Dual cores become powerful with multitasking. For example, you'll be able to game and say, burn a dvd or encode files, with NO loss in performence for the game b/c they will be running on different cores.

So why can't we all just save a lot of money just sticking with the one core and not burn dvds at the same time  ??? Sounds like a better plan to me lol!!!

[Weather_Man]

Agreed. Dual core has specific benefits. Gaming is not one of them (yet). I'd much prefer an AMD FX to an X2.

In about 5-7 years when dual core is a bit more mainstream and games are coded to take advantage of it fully (with 64bit processing to go with it), I'll go that route. For now, I see no point in buying one but for the bragging rights.

[the_autopilot]

So why can't we all just save a lot of money just sticking with the one core and not burn dvds at the same time  ??? Sounds like a better plan to me lol!!!

For now, that is THE better plan. But for the future, thats a bad plan. Games will begin to take advanage of that second core and use it to process say physics or AI or something. But consider that dual core performence doesn't fall behind single core performence in games by very far. At most, there is a difference of 10 FPS with the fps ranging in the high 60's (coupled with the right gfx card). Performence is pretty similar and dual cores are CHEAPER (a x2 4800 is cheaper than a fx-57), it might be a good idea to go dual core and future proof.

[Ben_M_K]

I myself have a AMD, but I'm not to good with hardware stuff.