Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which is quicker amd or intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 4, 2006 7:48:12 PM

im getting a little concerned on what cpu to buy for my new pc a AMD
or Intel as the intels run higher at clock speed like 3ghz but Amds run about 2.0ghz can anyone explain this which is actually quicker with the dual cores and the normal 64 bit cpus all input will be great.

More about : quicker amd intel

January 4, 2006 7:49:33 PM

AMD, no, Intel... AMD...
Depends...
January 4, 2006 7:50:01 PM

now if ya asked which one is hotter...
Related resources
January 4, 2006 8:05:45 PM

Quote:
im getting a little concerned on what cpu to buy for my new pc a AMD
or Intel as the intels run higher at clock speed like 3ghz but Amds run about 2.0ghz can anyone explain this which is actually quicker with the dual cores and the normal 64 bit cpus all input will be great.


I know people hate these technical run-around answers--but I still have to answer truthfully. It depends. IMO, comparing the fastest AMD with the fastest Intel of the same "line"--AMD wins. That still doesn't answer the question though. Name specific processor lines you are considering and I can compare, but it just depends. Also remember except for outrageous-priced POC boards, motherboards are designed for either AMD or Intel--not both. So the motherboards determine speed almost as much as the processor does in a way.

I buy AMD processors, and most gamers at the current time will recommend AMD as well. Remember though 2006 looks to be a major change with Intel processors, so late this year Intel just may pull off a miracle and stomp AMD. I wouldn't be too surprised. Intel has the $$$ to spend on major overhauling to catch AMD. Hope this helped...likely I just confused.

Bottom line: AMD wins now, who knows about Q3?
January 4, 2006 8:29:33 PM

Couldn't agree with you more. Too many factors involved to really determine a true answer. Yes, there are tests but just how true are they? To me, numbers simply do not matter, its the real world end user that determine how good they really are. I love AMD and Intel and have machines setup with both. Both have identical 7800GT cards in them and gameplay seems the same to me. AMD does seem to process a little faster in some things but the Intel seems to shine in other areas.
January 4, 2006 9:27:32 PM

Quote:
so late this year Intel just may pull off a miracle and stomp AMD


yeah the Pentium M, its a modified Pentium 3!

look HERE if you dont believe me :) 

what do you do most? if its gaming then AMD if its encoding/decoding then its Intel....although the difference in milliseconds on the encoding doesnt really matter but that how it stands at the moment.
January 4, 2006 9:35:36 PM

It seems to be that Intel is better for video editing software such as Adobe Premier. It is actually quite a bit quicker when it comes to redering large video files and anyone considering doing any video editing should invest in an intel system. For everything else, especially gaming, AMD has a huge upper hand. I myself have recently made the switch to an AMD system and couldn't be happier. The chips run cool, not too loud, not too expensive either. A chip like the amd 3700+ san diego core is a perfect match for what most people need and shouldnt be too expensive either. Make sure its socket 939 to be future compatible.
January 4, 2006 10:26:05 PM

Dear Dj-Immi

You have just asked the question that has been unanswered for a long, long time. No matter what you do your answers will be biased. And since i am completely impartial i will tell you this.

If you want to use your computer as a typewriter, or a spreadsheet or anything useful, (Well you should not be upgrading your computer in this life at least). But if you really have the urge to run a .doc file faster than anyone has ever run one before, buy an intel. If you want to use the computer for anything that could possibly earn you a living, buy an intel. If you want the computer to bribe your bank manager, buy an intel. If you want to use your computer as a very large, expensive paperweight, buy an intel. And most importantly if you are prone to fits of histerical anger, buy an intel(This way you might get angry and throw it out of the window and the world will be a better place for it, when an intel dies and angel gets it's wings).

HOWEVER

If you want to have fun, Get an amd.

If you want to be 8) like the rest of us, Purchase an *AMD*

If you want your games to run :twisted: , Aquire an AMF'nD

If you want to be :)  buy an -=AMD=-

If you want to be :D  find an A M D

If you feel you need to :lol:  look for THE Lord and Master <A+M+D>

But then again you might b one of those :cry:  goth people so you could always get yourself an intel.

So IOW march down to a good computer shop and be 8) and :)  and :D  and :lol:  and buy an AMD

And to think, intels used to be soooo good :cry: 
January 4, 2006 10:57:59 PM

I have a Prescott 3200 and a Opteron 175, and previously had a Athlonxp 1900 (still do) and dual P3-550's and a Intel P4-1900.
The dual P3-550's with 4 10k SCSI drives ate the XP1900's lunch on certain tasks... now the Opty 175 eats the Prescott's lunch in most tasks, and last month the tide was in AMD's court, but the tide is turning once again...
Seems to me, the cutting edge mostly has been with Intel as far as the leader and latest technology is concerned being implemented into PC's. It is just that the latest tech does not always equal the fastest gaming PC's, but if you do more than game, and Intel has never done poorly gaming, just periodicacaly lately AMD trumps them with their top line chips, other PC uses need to be considered. I mean over 60fps is enough for gaming, and if one does over 100fps but the other multitasks faster and easier giving user a feel of performance instead of waiting for prev app to finish, which one would you suspect would be chosen by the end user as the fastest? The one that multi-tasks better. This has been AMD;s weak spot as far as I am concerned. And to some extent, AMD, rather late, addressed this with dual-core.
Now, with Intel's newly Presler cores, it looks like there will be a new performance crown in gaming and multi-tasking, and the ball will be in AMD's court to play ball!
Wait and see is what I say....
For now, I will watch from the windows on my Opty 175 and PrecHOT 3200 and see which way the wind blows... (hopefully over my poor overheated precott.}
January 4, 2006 11:13:03 PM

RichPLS, you always seem to make me sound like a 5 year old. Would you mind leaving like a 1 person gap between my post and yours, i'm being inferiorised. :D 
January 4, 2006 11:27:25 PM

What we need is a buffer poster, someone smarter than me but dumber then you...
January 4, 2006 11:47:54 PM

intel vs amd is a never ending story but Rabidpeanut has it right

AMD always win the crown no matter how longs it takes...

the rest is an endless pointless technological mine is bigger than your's battle.


and i own a p4 530 :roll:

wish i known better when i bought this...
January 4, 2006 11:51:34 PM

Quote:
Dear Dj-Immi

You have just asked the question that has been unanswered for a long, long time. ................. And most importantly if you are prone to fits of histerical anger, buy an intel(This way you might get angry and throw it out of the window and the world will be a better place for it, when an intel dies and angel gets it's wings)........

And to think, intels used to be soooo good :cry: 


HILARIOUS...words can only describe, but words with EMOTICONS>>flippin priceless..

Till Then continue to...."Leap Ahead" haha jp

Marcus
January 5, 2006 2:10:39 AM

main thing I found when building my last system was that Intel drained my wallet quicker than AMD.
January 5, 2006 2:26:03 AM

Quote:
im getting a little concerned on what cpu to buy for my new pc a AMD
or Intel as the intels run higher at clock speed like 3ghz but Amds run about 2.0ghz can anyone explain this which is actually quicker with the dual cores and the normal 64 bit cpus all input will be great.



. , ? ... are all usefull in sentences to make them easier to read ..
January 5, 2006 3:58:18 AM

Quote:
im getting a little concerned on what cpu to buy for my new pc a AMD
or Intel as the intels run higher at clock speed like 3ghz but Amds run about 2.0ghz can anyone explain this which is actually quicker with the dual cores and the normal 64 bit cpus all input will be great.



. , ? ... are all usefull in sentences to make them easier to read ..

Conjunctions like "and" make them easier to read too! :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
January 5, 2006 10:04:58 AM

Strangely enough when i bought my computer the most expensive chip out there was an AMD, but that was when 64's just hit the scene, and i think the most expensive chip is an AMD, its one of those Opterons that you can use 8 together on 1 board i think.
January 5, 2006 11:41:39 AM

You looked at them there Zeons and Itaniums...and Craniums...
January 5, 2006 1:05:44 PM

AMD FANBOYS, all of ya :) 

Maybe it's quicker who knows, I'd argue Intel is more stable however. At least that's what my past experience tells me. I need stability more than speed.
January 5, 2006 1:46:54 PM

Quote:
Maybe it's quicker who knows, I'd argue Intel is more stable however. At least that's what my past experience tells me. I need stability more than speed.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, o wait your serious?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


thats why i went AMD intels were nout but problematic!
January 5, 2006 3:59:22 PM

quicker?

I think Intel was still chasing after its tail and AMD is still trying to catch up to its tail.

In other news: It doesn't matter they both do the exact samething. "64bit" does no one good and doesn't mean your computer runs twice as fast. It just means it can access 64bits of data at a time through the General Registers.

Its all about personal preferences and personal experiences. Go with whatever you feel comfortable with.

Quote:
im getting a little concerned on what cpu to buy for my new pc a AMD
or Intel as the intels run higher at clock speed like 3ghz but Amds run about 2.0ghz can anyone explain this which is actually quicker with the dual cores and the normal 64 bit cpus all input will be great.
January 5, 2006 5:20:25 PM

p05esto: If we are AMD fanboys then you are an intel fanboy. You ever heard of A little company called 3dfx?

Well a long time ago in a distant workshop they made the best graphics cards in all the land, with real looking dragons and knights in shiny armour. They used to do what intel does, put lots and lots of fancy pants parts in their cards. Then along came a small company called nVidia, they looked at these cards and said to themselves: "My goodness, look at all these wasted parts, i bet we could do the same job with half of all that stuff!" Well little did 3dfx know that nVidia cards did just what the little people at nVidia said they would, they worked faster using half the pieces. Soon 3dfx was in dire trouble, forced to sell stock and eventually going bankrupt selling their latest greatest card to nVidia that sat around on the hard drive of nVidia's design server, until one day it ended up being labeled gforce4.

But this is not the end of the story, it is but the beginning.

IOW, intel is 3dfx and AMD is nVidia. Not that i want AMD to crush intel, i just want them to fight a lot, like orcs versus middle earth, only no-one wins, excpet the consumer of course. So the moral of the story is that intel is making mistakes and they design their processors the way 3dfx made their cards, with stuff you will never need, sure it will last you 10 years, but who has a 10 year old pc? So it all boils down to *WHO CARES?* AMD is better right now, intel may be better next year, you still get to buy the stupid thing so there is no problem. Still AMD is winning so just cause you would love to give all intel employees blowjobs does not mean you have to slam AMD. Intel is making lots of mistakes right now, so don't buy an intel, it is just a dumb thing to do. And anyway you can probably get 2 AMD chips for the price of one intel and then get a dual cpu motherboard and vuala, you have 2 times the power for the same price, it is likely to change some day but until then give credit where it is due, not unintel, AMD.

This post may contain some conflicting methods of information conveyance, for that i apologise.
January 5, 2006 5:22:43 PM

Quote:
Maybe it's quicker who knows, I'd argue Intel is more stable however. At least that's what my past experience tells me. I need stability more than speed.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, o wait your serious?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


thats why i went AMD intels were nout but problematic!

VOTE FLAKES FOR PRESIDENT!]

w00t w00t!
January 6, 2006 2:28:52 AM

Wow, it must be 5 years or more, since you learned anything about computers.
Ever since nvidia came out with a decent chipset, those "stability" issues have been a thing of the past. The problem was with the available chipsets, and cheap components.
Now even via chipsets are stable, though nvidia's are better. Ati's also look promising.
On the other hand, Intel has run into a heat wall. It has caused some stability problems for other components.
January 6, 2006 2:48:05 AM

amd or intel? that would be the same as which comes first the chicken or the egg?, but in the end it will always be the AMD.
January 6, 2006 1:23:47 PM

I dont recall saying that nvidia was unstable? I think i am missing something cause po5esto didn't say anything about unstable nvidia cards either.

¿Que?
January 6, 2006 3:14:01 PM

Back in the sub-1Ghz athlon Vs P3 days you could only really get Motherboards based on 2* chipset manufacturers: SIS or VIA. SIS were cheap, so manufacturers used cheap components with their chipsets, resulting in lower quality (but cheap) motherboards. VIA chipsets were just horrid. Horrid Horrid Nasty Horrible. Nasty Nasty Crashtastic POS. VIA never admitted to being a bunch of monkeys who wouldn't know a stable chipset if one was shoved up their arses. That didn't stop them from taking various underhanded steps to try to corner the market (I forget exactly what they did, but it was all a bit dishonarable)

Intel however have always made excellent chipsets. Very stable, usually quite overclockable too. These have always been the mainstream chipset choice for Intel chips.

The net result was everyone thought AMDs were horribly unstable, because 80% of AMD systems were struggling along with a sucky VIA chipset, whereas 90% of Intel systems had an intel chipset, so were nice and stable.

However, it was Nvidia to the rescue when they released the Nforce2 chipset for Athlon XPs. It was better performing, more stable and far more overclockable than anything that had ever been available for AMD chips.

So, after that little bit of history...
Quote:
I think i am missing something cause po5esto didn't say anything about unstable nvidia cards either.
He didn't, he merely pointed out that Nvidia's chipsets are as stable as anything, and AMD have never been to blame for stability problems.

A bit of waffle, but a good way to waste 10 minutes at work...


*=Yes I know you could get AMD chipsets too, but they were never that popular and AMD were too small to keep up with both CPUs and chipsets.... Did ALi make Athlon chipsets? I think they did too but don't remember much there.... Ah well, the basic premise is still correct...
January 6, 2006 3:47:23 PM

Quote:
However, it was Nvidia to the rescue when they released the Nforce2 chipset for Athlon XPs. It was better performing, more stable and far more overclockable than anything that had ever been available for AMD chips.


This is why I don't quite understand their purchase of ULi. nVidia is clearly the market leader in AMD chipsets. What the hell do they need ULI for? ULi (in my opinion) is lightyears behind nVidia. Granted they didn't pay much ($52 million I think), but nVidia seems to have a history of buying defunct chip companies (3dFX for example, for which they paid $70 million). When nVidia bought 3DFX... it was kind of like "why?" At the time everyone knew 3DFX was doomed. They bet too much on FSAA. The only thing nVidia really got out of it was excellent FSAA tech. And <maybe> SLI. (if you'll remember, 3DFX had an SLI technology before anyone else). But it seems to me nVidia could have developed FSAA and SLI w/o the purchase of 3DFX. And they certainly could have done it for less than $70 million.

Quote:
Yes I know you could get AMD chipsets too, but they were never that popular and AMD were too small to keep up with both CPUs and chipsets.... Did ALi make Athlon chipsets? I think they did too but don't remember much there.... Ah well, the basic premise is still correct...


Yeah ALi made chipsets for Athlon's. And they were actually decent. They didn't have the performance of the AMD or VIA chipsets, but they were more stable than the VIA chipsets. Correction, they were more stable than VIA's drivers. Everyone calls VIA's chipsets crap... but it was really their drivers that sucked. The chipsets were fine.

-mpjesse
January 6, 2006 5:04:18 PM

Do yourself a favor and get an AMD64 Socket 939 or Opteron 1xx Socket 939 with a nice nForce4 motherboard, from ASUS, Abit, DFI, etc and nice RAM like Corsair XMS, OCZ, etc and a decent GeForce 6600GT PCI-E and you will be very happy!

Intel has temporarily won the crown back however AMD will eat their lunch in about 0-4 weeks!

I have owned many AMD and Intel computers since 1985 and have pretty much always preferred AMD.
January 6, 2006 5:56:42 PM

And only now you warn me about buying a via...
January 6, 2006 7:10:33 PM

VIA is good too but nForce4 is better.

I actually have 2 nice VIA 939 boards and they work fine.
January 6, 2006 9:06:27 PM

Then the next board i will get will be an nforce, no more via trouble for me.
January 8, 2006 3:48:39 PM

[quote="mpjesseThis is why I don't quite understand their purchase of ULi. nVidia is clearly the market leader in AMD chipsets. What the hell do they need ULI for?

-mpjesse[/quote]
Its not what they get out of ULi, its what their competitors don't get. Think about it - with ATI joining the chipset market in a big way it suddenly got a lot more crowded. One of them was probably going to disappear somehow - merger, buyout or shut down. VIA and ATI are too big to grab - there's no way - it's like HP & IBM merging... but if either of them were to snatch up the excellent tech of Uli... that would worry me if I were nVidia. Now they're not worried because they own Uli.

Mike.
January 9, 2006 5:19:34 AM

Quote:
You looked at them there Zeons and Itaniums...and Craniums...

Ok so what do I go with? OPTY 170, 175, x2 4400 or intel? I do game but i do other things as well. I'am not a hard core gamer. I do plan on OCing in the future(couple of years). HELP me. Anyone??? :twisted:
January 9, 2006 8:28:51 AM

It really depends on what segment you are talking about. When it comes to the mobile segment, Intel wins hands down in terms of absolute performance. But, then again, the Pentium M is like twice as expensive as the turion and will remain so forever since the Pentium M is Intel's defacto flagship product. When it comes to the value segment, AMD's sempron64 is head and shoulders beyond Intel and will remain so probobly forever since the Sempron is going 939 next year. I dont think there has ever deen such a disparity in performance between two chip lines. The celeron is so god awful. In the mainstream line I dont think there is much of a difference to the untrained eye. The real difference is in VALUE. AMD chips are a few bucks cheaper at every performance level. Whats more, intel chips cost more to operate day in, day out. Over the course of a few years, and AMD chip will pay for itself compared to an intel solution in terms of electric bills. If you take the A64 3000 and the P4 3ghz CPUs and couple it with a 7800 GTX, no one is going to notice the difference. Honestly. Who is going to miss 50 fps when you are already pushing 90+? When it comes to video encoding, the P4 will win hands down. But who will miss 20-30 minutes in the middle of the night? (thats when I encode video) You wouldnt even be awake. The bottom line is that one chip is simply cheaper than the other and just a better value. Performance is in the eye of the beholder. But I will say that, one has to be amazed to see a chip clocked 1.2 ghz slower keeping up with a faster chip. Its like, "shouldnt that 3 ghz chip be alot faster?"
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2006 9:49:52 AM

Intel VS AMD - never ends.

AMDs are usually cheaper and within 10% performance (either way) of a competing Intel Product and untill prescott Intels were usually colder, and AMD has always held a better backward compatibility.

AMD has lost a few wars - the Days of P2, and the last was when Intel released the P4 C class - in some of the benchmarks the P4c 2400 ate the AMD Athlon XP 3000 and 3200 especially in video benchmarks (prolly optimised for intels) where as now even Intel optimised software runs better on A64's.

Reliability - Athlon XP's - if your heatsink came off or didnt get mounted correctly your cpu is toast, bios support for thermal shut down was an option not regulation.

As for Intel Pentium M's - they could have the potential to rip AMD at its own game - Heat, Clock for Clock Performance and overall Performance - in six months conroe arrives.

In the end, competition brings good prices for us, dont buy a cpu by brand buy by whats faster per $, or more efficent for your usage.
January 9, 2006 11:02:34 AM

I dont know apache. From what I have read, Conroe will be a hybrid netburst/yonah product. It will take the longer pipeline and higher clockspeed of the prescott and the efficiency and power consumption of yonah and put it together. So clock speeds will be lower than the P4 but higher than yonah. Heat disspiation will be lower than the P4 but higher than yonah. I think the higher latency L2 cache (than yonah) and the still lengthy pipeline (compared to yonah) will result in an improved product but still not as good as an A64. It could have lower clock speeds (affecting video encoding and its ilk) and a still inferior FPU co CPU. We cannot say for sure now, but I think you will see this:

Now: A64 3000 is equivalent to a 3ghz P4
Soon: A64 3000 is equivalent to a 2.2 ghz conroe

Think of it this way. The Pentium M duo @ 2ghz is slightly less powerful than a X2 3800 @ 2ghz. If you mix in P4 architecture that is less powerful clock for clock than the A64, you get what? A slightly less powerful chip. Albeit a chip that is an improvement over the P4, runs cooler, and COULD be less expensive (but I doubt that) It is a step in the right direction though.
January 9, 2006 11:55:17 AM

Quote:
AMD FANBOYS, all of ya :) 

Maybe it's quicker who knows, I'd argue Intel is more stable however. At least that's what my past experience tells me. I need stability more than speed.

Yep we maybe AMD fan boys..or AMDroids or whatever u may call us...but the matter of the fact is that AMD is far more stable than an intel and gone are the days of instabilty with an AMD...
January 9, 2006 12:30:37 PM

Past trends are irrelevant pretty much, the field is too dynamic at this point.

Currently:
Intel is very linear in their processing power, good if your doing one thing, like converting a video, compressing a file. But one thing at a time, The current logic doesn't support multi-tasking very well. This is why HyperThreading came about, to try and improve upon this and allow more to be done per clock cycle. Past "multi-core" technology hasn't really been that profound from Intel. The newest CPU they just released does show signs of change and improvement though. They also run much hotter, this will change hopefully with the 65nm wafers.

AMD is focusing more on results right now. The end result of general windows use, game play, multi-tasking, etc, runs much faster on an Athlon 64 based system. Part of this is because the memory controller lies in the CPU now, allowing for direct access to needed data. It's almost like a huge, public, L3 cache. AMD has experience doing this well, if you remember the K6-2+ and K6-3 line. The current A64 X2 line of dual-core chips from AMD seem to be much more effective at sharing the load, even on applications not written for dual-cores specifically. The Athlon 64's run noteably cooler and consume far less power, this is because of the slower clock speed and the effective use of the 90nm wafer process. The "Cool n' Quiet" dynamic clocking ability even furthers this.

Either way, sheer electron speed ratings (Mhz) are becoming more irrelevant. They may take meaning again one day, who knows. The scene as it's become is more about how much the processor can do effectively during a cycle. AMD has been researching and developing ways to advance this for awhile, they are ahead of the curve because of it. Intel is just now starting to do so, so they have some catch-up to do, but rest assured, they will focus on doing so.
January 9, 2006 2:14:27 PM

I'm not able to read all the posts due to time constraints (maybe later guys)
but I'm going to throw out my 2cents.

To answer your first question: If you looking @ just clock frequencies, Intel wins...but you cant do that. Athlons process more instructions per clock cycle (by far) while consuming less power...little finness I'd say.

AMD vs Intel depends upon...

Budget
Preformance needs
Application preference.

Example: My Northwood @ 2600mhz outpaces my 3200+ in media (video or audio) encoding. Then again, I turn around...I see a much larger preformance for gaming, file compession, benchmarks, and power consumption when compared to any other Intel CPU I own (I dont have anything Dothan based yet).

The overall winner, yes, I'm going to say AMD. However I still love my little northwood, but their quite hard to fine as Prescott rules the roost of P4's. If you looking at Dual Core - no disrespect, but Intel's response was a joke. Not only did they remove their biggest advantage(HT) from everything but the EE *aka* rip-off edition...but the wattage they burn through is amazing. Not to mention the instability problems with NF4 chipsets (I'm not to sure if thats been worked out, somebody fill in with more info about that) (Why did they leave speed step and powersave features out of the 900 is beyond me) Then you have the HT vunerability if your running FreeBSD...I dont even feel like elaborating on that.

But, AMD is a little overprice IMHO. (Anybody remember the $30 Duron?)
Semperons' yes, a little more what we should have (lower prices) but they have locked multipliers...so its a trade off.
So, my suggestion...Athlon64, dont wait for M2, becuase 939 isnt going for discount, its going to be phased out.

If not, find a good 915i board....pick up a Dothan, 2mb L2 cache ( I wish they'd up the L1 in P4 like they did Dothan) really really low wattage use.
(Talking 45watts max) and when evenly clocked with an A64, can outpase it in most 32bit apps. (Do they make 64bit extensions for Dothan yet?)
Then there's Yonah...but thats dual core.

Up to you....Athlon 64.....or if you dead on "Intel Inside" - Dothan is the only way to go.
January 10, 2006 2:43:54 PM

I LIKED the fact that my computer could explode at any second. Made me play a bit less.
!