Why AMD? Intel anyone?

Why does everyone recommend an AMD Chip for their computers. I have always been an Intel Guy.

I was considering the Pentium D 950 (3.4 Dual-Core) Chip, approx $600

Can Anyone give me some advice

Thanks in advance.
86 answers Last reply
More about intel anyone
  1. The A64 chips on NF4 mainboards are generally a little faster (in nearly all games) in 8 out of 10 various benchmarks, although Intel still is competitive in certain video encoding /decoding benchmarks...

    The Dual core X2-3800 (2.0G actual) will prob keep right up with a dual core 3.4D from Intel in 95% of the benchmarks, and do it for $300 less....($300 vs $600)

    The Athlon also generates about 20-25 watts less heat...
  2. There's nothing really wrong with the Intel chips.

    Most people seem to like the AMD chips because of lower energy consumption and better gaming performance at a lower clock speed. Ah! Also their lower running temps.

    Half Life 2 runs quite smooth at 1280x1024 (no AA or AS filtering) and other settings nearly maxed with:
    939 3200+ (winchester) stock clock 2.0Ghz
    MSI Neo2-FIR
    2Gb Patriot 2-3-2-6 DDR400
    XFX GeForce 6600GT 128Mb AGP
    WD Raptor 36Gb 10k RPM SATA


    I haven't kept up with Intel pricing so don't know if the price you quoted is a better deal, but if you're happy with Intel, go for it. Should be a killer rig. :)
  3. The main purpose of my new computer is going to be for Video Editing.


    Do you guys think I should go for an Intel or AMD chip?
  4. Depends on the app you plan on using. Definitely take a look at the link that was posted. :)
  5. thanks for the info
  6. AMD has great dual core CPUs as well. Great prices too. Unless you're affixiated with getting DDR2, go AMD.

    I would go AMD if I could reverse time and not buy this goddamned compaq.
  7. Quote:
    The main purpose of my new computer is going to be for Video Editing.


    Do you guys think I should go for an Intel or AMD chip?


    I decided to use AMD in my video system because I could live better with the few minutes it *may* take more to render the final movie than with the heat and noise from fans that would have to throw out the heat make by the CPU (around 65 degrees), the 2 HDD RAID array, the single storage drive, the chipset, the video card and voltage regulators to regulate the 200+ watts the 950D would throw out at idle..

    No as much powerfull as the 950 or any dual core, I can run my system with my 3 case fans running half speed, my video card fans running half speed and still having a quiet and cool system.

    Seriously, the X2 4800+ will do very good for editing while running full load with only 2 watts more that your 950 running idle. So, tell me which board will have less stress on voltage regulators at full load? Which one will generate les heat overall and consume less power? Which one is likely to throttle down speed if inufficient cooling is used.? Which one will likely make more noise?

    I'm not a fanboy, but these argument enough make me using AMD and I have nice rock stable computer that are quiet and fast.. and likely to be more reliable on the long term.. I don't want the heat from the CPU to kill my HDD..
  8. Oh and AMD's overclock great, so you can get a huge deal :). Especially on old 754 semprons.

    I try to be nonpartisan, but I find myself hoping that Intel will move into the skillet/frying pan market rather than making CPUs. So far, nobody has made a skillet that can heat up as fast as an intel CPU; how do they do it!?
  9. Quote:
    Remember those old Cyrix being used as hotplate? Well, Prescott will become one 2yrs later.


    You're joking, right?
  10. I'm a Intel CPU(P4 630) owner..an with 3 aditional fans(full air flow installed) i have 34 C idle..in apllication 48-50 C..the noise is lower-medium.
    But AMD its not having just 64 or X2...Amd its having Athlon Sempron Barton Duron all of them have a heat problems and bad construction majority at 0,13nm or higher 0,180nm.A friend of mine with a Barton 2000Mhz real speed have 62 C idle and in apllication....so AMD is only the moment processor wich is 64 and a lower price.
    But when i'm thinking at lower price i compare with non-quality manufacture,fabrication or materials..because the fiability its a reason from why i choose Intel.
    AMD is faster in benchmarks but not radicaly faster..it is with some points faster anyway apart from this we are free to choose from a lot of criterias
    not just from the benchmarks.
  11. Quote:
    I'm a Intel CPU(P4 630) owner..an with 3 aditional fans(full air flow installed) i have 34 C idle..in apllication 48-50 C..the noise is lower-medium.

    I got X2-4400 with X1800XT and have 29°C idle temp and 40°C at full load. Got 2 Tower Fans (one blowing into the tower one out, big silent ones). I still wonder if the CPU´s temp.-sensor is working correctly :)
    Quote:
    But AMD its not having just 64 or X2...Amd its having Athlon Sempron Barton Duron all of them have a heat problems and bad construction majority at 0,13nm or higher 0,180nm.A friend of mine with a Barton 2000Mhz real speed have 62 C idle and in apllication....so AMD is only the moment processor wich is 64 and a lower price.

    Yea but you are comparing older CPU´s to actual ones. In the past you could have made fried eggs on an AMD-CPU (beginning from 500 MHz) but things have changed.
    Quote:
    But when i'm thinking at lower price i compare with non-quality manufacture,fabrication or materials..because the fiability its a reason from why i choose Intel.

    Uh? How would you like to prove that?
    Quote:
    AMD is faster in benchmarks but not radicaly faster..it is with some points faster anyway apart from this we are free to choose from a lot of criterias not just from the benchmarks.

    Well even an equal result with benchmarks doesnt help Intel since AMD has the better Value.

    And speaking of quality... My intel boxed cooler was loud like an airplane and I had 64°C (full load). The AMD-boxed cooler is quiet AND got a great performance (for a boxed one). Comparing this I´d say Intel is a cheap one who just sells expensive.

    In terms of performance Intel would maybe have a slight advantage with video editing but that strongly depends on the program used. Considering the price/performance ratio Intel is eating dust.
  12. Even with the Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 (with 4 isolated threads now) a Pentium D EE (2 cores, each HyperThreaded) has far higher value, and similar performance when encoding video than my AMD Opteron 270 (2 CPUs, each with 2cores).

    I would go with the Pentium D or Pentium D EE for video encoding.

    Grab Windows Media Encoder x64 Edition 9 Series if you plan to run Windows XP x64 (be it via AMD64 or Intel EM64T) from: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/encoder/default.aspx ; too. If you've got 4 CPUs (virtual or otherwise, such as Pentium-D EE) you'll benefit heaps.

    I'll recommend an AMD Athlon64 X2 / Opteron (dual-core) series when they give the best performance, and / or best value.... but in this case the Pentium D EE (now that 4 thread versions of encoders are showing up) comes so close to an Opteron 270 at half the price, if not outperforms it... Then it doesn't justify doubling your cost to get roughly the same performance.

    If a CODEC or application runs in 2-4 'isolated' threads heavy in SSE2(+) then it will benefit from an Intel (dual-core, hyperthreaded, or both) CPU dramatically. AMD does have very good SSE2(+) performance in single isolated threads (or 2 isolated threads on the Athlon64 X2), but for Video Encoding they don't hold a candle (price : performance wise) to the Pentium D / D EE.

    Summary:

    You're after high MFLOPS (SSE2) here, but not high MIPS..... the Intel option gives high MFLOPS (SSE2) at a lower cost if (and only if) the application / codec runs in 2 (or more) isolated threads..... and pretty much all of them do for Video Encoding, it was the first major market they (Intel) targeted the technology at.

    Contact Info available at: http://users.on.net/~darkpeace

    If you like I'll let you RealVNC (Remote Desktop) connect to my PC and watch (but not use keyboard / mouse) me encode a 1 hour video, check Task Manager, CPU load out, etc on my Opteron 270. I'm in a GMT+10 (AEST) time zone though, but the weekend (Sat Midnight) starts here in 1 hour : 10 min apx from the time I've made this last edit..

    Remeber I've got the AMD Opteron 270 'option', but I am offering to let you see first hand (via remote) why I recommend the Intel for Video Encoding.

    At least that way you can put any doubts to rest. Esp on 2-pass encoding jobs... [:P]
  13. Yea but you are comparing older CPU´s to actual ones. In the past you could have made fried eggs on an AMD-CPU (beginning from 500 MHz) but things have changed

    But you make comparation just with Intel Prescot its not the only one CPU that Intel is offering, the list its have a entire gama to choose for comparation Cedar Mill ,Presler ,Smithfield ,Gallatin, Northwood...
    In a benchmark(for games) there are a lots of factors to decide the results RAMVideo CardFSB and the CPU.
    Its very strange the fact that when we say Intel say Prescott
    AMD say 64
    To beat a 64X2 you need just a P840 EE or P955 EE or others.
    In my opinion AMD 64 its makeing the first step on a large scale where Intel is in front from quite a while.
    Because Intel is with all the CPU-s in the whole time having constant results good,bad, AMD is just having 64 from a few months.
    But i'am happy to hear from all the owners of 64 that AMD its makeing progress.

    And for the good quality,will see in time fiability and performance.
  14. "A friend of mine with a Barton 2000Mhz real speed have 62 C idle and in apllication....so AMD is only the moment processor wich is 64 and a lower price.
    "

    He should have taken the protective tape off the top of the core first! :-)
  15. Or he could buy a Prescott :) if he wants the same temp. :D
    Without an aditional help with air the little processors it will die of heat.
  16. If you go with a 955 or 975 cipset it's looking like Intels Conroe core chips will work with a BIOS update (?) Intel has said there is a 5x performance to watt increase with the new design over prescott/northwood.

    With a 939, your stuck without new cpus. AM2 is getting 65nm. AMD says 30-40% increase in performance with thier prosses.

    Intel looks to be the winner come july in all areas AMD is now. AMD is going to have a fight on it's hands.
  17. There will always be 3 side on this story. The Intel fanboy side, the AMD fanboy side and the truth.. And the truth I'm seeing now is that the system with the CPU you are looking at would throw out 283w at 100% load while a system with a 4800+ will throw out 203w.

    Those are from the link posted here. Even a lesser X2 wil perform good and wont be harder on power that any Intel system

    And you fanboy of all brand, stop making fool of yourself. This guy want dual core. he talked about the D950. So, all your stories about barton and northwood, while maybe being true.. and who cares, as those CPU are no more produced, are not making a big impression here. But anyway, my father is stronger than your's anyway...


    And to conclude the article:
    Quote:
    Although the new Pentium D 900 series clearly is better than the 800 family and the firm finally manages to come close to AMD, we would still recommend an AMD based system to any conscious computer buyer due to advantages offered in terms of both performance and power consumption.
  18. Intel is ok for computing, but you could cook eggs inside of a intel machine because they run so hot, almost need liquid cooling for an intel machine

    AMD faster on most applications, don't run near as hot as a intel cpu, and the best part they are cheaper. more bang for the buck

    one of the reasons that AMD is better for games because the memory controler is built the on the processor itself than having to go through the chipset
  19. Quote:
    If you go with a 955 or 975 cipset it's looking like Intels Conroe core chips will work with a BIOS update (?) Intel has said there is a 5x performance to watt increase with the new design over prescott/northwood.


    5X? Intel has said many things, as has dell. Check out my my post about Dell's SLI in GFX forums.
  20. Quote:
    I'm a Intel CPU(P4 630) owner..an with 3 aditional fans(full air flow installed) i have 34 C idle..in apllication 48-50 C..the noise is lower-medium.


    I have a P4 640 it runs at 32C idle and 44C load. All these AMD people continually cr_p on how hot the P4 is. "You can cook an egg on it" what rubbish the people in this forum talk!
  21. I love AMD, don't get me wrong.

    What i also love, is Pentium-M processors, those were like Pentium 4's were supposed to be.. more performance/watts. So i actually believe Conroe will be a good competition vs AMD..
  22. Quote:
    I love AMD, don't get me wrong.

    What i also love, is Pentium-M processors, those were like Pentium 4's were supposed to be.. more performance/watts. So i actually believe Conroe will be a good competition vs AMD..


    Is the conroe the new intel coming out?
  23. if only u've used an amd socket 939 before, you wouldnt even be asking that question.

    opty 165/2x1gb ram/overclocked, and you'l be fine
  24. I PREFER INTEL. i'm a heavy graphics user.in this arena INTEL WINS!. i don't doubt about it. i never mind those benchmarks. much are bunch of crap.

    i'm looking forward to have the DUAL CORE XEON with HT on the forthcoming DUAL INDEPENDENT FSB chipset. heat? theres a lot you could do about it and not become a sorry ass.

    alright your AMD wins the gaming arena. but for the price of a dual core Fx60. i'll get myself an intel 955EE with watercooling and OC it to the max ( 4.76ghz ?)

    and yeah you're. right your A64 is cheaper.
    but based on my experience with my A64 S939 - 3200+,1GB DDR400, sata200GB. on an MSI...it is being eaten by my p4E 3.2 @ 3.352 with task 550w psu & 11 fans (2 upfront,4 on the side,3 exhaust) in my works. except gaming. but i don't care. i'm serious.

    power consumption? you're such a sorry ass if think about it. why not turn off your pc and light a candle and forget computing.
  25. I think Intel proponents are missing the point. If you take video encoding (the surest measure of a CPUs raw performance since it is not synthetic and does not rely on RAM or cache) The AMD parts are equivalent to intel parts that are 1ghz faster. Not to mention that the equivalent AMD part will be 20-30 dollars cheaper. Forget about the high end since almost none of us will ever own a FX60 or a 950EE.

    Here is the clincher. Although the new 65nm parts run alot cooler (except for the 940 and 950) They still consume alot of power. 50-70 watts as a matter of fact. thats like running a lightbulb along with your computer. In the USA where electricity is relatively cheap this may not be an issue. but in other countries this may be a expensive problem. how much does it cost to run a lightbuld for say 6 hours a day over a year? Multiply that by 3-5 times and you get your total cost. if you think about it, an AMD chip could pay for itself if you kept it long enough.

    This is not to say the new intels are not without merit. I dont think heat is an issue. More so if you bought a computer based on the BTX specs. Most of that heat would find itself out of the case anyways. Is there anyone here who can confirm that thier HDD or RAM shit the bed due to excessive heat coming from an intel chip? Pentiums are robust chips that can run as hot as they want. Its the cost of that heat that should be the issue.

    I dont think anyone could see the difference between a X2 3800 and a 930 setup running side by side, nor could one feel it either. But the total cost of ownership between the chip-perhaps over $60 after a few years is the difference (more if you factor in more expensive mobos and BTX parts). $60 is NOT alot of money. but is there anyone here who would pay $60 to see and feel no difference at all?
  26. Intel's burn more watts because they are clocked higher than AMD's. With the new 65nm technology, they burn less than the 90nm but still more than AMD because they're still clocked higher.
  27. Very astute. You are absolutely right. But despite the extra clock cycles, they still deliver the same performance at a higher price, and still use more energy than a comparable A64. Your justification is valid and understandable. But it mere highlights the fact that a wise man chooses AMD at this point in the game. Wouldnt you agree? If you dont, I am not understanding your point.
  28. I will confess to being a rabid Intel fanatic back in the 1990s after getting burned really bad (literally and figuratively) by a Cyrix 686. From that day on I swore off any non-Intel processor.

    Fast forward to 2005 and I had still only owned Intel based system... however, the times had changed and I couldn't ignore the facts... price, performance, heat/power, etc... everything indicated AMD was the better bargain so I made the jump to an X2-4400. At the time I bought it, I would have had to spend $400+ more for a P4 EE in order to comete with this processor. The reliability (despite a moderate OC to 2.6 GHz) has been excellent and the performance is amazing...

    I guess what I'm trying to say is... don't be loyal to a brand... be loyal to good products.
  29. oh yeah I agree with you. I was just making a point that's all. Every time I read these forums, everybody is constantly saying that intel's generate more heat and have heat problems. Well, fact be known that intels are clocked higher so of course they're gonna use more power. And I don't necessarily agree with wise men should just choose AMD's over intel by any standards. Wise men choose what works for them and not just jump on the bandwagon. My intel's outperform my AMD's in certain tasks so intel is not completely underwater. :lol:
  30. Unfortunately, the guys who refuse to admit AMD makes the better processors either work for/knows someone close who works for Intel, or just has never used an AMD recently (past, oh, 3 years?).

    I don't try to convince every Intel user/lover to buy an AMD ... only the ones who want a new rig lol..

    I have my AMD, but I still love the 1.4 Williamette I got quite a few years back - I do tons of stuff off it, and it works fine. I see people who own Intel P4 2.8's (or the like) all the time who say that they want new computers, and most I end up convincing to just use their current rig, cauz they're good.

    Not because I love Intel or hate AMD, because it's the best option for them - I seem to have noticed that AMD users are less concerned with manufacturer than Intel, and simply more concerned with value/performance. Were Intel to beat out AMD, I can easily imagine AMD users swtiching over, while even after so long, many Intel users can't seem to drop the Intel bs.
  31. Tell your friend if he or she will use some kind of thermal grease it would run a bit cooler. :o

    XP 2400 @ 2100MHz
    Stock Cooler
    1 8cm 4000rpm case fan
    44c Idle 48-49 Loaded
  32. heh, I hear ya man and no, I am not associated with intel by any means. I work for the local phone company supporting computers and internet services. I agree with you and AMD does make an awesome chip there's no question. All I like to do is try all the different things that are out there to get a feel for how they compare with the good stuff. I guess its more or less a fair and non partial way of giving the lesser liked or known products a chance. I know for a fact that AMD makes a damn good product which is why I have two machines with AMD chips in them. One of them being my X2 3800 and I have a barton core Athlon XP3200 machine. I built the intels just to see how they compare with the AMD machines myself with my own eyes and from what I've seen, the intels aren't as bad as everyone makes them out to be in my real world situations here.
  33. I see that you use AMD, but I'm gonna rant anyway...

    Nobody says Intel solutions are necessarily bad solutions. But in general, we like to go for bang/buck, and that works even better when the company who puts out with higher bang/buck solutions also happens to put out higher bang solutions (which is true in my experience). Sure, Intels may not "feel" much slower than an AMD rated for the same performance to the average person, but you need to consider that A)for the same performance, you probably would have saved quite a bit going for the AMD, B) by overclocking a cheaper AMD, you can sometimes get performance that woulda cost twice that, and C) AMD didn't push for DDR2 when it wasn't ready yet; instead it made the existing DDR better.

    Certainly, Intel chips can be overclocked, but there aren't many Intel chips that can consistently get 30+%, and again, in my experience, +30% on an Intel oc doesn't yield as much of an improvement as I have experienced on +30% on an AMD oc. An opty 165 @ 2.7Ghz is a +50% oc. I'd like to see somebody oc an Intel chip w/$500 and have it perform better than the 165.
  34. It's interesting how we, here @ TG, constantly say the same things over and over. And I know it's not just me, it's just about everybody.
  35. I have a prescott 640 and have no problems with heat as long as you have a side air duct (who doesn't these days) and keep your room at average room temp you should be fine. Also some good thermal paste and a smooth heatsink bottom doesn't hurt. I'm useing the stock heatsink with artic silver 5 and my idel temps are around 34 to 35 average and my highest was 57 and the prescott is made to run better at the 50 the 65 range. Oh and i got it for a tad under 200$ and it is a 64-bit cpu and for you non-intel type it has a speed of 3.2Ghz.
  36. Quote:

    alright your AMD wins the gaming arena. but for the price of a dual core Fx60. i'll get myself an intel 955EE with watercooling and OC it to the max ( 4.76ghz ?)

    A friend of mine overclocks his 955EE to 5GHz with vapochill.
  37. Your 'friend's' excessively overclocked 955ee is great, but I wouldn't be surprised if an equally well-oced fx-60 beat the living snot outta it.
  38. Perhaps even my rig (as 'old' as it may be) would not be too horribly out-done by that 955ee :D
  39. Be careful you have entered the forum of AMD fanboys trying to prove their not.

    I have a 640 too which runs at 32C idle and 42C load currently.

    They will tell you that its a "Preshot" and they don't have any troubles with their AMD's. Part of purchasing and AMD must be that your blind.

    This site is full of AMD woe's. Have a read, repent and build Intel.
  40. Amd is the little nimble giant killer. It makes no sense to over pay for a cpu and then pay even more every month when you get the power bill.

    I once was an intel only guy. About 4 yrs ago I built a cheapo amd k7 2000+. I built it for maybe $400 and it replaced my whinny dual proc system that I was having nothing but problems with.

    This system is still running and runs 24/7.


    While alot has changed in 4yrs, I wouldn't think twice about which processor to use.

    To the guy who is looking to use the system for video editing....

    it depends on if you are going to be putting in a capture-hardware assisted editing card. As there are known problems with VIA chipsets and even Nvidia Nforce, with bandwidth issues on the AMD platform.

    This really is AMD's biggest weakness, as they don't have the resources to make a good chipset. I believe though that there is an opteron board that is working for video editing.

    If you are just using software only then more than likely you'd be fine... but make sure you check what the software/hardware vendor recommends. If you're editing video the last thing you want is a machine that crashes every two seconds. When you are pushing a system as hard as you do by editing video any weakness will rear it's head in a system crash.
  41. LOL. Do you seriously believe that at any consumer level, an Intel is the way to go?
  42. Explain.....
  43. I do. I had an AMD and it was slow and unreliable so i got a P4 to replace it and was blowen away. Now I am one of those people woh have like 15 things going at once sometimes while playing a game. Now I know how my AMD was and it was not a great multitasker and games slow down more when you are multitasking on them the same cannot be said for the P4's and the D's. Now yes i bet that the X2 is a great multitasker and yes they are a little cheaper but when i go to buy a new cpu price is no object because I want a cpu that can last me 2 to 3 years so i'm not go to go buy the cheapest there is and if you a hardcore gamer your might be the same way. now as for power consuption and heat the new 900 series and the 601 series are not anly cooler running but consume less power. But can you really tell that how much power it eats is on your mind when you go to buy a cpu or any other computer component for that matter, most likly not.
  44. no dude. The TDP is on par with AMD chips but the power consumption is still higher. From 50-70 watts. You have been mislead or misinformed man.
  45. Does anyone do research anymore before posting or asking technical questions?

    It's like this. Before asking for opinions in a forum, DO YOUR OWN BLOODY RESEARCH!!! I don't care what you buy because it isn't going into my system. I can say that everything you're buying sucks and then recommended the products that truly indeed suck. Why? Because I can! Want to which processor is better? It's called http://www.google.com or http://www.dogpile.com. Hell, read the damn CPU guide on this website! THG did a geat benchmark comparison chart between AMD and Intel.


    Anyway, comparing the Athlon 64 X2 to the Intel D 8XX,here's my insight from the trenches aka retail:

    At my job, we have a HP Athlon X2 4200+ system next to a HP Intel D 840 system. After both being on for 10 hours and playing a movie in loop, I can hear the Intel system's fans quite well. The AMD system doesn't make a whisper.
  46. indeed
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Chip AMD Intel Systems