Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD or Intel

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 1, 2006 9:53:02 PM

I've decided to build a new computer in may or june, the problem is that I don't know what type of system I will use. Recently I read the THGC CPU Buyers' Guide, but it didn't mention the future processors or the new technology, maybe someone else could give me som advice.

The computer will be used for 3D rendering, solving equations and other mathematical problems, games (like Quake4, FEAR etc.) and probably video and audio editing. Price: less than 1900$

What CPU should i use (Dual Core seems to be a good choice)? AMD FX, Intel Pentium D, or Intel "Conroe" (when will it arrive?)
What motherboard should i use, chipset? nForce4 or 955X, 975X
Will there be any possibility to upgrade from a Pentium D to a Conroe processor on 955X/975X chipset?

More about : amd intel

a c 96 à CPUs
April 1, 2006 10:34:09 PM

Here are some questions:

1. When do you need this computer? If you need it now, the Athlon 64 X2s are much better at number-crunching than the Pentium Ds. Ditto for games. Pentium Ds are roughly equal or a bit better for encoding video.

If you don't need it now, then wait until AM2 and Conroe chips come out and then decide.

2. What do you need from a motherboard? Look at the ones that vendors like Newegg and Zipzoomfly are selling. Any board that fits and supports your chosen CPU and has the features you want should be fine. I personally like Abit boards, but Asus, Intel, and others make a good board too. Pick the chipset that fits the CPU- NF4 is a good AMD chipset, the 945/955/975 is good for Intel. I have not used any of the other combinations of CPUs and chipsets like NF4 Intel Edition, any ATI stuff.

You will likely not be able to put a Conroe on a *current* 975X board and there is NO way it can go on a 955X board.
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2006 10:39:33 PM

Im waiting for conroe my self, but AMD might bring some bargain chips otherwise there would be no point in going AMD when conroe arives.
Related resources
April 1, 2006 10:57:38 PM

Quote:
Im waiting for conroe my self, but AMD might bring some bargain chips otherwise there would be no point in going AMD when conroe arives.


There's also no point to listen to you because you don't know what you're talking about.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 2, 2006 1:21:56 AM

Quote:
Im waiting for conroe my self, but AMD might bring some bargain chips otherwise there would be no point in going AMD when conroe arives.


I agree Conroe looks good at the moment, but you really cant say that till its released and we test it with AMD chips of the SAME GENERATION.

Intel had huge problems with 65nm, but AMD may not and may manage to scale the clock rate of the A64 massively for all we know. Then again Conroe may kill off AMD

Anyway, *right now*, AMD chips are unarguably superior
April 2, 2006 4:36:28 AM

Quote:
Im waiting for conroe my self, but AMD might bring some bargain chips otherwise there would be no point in going AMD when conroe arives.


I agree Conroe looks good at the moment, but you really cant say that till its released and we test it with AMD chips of the SAME GENERATION.

Intel had huge problems with 65nm, but AMD may not and may manage to scale the clock rate of the A64 massively for all we know. Then again Conroe may kill off AMD

Anyway, *right now*, AMD chips are unarguably superior


I agree. We need to wait and see. Competition should drive prices down which is great for us consumers :-D
April 2, 2006 4:58:40 AM

According to most benchmarks, AMD's dual core processors outperform Intel's Pentium Ds in almost all apps and games.
April 2, 2006 6:12:36 AM

I'm so glad you ran these tests with your conroe.
April 2, 2006 6:44:09 AM

Quote:
Im waiting for conroe my self, but AMD might bring some bargain chips otherwise there would be no point in going AMD when conroe arives.


There's also no point to listen to you because you don't know what you're talking about.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

Let's look at a hypothetical....I will even give 10% margin back to AMD.

Conroe 2.6 GHz 10% performance margin over AMD's top part, costs 530 bucks, @ 65 Watts.

AMD's top part, FX-62, peforms 10% less than Conroe, FX-62 costs 1000 bucks @ 125 Watts.

Apache_Live's would certainly be correct would you not agree??


Woah. Let's slow down here for a min.

AMD will certainly lower prices to match if the Conroe does in fact perform.

I have to say the 65nm Intel CPUs certainly seem to have the edge on power consumption but until we have production CPUs that we can test I don't think we can draw any conclusions.
April 2, 2006 6:54:31 AM

Quote:
I'm so glad you ran these tests with your conroe.


Yea, I know, the Fanboyism starts to infect the Factboys more and more everyday...no offense Jack.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 2, 2006 7:08:13 AM

Quote:
I'm so glad you ran these tests with your conroe.


Yea, I know, the Fanboyism starts to infect the Factboys more and more everyday...no offense Jack.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

No offense taken.... either the data is supports or dispells :) ... which is why a mark it has hypothetical :)  ....

BTW, that "FX-62" used in the test, also performs 10% below a standard FX-60 in other non-Conroe benchmarks, so yea...you see why I am a disbeliever...

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 2, 2006 8:04:51 AM

One could argue we need to ensure AMD survives and prospers for several reasons.

The most important of which is the need to keep pressure on Intel to produce better products and maintain reasonable prices.

Ideally we need AMD to have about 50% market share to keep things fair and keep Intel in check and vice versa.

If it wasn't for AMD, Intel would still be selling 80386DX-33 CPUs for $2000 each. The truth is Intel and AMD need each other to some degree, although they may never admit it.

The market requires robust competition.
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2006 9:14:57 AM

Quote:
Im waiting for conroe my self, but AMD might bring some bargain chips otherwise there would be no point in going AMD when conroe arives.


There's also no point to listen to you because you don't know what you're talking about.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

Look moron, since your an AMD fanboy you should be thanking Intel for designing conroe so whe it comes out YOU CAN HAVE YOUR CHEAP AMDS.

Geez

Dam fanboys
April 2, 2006 9:23:08 AM

Here's the thing. MMM doesn't give a cra.. about cheap anything. If conroe proves itself to be the performance leader, MMM will become a conroe fanboy faster than jackrabbits mate.
I'll wait for the reviews on Vista, and 64 bit linux before I jump.
April 2, 2006 10:13:10 AM

Quote:

If it wasn't for AMD, Intel would still be selling 80386DX-33 CPUs for $2000 each. The truth is Intel and AMD need each other to some degree, although they may never admit it.


The more I read your post, the more I like it.... this is too true for many a reason; if not for AMD, who else??? In the server side, you could have Sun but they cannot manufacture in volume. IBM??? Most likely, but oddly the inventor of the PC (x86 not apple), won't work x86 nor do they even make PCs anymore. I have a hard time figuring out IBM. Cyrix??? nope, Transmeta? nope... who then??? Nobody. Intel needs AMD in order to be pressured to evolve. AMD needs Intel in order to have a goal to shoot for.

You constructed well made statement that sums it up very nicely.

Jack

:-D

Cyrix no longer exists, it was sold to VIA by National Semiconductor.

The Cyrix MediaGX design was sold to AMD in 2003 as the Geode family.

There are not a lot of companies left that are capable of designing and producing CPUs.
April 2, 2006 10:46:51 AM

I will say this. Everyone who acts like a fanboy is a fanboy. If all of you sit down wait and watch for the release we see ture test on conroe and Amd Am2

Right now the info still in the unknown. If Amd loses they have some work ahead of them. If Conroe wins. Intel has to work on it. This is ture fact.

I own 2 laptops that has intel chips. And a desktop with Amd chip. If I Need to upgrade I would wait for the next verson of both Am2 and Conroe. Like one seid get the bugs out of them.

I m glad I like both systems. I think I will wait for quad core cpus.
April 2, 2006 10:59:44 AM

Quote:
Yep, not a lot people out there making x86 CPUs.... which begs a question, what if AMD does reach a point of going belly up? (I am not arguing that they will, just speculating)....let's assume Conroe/Core and 45 nm puts the nail in an AMD coffin.... what would happen?

This is a very, very dangerous situation, one that I do not think FTC, EU, or Asia would allow to happen. I personally would think that regulation (price regulation) may be in order to prevent this from happening. It would not bode well for the market at all :)  ....




Both players are required to maintain market equilibrium or some semblance thereof.

I have to reiterate this however... if the 65nm 2.66GHz Conroe can in fact beat the 90nm FX-60 at 2.6GHz by say 10% or even 20% then Intel may be the one in trouble.

Once AMD migrates to 65nm they are likely to get a 40% boost -- maybe even more which would make things very interesting.

Of course we all need to stop speculating and just wait for production hardware to hit the market.

:-D
April 2, 2006 7:01:56 PM

Quote:
Okie dokie, we will take that one as a no problems then :)  .... one thing, though, if you guys think that 65 nm is going to drive the transistor delay to better than 40 % improvement with no increase in leakage, then could you please explain to me how that would work?


As you know, Intel had problems with leakage on 65nm that didnt allow them to scale speeds as much as they had hoped.

Intels 45nm is looking good however, not every company has problems with the same die shrink. Apart from anything else AMDs SoI tehniques have much better leakage characteristics than Inels processes.

SoI has certain patents on it that have Intel afraid to use it, which I think is a shame as I'd love more competition :D 

Right now, I dont see Intel as able to compete with AMD on the *desktop* market. However I'd be the first to admit AMD suck in terms of mobile CPUs atm, but I have no need of a Laptop.

If Conroe turns out to be as good as claimed and there is no competing product from AMD I'll be one of the first to place and order; But I just dont believe Benchmarks done by Intel that show Intel in the lead, just as I dont believe AMD benchmarks that show them in the lead or nVidia/ATI benchmarks etc
!