Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD and Intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 19, 2004 10:23:28 PM

ok i hear everyone say that AMD is better or Intel is better but i never really heard the ups and downs of each. Im about to build a computer but i cant decide which processor because i dont know the goods and bads of each, please help

More about : amd intel

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2004 10:30:19 PM

Intel is good at generating flame fests, AMD is even better :)  Seriously, go some where else with your flamebait

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2004 10:31:17 PM

On second thought.. nah, stay here, this is the place to be for you. Keeping you here may keep other forums less poluted :)  Let the flame fest begin !

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Related resources
January 19, 2004 10:33:47 PM

whatever dude, im just trying to get some help and get insulted for it, i thought people came here for and to help, not to come and insult people cause you think you are better
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2004 10:57:15 PM

And I'm not buying it. With a nickname "beginner", and a post count of around zero, I just don't believe it would be an honest question. I guess I've been around too long... And even if it where, what is keeping you from reading the gazillion reviews out there to get an idea of what which current microprocessors are good at, and what there not good at ? And quite frankly, wether you choose AMD or intel is probably the *least* important consideration when you know nothing about building computers.

Oh well, maybe you get lucky and someone else buys your flamebate, but it won't be me.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 19, 2004 11:00:58 PM

well actually i took a computer building class but i dont know much about hardware brands and im teaching myself with what knowledge i already have. just because you are inconsiderate and selfish, you dont have to bother me with it. i didnt know it was so hard to find help.
January 19, 2004 11:04:41 PM

i dont even know what the gazillion reviews are
January 19, 2004 11:08:14 PM

Look around at Anandtech and X-bit.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
January 19, 2004 11:13:52 PM

They are both very good CPU's with advantages and disadvantages.

Lets hear your budget and what you mainly want to do with your computer.

All I can say forsure is avoid the celeron.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2004 11:56:20 PM

> i didnt know it was so hard to find help

I don't see how it could be easier; if you found your way to this forum, surely you can click "cpu reviews" on the main page of this very site ? Or you could use google to give you links such as www.aceshardware.com, www.anandtech.com, www.xbitlabs.com, etc, etc, etc. They all have gazillions of cpu reviews, and in case you'd really not know, gazillion is "a lot".

Okay assuming for a second you're sincere, the thing is, you are asking the most vague of questions, something like asking "is BMW better than Audi" when you are looking to buy a car. Both have stronger and weaker points, only relevant when comparing comparable cars (not like a A3 versus a X5) but asking that in such a way a car enthousiast forum, is not likely to give you much usefull information and will only cause flame wars between Audi and BMW fanatics.

Now, if you'd ask if this new 6 gear automatic transmission of Mercedes is a better solution than the Audi multitronic, or the off road capabilities of Quattro versus 4matic, then you might get some usefull responses, well, perhaps...

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 20, 2004 12:21:33 AM

I doubt you're honestly a beginner, but here's an honest answer to your question.

AMD processors are generally less expensive and are a little bit better at gaming.

Intel processors are generally more expensive and are usually a little bit better at encoding, decoding, encrypting, or any other kind of processor grunt work.

Honestly, the two companies are just about the same. There is nothing you can do with an Intel you can't do with an AMD, and vice versa.

Usually people building their own computers go with AMD for the simple fact that they are less expensive and are just as good as their Intel counterparts.

It's up to you. Don't believe the flames, there is no overwhelming reason to go with either company.
January 20, 2004 12:46:28 AM

Hm... Ignore bbaeyens, 'cause he's apparently only spewing out nonsense in this thread.

In your case, I think that the general opinion has been passed: AMD's processors are good for gaming and crude arithmetics, but encoding, rendering and content creation are all field in which P4s excel. So, you actually have to pick your choice based on what you need and want... There's no single configuration that suits everyone and is better than all others. If there were, there wouldn't be choices in this market.

So the real question is... What is your computer supposed to do?...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 20, 2004 1:03:16 AM

"you have no right to speak in any forum"

Oh really....
bugger :( 
January 20, 2004 1:03:50 AM

Actually, content creation is still undecided. Winstone says Amd, Bapco says intel. I would say that amd is the "stronger" processor, but that intel more than makes up for it if software is optimized for SSE2.
January 20, 2004 5:55:07 AM

I kinda felt sorry for the gamers who spent hundreds of extra dollars to get poorer perf. Now atleast thier perf is as good
for all the extra money.

I have no problem with the guys who spend all the extra doe, then can only afford a 5200 or the likes. They are too stupid for pity.
January 20, 2004 6:39:10 AM

Hi

"It's a shame nowdays game don't need much PFU anymore as it's mostly done on the vid. card."

I have seen similar statements on this board for some time now. Your statement is specifically directed towards the floating point unit if I interpret it right? I am wondering whether this truly holds true if I read "CPU" instead of FPU. I guess it depends what is going on in the game. I can imagine that the AI of 10's (or 100's) of computer opponents can be quite taxing on the CPU while the GPU is taking care of the eye candy. Also network code may take up the necessary CPU cycles. I may be way off here but I trust others will correct for that.

The actual question I have is the following: given the above to be true (that is, GPU is becoming a determining factor for game performance instead of the CPU, or at least of similar importance as the CPU), is there an easy way to express this in some rule of thumb, like an AMD 3000+XP with a 9600XT is "gaming" equivalent to a AMD 2500+XP with a 9800XT? Let's stick to similar brand configurations as to stay away from vendor jihads for the moment. So, AMD with Ati, AMD with NVidia, Intel with Ati, Intel with NVidia (and if you have another brand config preference feel free to mention it). Any takers for this one?

At the end of the day it is best to run a number of benchmark tests to be sure (different configuration, different game benchmarks, different memory, mobo's, etc) but it is not given to everybody to explore all these different configurations with hands on experience. When just thinking about an upgrade or next dream machine it may help to narrow things down more quickly. If the above described approach is silly, I would also like to know that, if possible enhanced with an opinion as to what IS the correct way to approach this issue in your opinion.




BigMac

<A HREF="http://www.p3int.com/product_center_NWO_The_Story.asp" target="_new">New World Order</A>
January 20, 2004 8:39:34 AM

I think you may have missed the point. An xp2500 at stock, with a radeon 9600XT would still be as fast as an xp 3200 with a 9600 pro. An extra $200. spent on cpu will give the same affect as $20 spent on video card. Any cpu made in the last year would cream a P4EE in Dx 9 if it had the 5950 and the P4 had a 5200.
January 20, 2004 9:34:50 AM

So you think the calculations for physics engine in halflife 2 will be done on the GPU?

Get 3D Mark 2003 out of your head man :p  (joke)

Game engines are not just orientated around graphics their is AI, physics both enviroment and character physics, enviroment size, draw distance all of which have a large dependancy on the CPU as well as some needing a good GFX card.

Your theory has truth to it tho as a faster vid card will be better in some situations but as more and more games have better AI more realistic physics they become more reliant on overall system performance/power.

If you get to the level of FX5200 vs ATi 9800 PRO your point is much more noticeable, but at XT/PRO level the difference between the cards isn't massive.

---
"I thought i could see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it turned out to be some ba$tard with a torch and a load more work"
January 20, 2004 9:44:14 AM

Quote:

I think you may have missed the point. An xp2500 at stock, with a radeon 9600XT would still be as fast as an xp 3200 with a 9600 pro. An extra $200. spent on cpu will give the same affect as $20 spent on video card. Any cpu made in the last year would cream a P4EE in Dx 9 if it had the 5950 and the P4 had a 5200.

I may very well have missed the point, which is why I am asking :) 

In short, your generalized statement is that the CPU is even irrelevant in discussions with regard to games. Interesting. I find it difficult to grasp though. If I look at the benchmarks for the 9600XT and the 9600Pro for instance they are not that spectacularly different (10% at the max, I think it was even less than that). I assume that AMD is trying to help us out here as to that an xp3200 is roughly twice as fast as a xp1600, I understand that that does not need to mean a game would be twice as fast given identical GPU (I know they also want us to give some frame of reference to compare to an Intel cpu). You are telling me that the less than 10% performance increase of the Gfx card will compensate for a 30% increase in CPU performance.

I guess that means that the tasks that the CPU and the GPU are doing really are different and that when a faster CPU is not fully used, it is not used to assist in those tasks. (this may all be pretty basic to you people but I'm rather new in all of this). This was not always the case in earlier days.

Now I can accept that for what it is, but what I am looking for then is to get a grip on when my cpu is a bottleneck for good game perfomance and when is it the gfx card that is the bottleneck. Will this vary much between different games (talking about the generation that is coming out now or in the near future)? As a player you want good performance of your games, and I for one do not know which games I am going to purchase over the next year. (A few are obvious (for me) like doom3 and HL2 but many are not). When will I know that my processor is becoming the bottleneck instead of my card, what kind of performance probs will I encounter in that case? (and of course the other way around as well but that is probably easier, dropping framerates while the CPU is not near 100% utilization).



BigMac

<A HREF="http://www.p3int.com/product_center_NWO_The_Story.asp" target="_new">New World Order</A>
January 20, 2004 9:49:37 AM

I think a lot of FPU can and will be done by true Dx9 complient cards,yes. I have also been very carefull to leave the A64s out of this equation. I believe Valve will optimize for the extra registers, which will make the game perf way better. It is a given at this point that HL2 will run faster on an xp system, but that D3 may not (though it to may run better on an A64 system). At this point though, I am just trying to "school" a new guy in the basics. If you read his early posts, he could sure use your aid.
January 20, 2004 10:07:08 AM

Your trying to tell me character phyics and AI will be calculated by the graphics card :o 

Pass me that pipe i want some of that [-peep-]! :D 

---
"I thought i could see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it turned out to be some ba$tard with a torch and a load more work"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2004 10:16:53 AM

Aces regulary does an "gamers upgrade guide" where he compares upgrading videocard & cpu. Have a look here: http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000307 The bottom line is, for gaming cpu and GPU need to be "matched", ie, there is no point in getting a superfast DX9 videocard when your cpu can't handle it, and spending a fortune on the fastest cpu makes little sense if you stuck with an old GPU. This shouldnt come as a surprise I guess


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 20, 2004 10:25:06 AM

Thing is we try to help people Not be a troll Like your self
January 20, 2004 10:42:07 AM

Of course not totally. What would the cpu be for then. However, when the gpu is not heavily loaded, it is quite capable of doing whatever FPU is assigned. In other words, as the cpu is loaded, the gpu will take on tasks rather than sit idle. The current gpus are able to do around 3 X the floating point of the P4 3.2 . If they had to wait for the P4, your framerates would be sporatic and bad. Can you say fx 5200? The 5200 though is so bad that even an Athlon cant save it.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2004 10:47:22 AM

Its good trying to help; thing is, IMHO this guy doesnt *need* help, he just wants a flamewar; and if he did need help it, he's not likely to get it, cause he is asking the wrong question. let me explain:

Even if we assume the above posts containing generalisations about 'AMD and intel' are all correct and on the money; does that mean the guy is now more likely to get the correct cpu for his purposes ? The difference between "intel and AMD" are in general extremely minor, both in price and performance compared to the differences that exist between different models (duron/axp/a64/fx/celeron/P4/A/B/C/E) ranging from <1.4 GHz to >3 GHz/PR.

A simple example: Someone here wrote intel is better in media encoding.. (Thats what many people think, that doesnt make it true though) anyway so now our newbie friend goes out, and buys a Celeron. Or a used machine from his friend with a INTEL Pentium 4 2 GHz (willamette). Guess what, he gets worse performance than with a Duron ! (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/intelamdcpuroundupv...). Not to mention that when he ripping/authoring DVD's, in many cases he will get as much benefit from a faster harddisk (or stripe setup) than a faster cpu.

And even if he gets the "right" cpu now, will he know what memory to get ? How much ? Is he not going to spend $500 on a GPU when all he plays is Simcity ? Will he not get a 5800rpm harddisk to match his 3 GHz cpu ? etc, etc,..

You while you genuinely may want to help him, I doubt any of the posts above will actually help him build the right computer. If you need a car, you probably want to think about which type of car (SUV, sedan, sports, cabrio,..), which budget, etc, BEFORE you ask which brand is the best, don't you think ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 20, 2004 11:22:19 AM

Which guy? The one you referred to aces may actually get something from that. That is the most helpfull post in this thread. Watch out babs, or people will notice that you have actually been helpfull.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2004 11:39:15 AM

> Watch out babs, or people will notice that you have
>actually been helpfull.

I think you missed my point.. Im not against being helpfull. But the guy I referred to aces wasnt asking troll questions, unlike the original poster.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 20, 2004 8:14:15 PM

Quote:

if you found your way to this forum, surely you can click "cpu reviews" on the main page of this very site ?

You crazy ?
This way he will buy an P4 or a Celeron, and we dont want that, do we ?


THG : The last 5-6 reviews have allways either had skewed results, or just somehow strangely come to a completly diferant conclusion then all of the other sites around.
January 20, 2004 8:54:21 PM

He could set a Pentium on the left side of his comp chair with the pins facing up and do the same with the other side of the cushion with an AMD CPU again with the pins facing up then he could perform a backwards sit down with the same amount of down force as when you fall down skating on the ice, then he could report witch CPU gave him the most satisfaction. (psst-don't ask Mick)

Pull down your pants and slide on the ice. "Shrink" from the T.V series M.A.S.H.

M.A.S.H those CPU's Ya Baby !!

BUT!!!!..............If he wants a game computer he should keep the AMD CPU and use the Intel CPU for needlepoint .\|||||||/.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 Crucial DDR 400 PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
January 21, 2004 6:01:42 AM

Quote:

> Watch out babs, or people will notice that you have
>actually been helpfull.

I think you missed my point.. Im not against being helpfull. But the guy I referred to aces wasnt asking troll questions, unlike the original poster.

As being the "referred" guy, thanks for the link and the info, both of you, Bob and endyen.

As for the original poster (me not being as green on forum participation as I am on hardware issues) it is best to assume someone to be "innocent" of trolling until proven guilty, and trolls have the habit to expose themselves quite easily in a follow-up. Having said that I can understand the scepsis when reading the original post that started this thread. There's always the option of not answering of course although I'm glad you guys did so I could get something useful out of it.

Cheerio,

BigMac

<A HREF="http://www.p3int.com/product_center_NWO_The_Story.asp" target="_new">New World Order</A>
January 21, 2004 7:42:38 AM

AMD is cheaper, but performance is the same as Intel. So AMD is better if you have a limited budget and require performance. while Intel you get performance but at a price. Athlons is good at mathematical calculation, while the P4 is good for video, audio encoding and multimedia.

-------
:evil:  <b><font color=red>K</font color=red></b>anavit's Aquamark3 rig----><A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=181795940..." target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=181795940...;/A>
January 21, 2004 8:31:52 AM

Who are you? Coop is that you. Someone that isn't a die hard brain dead inteliot is using Kanavit's name.
January 21, 2004 10:17:07 AM

The thing is that AMD is cheaper so you can buy an AMD CPU and with the rest of the money you would spend on a P4 you could buy some extra memory or a better video card...
January 21, 2004 2:06:20 PM

Quote:
it is best to assume someone to be "innocent" of trolling until proven guilty, and trolls have the habit to expose themselves quite easily in a follow-up

I totally agree. While most of us have been around long enough to be sick of the whole AMD/Intel debate, we should remember that there are people who are just breaking in to the computer hardware scene and really don't know all the history. A true troll will soon expose his or herself. We were all beginners at one time, weren't we?

<i>Money talks. Mine always likes to say "goodbye." :smile: </i>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2004 3:13:29 PM

>As being the "referred" guy, thanks for the link and the
>info, both of you, Bob and endyen.

NP; always a pleasure to be a referrer :) 

>As for the original poster (me not being as green on forum
>participation as I am on hardware issues) it is best to
>assume someone to be "innocent" of trolling until proven
>guilty,

In that case, at least people should not have tried to answer his question but instead have pointed him to various review and review sites and point out (like I somewhat did) that "intel or amd" is probably the least important issue when building a computer. IF the questin would get narrowed down to something like "XP2600+ or P4C 2.6" or "best cpu for gaming and videoencoding in the $150 price range", then you could give somewhat usefull answers, but a sweeping generalization about two manufacturers across vastly different product families, price ranges and applications is pretty useless IMHO.

The second problem with giving such posters the benefit of the doubt, is that you will notice they are mostly always "strangers" with a postcount of zero, and therefore likely (not surely, but likely) alter ego's of well known trollers. I don't know about you, but when I have a question, I first look it up in google; if I find an appropriate website or forum, I will first search it before bothering with registering and posting. Don't tell me this method would not have given him all the answers he could ever hoped to get here... I could be wrong, in which case I appologize to the original poster, but i sincerely don't believe he was looking for anwers... and if he was, he should learn how to use searches.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 22, 2004 5:23:35 PM

As of 22 Jan, here are 6 separate AMD vs Intel posts on the 1st page of the CPU forum. I think I will also start a new thread, "Which better Intel or AMD?"
!