Informaion: AMD or Intel

[BudCollector]

Looking to build my first PC. Trying to make the decision on AMD or Intel CPU. Leaning towards Intel because that is what I know.
I have always used Intel's (PC & server) at work & home (Dell's).
From what I have seen so far is that AMD is the way to go but I would like to look at some real data.
I am looking to create a high-end system for home/work apps (MS Office, Quicken & photo editing) & gaming.
Thanks

 

[silverpig]

You won't notice the difference between AMD and intel for office stuff. I mean it's not gonna make you type any faster

Gaming is AMD territory. I like the A64 myself. I have one and it runs great.

s signature has been formatted to fit your scr

 

[ao38]

make your decision what application you are going to use mostly. It is very difficult if you want to do so many things at the same time and you consider each factors.

my opinion is if "gaming", go for a64.
for others, especially "photo editing" go for p4.

don't think too hard which processor. Think only what r you going to do day to day. hope this help.

p.s if gaming + photo editing is a must, other who can scrath their brain will help you. or if u have no room to keep money, build 2 systems. one for p4 and one for amd. I know someone who has at least 8 pcs for him alone. if u can afford, why not.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ao38 on 01/01/05 04:53 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[cts6288]

Personally I'd go A64. The photo editing *may* be a reason to use a P4, but from the specs I've read here, IMHO I think A64 is just more powerful and well rounded. Besides, Intel charges more.

 

[endyen]

Maybe I'm doing something wrong.
When I'm editing pictures, I decide what to do with a picture, then go on to the next one, while my computer does it's work. It's been a very long time since I had more than one picture being processed at a time.
Frankly, I dont care if a picture is finished 1 second or 10 minutes before I'm ready to process another.
Maybe the Intel system, with it's extra heat, and lower performance everywhere else, is worth it, if you process photos for a living, but other than that?

 

[russell]

especially "photo editing" go for p4.

Someone please tell me why a p4 chip is better tham AMD at photo processing.........I've never herd this before????

!#&$ <font color=blue> </font color=blue>---<font color=red><i><b>It's not heavy,...it's my computer</font color=red></i></b>

 

[pat]

"make your decision what application you are going to use mostly. It is very difficult if you want to do so many things at the same time and you consider each factors.

my opinion is if "gaming", go for a64.
for others, especially "photo editing" go for p4."

The only real advantage that the P4 has is with video encoding, as it is a boring task for the cpu and the higher clock help at that. But for photo editing, well, it doesnt really matter because depending of which filter you choose to apply or what processing you do, you will favor the P4 in some and the AMD in others.
So I do video encoding, photo editing, video editing, office task, internet stuff, burning, crunching, gaming, watching movies and listening to music with my PC. And for me, it wasnt difficult at all to decide. And I dont fell my A64 underpowered in Intel playground nor I'm sure I wouldnt have felt an Intel system underpowered in AMD territories..


"p.s if gaming + photo editing is a must, other who can scrath their brain will help you. or if u have no room to keep money, build 2 systems. one for p4 and one for amd. I know someone who has at least 8 pcs for him alone. if u can afford, why not. "


I went with AMD 64 because, at the end, that was the best performance/price ratio I could find for any of the taks I perform... My only benchmark data that matter to me is how much money I still have in my pocket...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Go for Athlon64. Socket 754 A64 3000+(2.0), 3200+ (2.2 GHz) and 3400+ (2.4 GHz) provides the best balance between peformance and cost.

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>

 

[Cybercraig]

If you have to have Intel get one of the 3.0C or faster Northwoods while you still can. For AMD get a socket 939 3500+ Winchester. I doubt you'll notice much difference between either in what you do and both platforms will cost about the same. I would prefer AMD at this point as Intel seems lost somewhere in the space/time continuum.

Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot

 

[BudCollector]

Looks like it's time to give AMD a try!
What are the differences between the cores? I see Winchester is popular but when I look on Neweggs website they list a mess of others....
Thanks

 

[Bosse]

Winchester cores are really shrunken Newcastle cores that consumes less power and are therefore cooler and better for OC.

AMD 2500+ @2145.92Mhz - Volcano9 - A7N8X/DLX - Corsair XMS3200LL 1024MB - GF 3 TI-200 - C: = 2x WD Raptor 10000rpm RAID 0 - D: = 2x WD Caviar 200Gb 7200rpm SATA RAID 0 - Hiper 420w.

 

[Cybercraig]

You will want a Winchester core @ 90nm. They have a 3000, a 3200, and a 3500 if memory serves. The 3200 Retail looks like a good deal. People that overclock rave about the 3000 being the best dollar value. AMD produces the A64 in a lot of different flavors (and people accuse Intel of being tricky} so make sure you know what you're getting.

Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot

 

[georgebeee]

if you go socket 939, go with a winchester. however, the newcastel cores for the socket 754 aren't bad chips. they overclock well too(although not quite as well as the winchester). depends on how much you feel you need to spend. if you feel you need to empty your pockets for every last percentage point in performance, than perhaps the socket 939(although it isn't a bad buy). but if you feel a more moderate expense for a very reasonable performance is what you're after, perhaps you should consider the socket 754. and for sure if you don't OC then socket 754 is what you want. those chips run at a higher clock speed. the socket 754 2800+ runs at the same clock speed as the socket 939 3000+. the difference in performance is supposed to be the dual channel ram, which makes very little difference with AMD's.

and if you do OC...
"The working AGP/PCI lock on the nForce3-250 is allowing all our test boards to reach the 246-248 range with this late 3200+. A 24% overclock at stock multiplier is the kind of overclocking performance that many have been looking for since the Athlon 64 was first introduced"

anandtech.com's review of some socket 754 boards and the respective cpu's

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2063&p=7" target="_new">clicky</A>

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by georgebeee on 01/02/05 11:25 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Bosse]

If u wanna OC 3000+ is the way to go, just look <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2242&p=3" target="_new">this </A> link

AMD 2500+ @2145.92Mhz - Volcano9 - A7N8X/DLX - Corsair XMS3200LL 1024MB - GF 3 TI-200 - C: = 2x WD Raptor 10000rpm RAID 0 - D: = 2x WD Caviar 200Gb 7200rpm SATA RAID 0 - Hiper 420w.