AMD or Intel...the age old question.

  • Thread starter Delirious
  • 37 comments
  • 1,241 views
Delirious

Delirious

Meh
Premium
2,614
Metroider17
I am thinking about getting a new motherboard since my processor is 3200+ 2.2 ghz amd athlon...400mhz FSB...

Should I get an Intel or AMD?

Trying to keep it under 300 bucks as of right now...

What should I get?

(I really don't know the differences in these two processors.)
 
Intel-> Gaming.
AMD-> Most Everything Else.

But, Personally, AMD's Are T3h Weak.
Intel 4Eva!


(That Last Part Was T3h Sarcasm)
 
If you do a lot of gaming, go AMD. If you do a lot of encoding/decoding, go Intel.

I'd suggest an Athlon 3700+ San Diego. It's pretty much the only Socket 939 CPU for less than $300 at $230. The 3800+ Clawhammer is basically just an X2 3800+ with only 1 core, so stay away from that. If you can go to $330, go for an X2 3800+, but bear in mind, the 3700+ is a better gaming CPU than the X2 3800+, since the X2 only has a 512KB L2 Cache. It is dual core, though, so you'd be ready for when more multi-threaded apps and games come on the market.
 
spock
Intel-> Gaming.
AMD-> Most Everything Else.

But, Personally, AMD's Are T3h Weak.
Intel 4Eva!


(That Last Part Was T3h Sarcasm)
Click to expand...
Actually, it is the other way around. AMD is better for gaming, Intel's better at most everything else.
 
I've never had an AMD, actually. Pcworld tend not to sell them.

The intels i've had have been a mixed thing really. I had a P4 in a laptop, which wasn't a wise move (it practically melted it), but the M in this compaq has been fine. However, proccessors don't tend to make all of the difference - my mum's acer with pentium m is slooowwww, and it takes barely anything to heat it up.
 
Jon.
I've never had an AMD, actually. Pcworld tend not to sell them.

The intels i've had have been a mixed thing really. I had a P4 in a laptop, which wasn't a wise move (it practically melted it), but the M in this compaq has been fine. However, proccessors don't tend to make all of the difference - my mum's acer with pentium m is slooowwww, and it takes barely anything to heat it up.
Click to expand...
Pentium M is the only instance where I'd rather go for an INtel over an AMD. The M is a quality chip. It would be a MUCH better mobile solution than a Mobile Athlon 64, it won't get awful battery life.
 
RobcioPL
Someone correct me if im wrong, but AMD's run cooler.
Click to expand...
cooler by something like 10-15 degrees at minimum. With stock cooling, the dual core AMD chips run even cooler than the single core ones thanks to the massive heat pipe based heat sink that comes with them. Now, if you used the same sized heat sink on both chips, there's no doubt that the single core will be cooler by a bit.
 
placebo
amds are faster and cheaper no reason to get a pentium. not to mention overclocking pimpness and you have the win.
Click to expand...


And the award for the least correct statement goes to....


AMD's suck at overclocking. If you can get a stable 10% overclock out of them, you're considered above average in the overclocking realm. I run a .7ghz overclock (22% overclock on a 3.2) on my P4 with nothing more than air cooling. It's been running that way for about a year without a single incident.

Albeit AMD's have great performance in the gaming realm, they lack day-to-day performance, as well as reliability. AMD's don't remain stable without a reboot for very long at all, when compared to Intel's. I've had an Intel laptop on for over 8 months straight without any errors or memory leaks. The longest I could run the AMD's I used to use was about 8 hours before things got hairy.

I'd say with the 9xx-series coming out from Intel, I'd wait for their 4mb L2 Cache beast they have in the lineup. Or better yet, the "hinted" 8mb L2 Cache 3.8ghz 1600fsb monster that has been slightly mentioned.
 
toyomatt84
And the award for the least correct statement goes to....


AMD's suck at overclocking. If you can get a stable 10% overclock out of them, you're considered above average in the overclocking realm. I run a .7ghz overclock (22% overclock on a 3.2) on my P4 with nothing more than air cooling. It's been running that way for about a year without a single incident.

Albeit AMD's have great performance in the gaming realm, they lack day-to-day performance, as well as reliability. AMD's don't remain stable without a reboot for very long at all, when compared to Intel's. I've had an Intel laptop on for over 8 months straight without any errors or memory leaks. The longest I could run the AMD's I used to use was about 8 hours before things got hairy.
Click to expand...
Idunno man. I've seen 50% overclocks on AMD chips using the stock cooling. Some of their chips are insanely overclockable.

I've also had incredible luck with my system's stability. I can run my AMD machine 24/7 for days and weeks at a time with no stability issues coming from the CPU side of things. The longest I've taken mine was 2 weeks - it would have gone on longer if I didn't have to go out of town for a few days.
 
emad
Idunno man. I've seen 50% overclocks on AMD chips using the stock cooling. Some of their chips are insanely overclockable.

I've also had incredible luck with my system's stability. I can run my AMD machine 24/7 for days and weeks at a time with no stability issues coming from the CPU side of things. The longest I've taken mine was 2 weeks - it would have gone on longer if I didn't have to go out of town for a few days.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I leave mine on for weeks at a time with no problems. The last time I BSOD'd was the other day 20 minutes after I just restarted my machine, after playing Lost Coast.
 
Event
Yeah, I leave mine on for weeks at a time with no problems. The last time I BSOD'd was the other day 20 minutes after I just restarted my machine, after playing Lost Coast.
Click to expand...
Same here - Though I can't remember when I last saw a BSOD... The EOs box is also an AMD, same deal... The HTPC is a XP64 3000+ - I think it was booted about 4 weeks ago - and this is a box used for recording TV shows etc.

Bogus about AMDs not being able to stay turned on....
 
Go with AMD, there 64 bit ones are really great, Ive got the 3200 Athlon and it runs cool n quiet as it says on the box.... AMD's are great for overclocking and have alot of great mobo's on offer....not to mention great future support for Vista etc etc....

I would always go with AMD.....
 
Flerbizky
...Bogus about AMDs not being able to stay turned on....
Click to expand...


Let's see, what AMD's proved my theory correct in personal experience...
3000+ 64bit
3200+ 64bit
3400+ 64bit
4000+ 64bit
FX-55
(2) Dual Core Opteron 248

on a range of the following Motherboard Manufacturers:
ASUS
Abit
MSI
Tyan
Biostar
Gigabyte


I guess that you could rule that bogus. :rolleyes:

I'd like to see that 50% overclock on an AMD, eMad. For some sneaking intution of mine, I think it's a dated CPU, but I may be wrong.
 
:odd: Isn't it 64bit vs. P4?

Anyway, for graphic intense things like PS and 3-D rendering isn't a P4 better? I don't know... I'm so confused sometimes. :crazy: :indiff:
 
toyomatt84
I'd like to see that 50% overclock on an AMD, eMad. For some sneaking intution of mine, I think it's a dated CPU, but I may be wrong.
Click to expand...
48% on an athlon64 3000+ Venice core - here's his article on it http://www.bytesector.com/data/bs-article.asp?ID=529

As for your crazy crashes on all AMD cpus, I have a feeling it has something major to do with the software you work under. Maybe something with SSE2 instructions not operating correctly?
 
I think it's clear that AMD has the advantage at this point in the processor market. With such a clear advantage in gaming, and little to no difference in everyday applications in addition to better value, AMD is the clear choice to me.
 
icemanshooter23
I think it's clear that AMD has the advantage at this point in the processor market. With such a clear advantage in gaming, and little to no difference in everyday applications in addition to better value, AMD is the clear choice to me.
Click to expand...
actually, Intel's single core chips with hyperthreading have a massive advantage over AMD's single core line when it comes to audio/video editing as well as graphic design. In the dual core race, AMD's lower end ones are better for graphics/video. Then again, Intel's uber pricey dual core, hyperthreaded chip will beat out even the fastest AMD chip for graphics/video editing thanks to the 4-core equivilant setup.

Gaming...is another story all together.
 
Event
Actually, it is the other way around. AMD is better for gaming, Intel's better at most everything else.
Click to expand...


No.

Gaming -> Intel.
Im Deafly Serious Here.
Don't Make Me Go Into My Dragon Stance!
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/index.html <-- The AMD cpus consistently come out on top for gaming benchmarks fairly consistently

There is no doubt that either choice is a good choice, but if you are primarily a gamer, the AMD chip will be marginally better and will typically cost you less for similar performance. There were many benchmarks where the Athlon64 3700+ beat out the far more expensive P4 670 (3.8ghz )
 

Latest Posts

Back